Remove Sundy AMS

Riekopo · 2013-01-28, 08:07 AM

All this debate about Galaxy spawning had me thinking. Maybe Sunderers should not even be able to spawn players. The ease of spawning makes the game feel like Battlefield or COD. Death would have more consequences and be less cheap if there were no mobile spawns. Players would value their lives more and be more inclined to stick together and organize so as to survive. The Sunderer and Galaxy would become what they really are, player transports. Facility sieges would become much more difficult for the attacker, making defense easier. The frontlines would solidify and change much less rapidly so players would feel like their actions had a lasting impact.

I wish there was a research server where ideas like this could be tested.

Figment · 2013-01-28, 08:14 AM

We more or less had that period in Tech Test. We also had a period where you could deploy without interference radii.

But your suggestion wouldn't work, not with the hack and hold system, respawn rates and base layouts that demand consistent reinforcements.

AMSes should be split from Sunderers though because they do infringe on the transport (especially gatecrasher) role too much IMO.

Kerrec · 2013-01-28, 08:20 AM

Add a generator inside the base somewhere. The generator powers a device that prevents an AMS from spawning people, within a specific range.

That way attackers will have to cross a no man's land to get to the walls, then destroy a generator that will allow them to move up the AMS.

bpostal · 2013-01-28, 08:23 AM

You'd have to up the TTK as people would get extremely frustrated with having to run/drive/fly from their nearest rally point (which, without the AMS would potentially be hundreds, if not thousands of meters) to the fight.

Zerging would be more of an issue then ever and if you think the average player is afraid to push now...it'd get even worse.

The areas between bases would spend a majority of their time uncontested.

If anything there should be a larger difference between an AMS and a gun truck/transport.

Figment · 2013-01-28, 08:26 AM

SOI to prevent spawn beacon droppods: yes. Mostly to give more value to Galaxy Drops and infiltrators.

Higher and closed off walls: yes. Mostly to make defense against Light Assaults getting in a bit more viable (even if with the current designs of walls and the future designs of walls I don't have much faith it will prevent or improve any such issues).

Placing gens in more defensible locations within the natural habitats and routes of defenders: yes.

Walls with wall-walks: yes.

Complete curtain walls to prevent AMSes from just driving in at random: yes.

But an SOI to prevent AMSes might simply be a bit much. It's a ground unit. Same to the SOE idea of preventing AMS placement in the current vehicle bays. That's silly. It's the one thing that allows at least some base defense right now.

I'd rather limit the sheer amount of them by having players make choices between vehicles available to them and which vehicles they'll never be able to pull instead.

We have a numerical issue with vehicles, not a proximity issue: kill one, next takes its place. Kill five, next takes its place. Same issue as with tanks and aircraft: they're simply too available in a rotation sequence per player.

And that's down to the cert sytem. Not the physical in-game AMS placement restrictions.

Punker · 2013-01-28, 09:16 AM

While i agree there should be more punishment for dying i don't think taking the mobile spawn point away would be the right answer. Another game i played, very similar to planetside 2 had a timed system, the more you died the longer it took you to respawn.

Also in this game, the different types of respawns had different timers e.g. Spawning at an AMS was +20s spawning at the nearest friendly owned base +10s or spawning at sancturary +0s.

This i feel would help the game so much. That and when defending / fighting against a large zerg you aren't having to kill the same guy every 5 seconds, the timers would work like traffic lights on a road - instead of a constant stream of enemies, you would get waves. Time to regroup and rethink, maneuver, and strategize for both sides.

Babyfark McGeez · 2013-01-28, 09:19 AM

I don't see anything wrong with sunderers. I like them the way they are.

However, i also wouldn't complain if they would remove all weapons from AMS-sundies, or if they would introduce a certain (small) no-ams-range for bases.

I still see an AMS-only vehicle as the best possible solution to prevent ams spam (which i don't see as a problem though, it was one back in beta without the range limit).

@Punker: Aye that, it doesn't make any sense at all that spawning from an ams is FASTER than from a base (It also adds another benefit to the attackers). It should be WARPGATE -> BASES -> AMS and not the other way round imo.

Kerrec · 2013-01-28, 09:27 AM

Figment, I didn't expect you to agree with me. That's just how I would do it.

I recall a base fight where someone had parked an AMS behind a hill instead of right up against a wall. Everyone was pinned down by the infantry on the wall and the AV turret. We got everyone up and ready, and rushed over the hill to the wall in one big wave. Being an LA, I bobbed up and down in the air, making myself harder to hit and avoiding the splash damage from the AV turret. I managed to get myself directly underneath the AV turret, regenerated my jump jets, then jetted up and put C4 on the turret. I managed to take it out, and that made a huge difference to our ability to push up to the wall.

All that, because someone decided to park an AMS behind a hill, instead of up against the wall itself. When a wall becomes shelter for an AMS, it becomes a tool for the attackers, not the defenders.

Mox · 2013-01-28, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by Riekopo

All this debate about Galaxy spawning had me thinking. Maybe Sunderers should not even be able to spawn players. The ease of spawning makes the game feel like Battlefield or COD. Death would have more consequences and be less cheap if there were no mobile spawns. Players would value their lives more and be more inclined to stick together and organize so as to survive. The Sunderer and Galaxy would become what they really are, player transports. Facility sieges would become much more difficult for the attacker, making defense easier. The frontlines would solidify and change much less rapidly so players would feel like their actions had a lasting impact.

I wish there was a research server where ideas like this could be tested.

Sorry mate but your idea is really bad.

Figment · 2013-01-28, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

Figment, I didn't expect you to agree with me. That's just how I would do it.

It's what PS1 did from the start and why us "bittervets" keep yammering about how PS1 was better... :/

There's a lot I'd change about the current defenses, but the AMS isn't the problem, it's a symptom of base and cert design. :/

Canaris · 2013-01-28, 09:42 AM

It was tested, we had to suffer through tech test and part of beta without the AMS right up until the point the dev's figured out that the veterans were quite correct in asking for it to be removed from Gals and added back as a ground vehicle, the game has ever been the stronger for it.

so OP, no way in hell should they be removed

Kerrec · 2013-01-28, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

It's what PS1 did from the start and why us "bittervets" keep yammering about how PS1 was better... :/

There's a lot I'd change about the current defenses, but the AMS isn't the problem, it's a symptom of base and cert design. :/

There's a big communication problem between you and I. In your reply, I have no idea if it is my suggestion that you say "PS1 did from the start" or if you are defending your suggestion because it is how "PS1 did from the start"? I have no clue what you are trying to say by quoting me.

Yes, there's a big problem with base design. Denying an AMS sunderer from deploying right up against the wall of a base is something that would change "base design". It would make it a bit more defensible, for a bit longer.

Also, you keep bringing up Certs, why? Certs can be completely bypassed with a bit of real world money (Station Cash). Also, once you earn and spend them, what you bought is always there. The problem isn't Certs, it's global resources. Like you say, you blow up one Sunderer, and another one rolls up in its place. The problem is they are too available, and that's a RESOURCE problem.

MrBloodworth · 2013-01-28, 10:29 AM

No.

Sunderer AMS is infinitely better than the Gal AMS, as already tested and shown.

The uninformed need not start this debate again, its not a unique idea, it does not have merit, and it is not "Something new".

I personally would like a unique ground platform for the AMS, but it is what it is, and its better for game play to have spawning ground based.

Crator · 2013-01-28, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

Also, you keep bringing up Certs, why? Certs can be completely bypassed with a bit of real world money (Station Cash). Also, once you earn and spend them, what you bought is always there. The problem isn't Certs, it's global resources. Like you say, you blow up one Sunderer, and another one rolls up in its place. The problem is they are too available, and that's a RESOURCE problem.

That's not entirely true. Some things you spend certs on can't be bought with real money. Even still, the openess of the current certification system wouldn't help so much to limit the AMS unless it costs a lot of cert points to obtain. But then you add an issue of too few AMS, at least at first.

IMO, in order to limit the availability of something in-game with certs they would have to have some sort of cost pool for things you can attain. This cost pool could be related to BR, meaning the higher BR you have the more point you have in your pool to spend. Once you use up all your points you cannot obtain another certification, until you get higher in BR. The reason this cost pool related to BR isn't in-game already is mostly due to the F2P business model. Hard for them to add options for people to spend real money then.

Kerrec · 2013-01-28, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Crator

That's not entirely true. Some things you spend certs on can't be bought with real money. Even still, the openess of the current certification system wouldn't help so much to limit the AMS unless it costs a lot of cert points to obtain. But then you add an issue of too few AMS, at least at first.

IMO, in order to limit the availability of something in-game with certs they would have to have some sort of cost pool for things you can attain. This cost pool could be related to BR, meaning the higher BR you have the more point you have in your pool to spend. Once you use up all your points you cannot obtain another certification, until you get higher in BR. The reason this cost pool related to BR isn't in-game already is mostly due to the F2P business model. Hard for them to add options for people to spend real money then.

If you balance a game based on certs and some arbitrary BR, then the game may be balanced early on. But once the game matures, and almost everyone has that arbitrary BR, then we'd be right back to where we are now.