Improvement: How can we help the Galaxy?

[adaroe]

why is noone noticing insaneferrets idea? cloaking bubble. bam. so much simpler, and it gives the gal a defined role once its on the ground. besides i want an excuse to fly with a sunderrer on top XD

[Reaver]

Originally Posted by adaroe

why is noone noticing insaneferrets idea? cloaking bubble. bam. so much simpler, and it gives the gal a defined role once its on the ground. besides i want an excuse to fly with a sunderrer on top XD

It's certainly an interesting suggestion, would serve to counter libs staying out of the range of flack by forcing them into thermal range.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by DailyFrankPeter

I don't think you can 'help galaxy' as in the title without giving Galaxy owners additional advantage. That's a bit of a conundrum.

The advantages themselves are fine, the problem is the advantages are either useless or relatively impotent in the current context of the game (rather, the alternatives are too strong).

The context is the problem here.

The PS1 Gal carried two people less, had one gun less (no roof gun) only carried two MAX units, didn't spawn troops and the only difference is it could carry a light vehicle.

And it functioned fine and was used seven times more than this Galaxy.


But then, WE DIDN'T HAVE JET PACKS NOR SPAWN BEACONS to reach high ground even at outposts! :/ Those are the really big game changers!



If you're not designing a context to use the tool in and create other tools that function better in this context, then you're going about it the wrong way.

I'm not saying my ideas are very neat and balanced as they come out, but you just debunk them right off the bat, and at least they propose trying things out and that's more than has been happening with the Gal since release.

Not at all saying you're not supposed to come up with ideas, I'm saying let's first take a long, hard, scrutinous look at and then fix the context before going crazy with "OMGZ WE NEEDZ TO BUFF GALZ"-ideas.

Changing the Galaxy can be done in the years to come, but without first having a clearly defined role, all you're going to do with more options is confuse players about the role more and players will still simply pick the one thing that is most flexible.

Kinda like what is happening with the Sunderer right now (everyone virtually always picks the AMS option, most use it alone and the transport role right up to the frontline is utilised far less, let alone the direct combat role: too precious cert generation machine as stationary AMS).

I also suggest changes to the Galaxy as it is now, without suggesting remodelling bases and continent sizes, which is likely not going to happen.

Actually, changes are going to happen, talking to the world designers on a weekly basis about what they could do about that. They just can't make promises on exactly what they can change and to what extend, since that's a dev team decision.

Every idea needs to be part of the encompassing vision.

So you're saying that the airborne AMS Gal will be too potent but too dependent on squad and defense? Doesn't that say balance in itself?

Not quite, because that's not what I said, or intended to say. The small squad situation is from the defensive point of view. Which is even true in a small squad vs small squad situation. Even two vs two.

When I look at the way one balances stuff, I look at what either side can field in various situations and what the options for the teams in question are during the entire engagement. If the defense is small, they will have limited firepower and endurance and specialisation is extra costly.

(Ground) AA is a hugely demanding specialization. Allowing an aircraft with the amount of hitpoints of a Galaxy (or more, see PS1 Galaxy Gunship variant - ugh) to fly around over a base dropping constant reinforcements will result in a smaller team not being able to deal with the airborne threat. Since the airborne threat creates the ground threat, which also drops on high ground of buildings at will, while constantly adapting to whatever the defenders try to place, this will put the defenders at an extreme disadvantage.


Most of the times when people create these ideas, they're thinking big. Big is much easier to balance, since trade-offs are less costly and players complement one another. But since large power distances can occur in terms of unit numbers, while the game has to remain competitive and fun for all sides involved, that power distance must be kept as small as possible and there should always be options to outsmart an enemy.

If you take the AMS as an example, the interference radius is an absolute must if a small team wants to have any hope to create breathing space for themselves. They would do this by creating a logistical challenge for the enemy by blowing up the only spawnpoint in the area. If you have no interference radius, that larger group would just bring 20 people with 20 AMSes and deploy them next to one another: no way you can ever hope to kill even a few of those without a massive team.

And then you have to look for systems and ways that would bypass your design and create an even bigger advantage.


Interference radii as above don't really work with flying vehicles. They move constantly in height and distance with respect to one another. This would already mean having these spawn the entire empire would be incredibly OP: people would just spam loads overhead.

But let's assume Galaxies could spawn squad only, okay? Now imagine you could simply have a squad of 8, split it into two squads of four, then have a Galaxy for each squad. That requires two pilots and leaves 6 players to attack. Now imagine a defense group of 5, not a big numerical difference. But to kill one Gal, you need quite a few as AA (especially with Flares). Meanwhile, 6 people keep dropping. If one Gal is almost dead, it can just fly off to repair, during which time the platoon leader (one of the pilots?) would switch everyone to the squad of the Galaxy that's still present and vice-versa. You could hardly get rid of it and as long as that Gal is there, people are dropping in with weapons to kill you while you're carrying AA, which is entirely ineffective in AI combat.

This is on a small scale, obviously, but imagine the sky swarming with 5-12 Galaxies of bigger outfits platoons and squads, as well as decoys and people who simply hover there with a tailgunner or with Liberators in between. How the hell are you going to get enough AA up to kill them all if it's already pretty hard to fight your way outside under normal circumstances?


From a direct defense perspective rather than assuming there'd be enough troops for a recall to the warpgate and an aerial counterstrike (if it even matters, big groups always have someone who can grab a new one at the gate), that's a nightmare scenario. Especially for smaller groups, who have it hard enough under current conditions.



If you compare that to "single wave" Gal Drops from PS1, those were tricky enough to deal with for smaller or dispersed groups of defenders, but at least they were fair and not a consistent issue to deal with.


If you would then present solutions such as long spawn timers, you still have the same numerical issues, plus you're still heavily competing with the drop pods from spawn beacons.



And yes, I "overthink" things a lot. However, I think the best buff to a Galaxy would be reinstating a Sphere of Influence around the bases in which a spawn beacon cannot function (till the SOI is disabled by an infiltrator or galdrop, for instance) and raising the buildings and making them smoother to prevent Light Assaults from having easy access to the roof.


Those would be relatively simple, would enhance defense, would create meta-game and greatly increases the competitive value of the Galaxy with regards to spawn beacons and jetpacks.