No AMS's in ps2 ???????? - Page 2

MgFalcon · 2012-03-21, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by DeeTwoEh

I think a 30 second google search would remedy all your queries. Please revert to that before you make another thread about a topic that's been beaten to death on these forums

Orrrr you could head over to the PSU Wiki page found at the top of your webpage and access our amazing database on all things Planetside and Planetside 2!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MrBloodworth · 2012-03-21, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Grow up

Originally Posted by Skitrel

My first ignore.

Originally Posted by Skitrel

insult someone because you disagree with them is the height of internet childishness

Perhaps this comes up, because its a point of concern for people. Trying to shut down discussion with "Waite till beta" is not helping. Its also a highly trusting position, boarding on naive. The forums are here for people to share and discuss opinions and ideas about a game they love.

On-topic

I personally likes the role an AMS brought, and how effective it was at changing the tide. I have zero faith a Galaxy will survive at all in its deployed state, fixed guns can not trump stealth, or a 6 wing Air cav.

I just don't see it.

Skitrel · 2012-03-21, 09:36 AM

Further derailing discussion by bringing something up that 1 had nothing to do with you and 2 was finished with perfectly fine while masking your flame by adding a little "On topic" section, while calling someone out with "The forums are here for people to share and discuss opinions and ideas about a game they love." is beyond hypocritical. Practice what you preach.

The correct response would not have included mine and figment's encounter at all.

On-topic

Necessary idiot edit - this was quite deliberate, illustrative writing.

I personally disagree, and have absolutely no problem embracing the possibility of new, up to date, gameplay. We shall see what beta brings. Shooting down new gameplay mechanics as though they're a terrible thing with absolutely zero experience of them is silly. Speculation should never include personal preferences because personal preferences can not be accounted for without experience. It is the act of deciding something is bad before actually knowing it is, and doing so is often a self fulfilling prophecy. The community should embrace changes, give them a chance, and then see what needs changing through experience, not through presumptuous pre-emptive speculation.

Figment · 2012-03-21, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Further derailing discussion by bringing something up that 1 had nothing to do with you and 2 was finished with perfectly fine while masking your flame by adding a little "On topic" section, while calling someone out with "The forums are here for people to share and discuss opinions and ideas about a game they love." is beyond hypocritical. Practice what you preach.

The correct response would not have included mine and figment's encounter at all.

On-topic

I personally disagree, and have absolutely no problem embracing the possibility of new, up to date, gameplay. We shall see what beta brings. Shooting down new gameplay mechanics as though they're a terrible thing with absolutely zero experience of them is silly. Speculation should never include personal preferences because personal preferences can not be accounted for without experience. It is the act of deciding something is bad before actually knowing it is, and doing so is often a self fulfilling prophecy. The community should embrace changes, give them a chance, and then see what needs changing through experience, not through presumptuous pre-emptive speculation.

Hypocrite.

Edit: why hypocrite?

1. You continuously call people out and troll them with one liner or even one worder posts that lack content, argument or even a mere indication of what might be wrong with the other's post. You do not discuss things and you don't do so intelligently. You merely pose as intelligent by refering to types of argumentation used, without clarifying why. You never do. When called out on this behaviour you use circle argumentation or simply ignore and evade debate. It is quite hypocritical to adress Bloodworth on something you are far worse at.

2. You embrace things you don't know will work yet, thus judging them as GOOD things before having had hands on experience as well. If you can't criticize something for being bad, you can't like something either for being good either. Hypocrite.

3. Your personal preferences are very obvious: you think from an Enclave playstyle and from an Enclave playstyle only. Quite obvious how the Enclave doesn't even consider the Infiltrator a useful class, also funny that you don't thwap them around the ears for judging something as useless before beta. In fact!

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Everyone does, Enclave doesn't currently see the infiltrator as a worthwhile unit at all. One or two incredibly good snipers might be beneficial, obviously the point being that they have to be genuinely of the exceptionally skilled group for it to be worthwhile, otherwise, no.

Hypocrite!

4. Your experience argument omits the fact that experience can be had and gained beforehand by having experience with and knowledge of similar contexts. You omit that units are created by devs using nothing but gameplay theory and interaction intentions before actual hands on experience as well. Gameplay theory has been shared plentifully by the devs, but can be pointed out to be flawed, incomplete or otherwise criticable. You consistently make up your own gameplay theory, but do not allow others to do so, nor give these arguments a fair chance or scrutinous look. That makes you a hypocrite.

5. Denouncing critique on a design as unsubstantiated without any substantial evidence or even analogies to back up the claim that a claim is unsubstantiated yourself, is extremely hypocritical.

6. Questioning assumptions (which are thoroughly explained to why they can be made), while making your own assumptions without even a mere analogy or reasoning why you would be able to make such an assumption is highly hypocritical.

Your argument regarding self fullfilling prophecies is also very poor and also false. That would suggest we, the critics, would create the game such that it does just that to prove us right. Instead, all critique and design suggestions is aimed at preventing just that or diminishing the effect of that which we already know will happen based on experience.

Skitrel · 2012-03-21, 09:44 AM

Forum seems to have hiccuped. This post was intended for a different thread altogether.
-snip-

NCLynx · 2012-03-21, 09:54 AM

Inb4 thread closed or merged.

Yes things changed, AMS is gone. Until we can see how the galaxy plays out in beta no one can accurately judge how good or bad of a system it is.

Crator · 2012-03-21, 10:04 AM

I'll miss the cloak capabilities of the AMS. No doubt. Let's hope if the GAL mechanics, alongside every other spawn mechanic, works fine without the cloaking. If not, I don't see why they couldn't add the ability as a class upgrade later on down the line.

KrazeyVIII · 2012-03-21, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Oh wait (till beta), you are the only one who can say things before hand. Right? The rest of us have to wait till beta.

Hypocrite.

And yes, Coreldan, I get hostile towards hypocrites, because they deserve it.

True forum hero right here boys.

Facts:

- The AMS is gone.
- The Galaxy will now serve multiple purposes - One of them being a mobile spawn.
- The Galaxy will have 4 guns.
- Gunners will choose to be in the galaxy to defend it, to the death if they want.
- No cloak (for now).
- Gunners in the Galaxy will have to get out (good observation).
- A Galaxy is a bigger target then an AMS (another good one).

Originally Posted by Figment

You don't have to wait for BETA to understand that

Wiser words were never spoken.

Assumptions:

- The Galaxy will have a huge explosion radius.
- The Galaxy will have shield upgrades.
- The shield upgrades will come at a cost of losing the main guns.
- The gunners on the right can shoot through the vehicle to the left (Oh, sorry that was another one of those personal attacks by you).
- It will have more armor then the Galaxy in PS1 (Very GOOD assumption).
- If the Galaxy is an unkillable war machine it can be parked in a courtyard or outside a tower to lock down an area (the one true point you've actually made)

So outside of all your bullshit there is one thing that may need to get tweaked a lot in beta, and that's abusing the tankyness of the Galaxy (and Sunderer) by parking them in areas to shut down a certain part of a zone or base. If this IS possible then it will probably need fixing - i.e. wait for BETA.

Originally Posted by Figment

Picture that when you're going in with a squad of 5 people four of which need to guard the Galaxy while the other guy holds the objective.

If you have a squad of 5 people and you devote 4 people to a Galaxy then your squad leader should not be in a leadership role. Judging by your personality I can only assume you think you are a Chief and not an Indian. So that command mistake can be brought back to you. So when your 5 man spec-ops squad fails because you've dedicated more of your squad to defending your spawn point (which should of been hidden well in the first place) then to defending the objective you were trying to take, don't be surprised when you post it on the forums to only be mocked by everyone there. Even without being in BETA your example proves 1 of 2 things. Either you're grasping for straws trying to find a way to make Skitrel look like an idiot (sadly that attempt is having the opposite effect), or you truly have no knowledge of the game or how to lead a squad and think you are actually correct in your statements. I really hope the former is the case because the latter is too pathetic to comprehend.

And now:

Originally Posted by Figment

In fact, your claim to a shield was an assumption I introduced due to the airborne/deployed state difference. I like how you took my assumption then and made it for fact.

I've read every post in this thread. Neither you, nor anyone else, mentions this once before that post. Someone else hints at shields but no one mentions airborne and deployed states. You have a massively inflated ego that can only be matched by your stupidity.

Enjoy being a non-factor.

Figment · 2012-03-21, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by KrazeyVIII

- The Galaxy will have a huge explosion radius.

Actually, the assumption is the Galaxy will have a bigger explosion radius than the AMS, based on the Galaxy being bigger than the AMS (at least twice). So if it explodes, it is by default... a bigger explosion.

So outside of all your bullshit there is one thing that may need to get tweaked a lot in beta, and that's abusing the tankyness of the Galaxy (and Sunderer) by parking them in areas to shut down a certain part of a zone or base. If this IS possible then it will probably need fixing - i.e. wait for BETA.

I'm interested in who you are adressing, since you say all my arguments are good, Skitrel's are bad and seem to post them under the assumption they're made by the same person. They're not.

Also interesting in how you state gunnerS (multiple, when we know there's only one) on the right not being able to fire to the left - which is a fact - is a personal attack. It is a clarification to why you cannot pretend the four guns are all useful at the same time: dead zones.

If you have a squad of 5 people and you devote 4 people to a Galaxy then your squad leader should not be in a leadership role. Judging by your personality I can only assume you think you are a Chief and not an Indian. So that command mistake can be brought back to you. So when your 5 man spec-ops squad fails because you've dedicated more of your squad to defending your spawn point (which should of been hidden well in the first place) then to defending the objective you were trying to take, don't be surprised when you post it on the forums to only be mocked by everyone there. Even without being in BETA your example proves 1 of 2 things. Either you're grasping for straws trying to find a way to make Skitrel look like an idiot (sadly that attempt is having the opposite effect), or you truly have no knowledge of the game or how to lead a squad and think you are actually correct in your statements. I really hope the former is the case because the latter is too pathetic to comprehend.

...SIGH. I was illustrating why the Galaxy would NOT be adequately defended, as Skitrel claimed would always be the case. How? By showing that you would NEVER devote people to hold the Galaxy, because it'd be utterly retarded to do so and you can't afford to keep people stationed there.

Thank you for proving my point.

Oh and I also like how you state it would have to be hidden well. That's also something I've been saying for months... But people like Skitrel think is irrelevant for a spawnpoint, because you have four guns to defend it.

I've read every post in this thread. Neither you, nor anyone else, mentions this once before that post. Someone else hints at shields but no one mentions airborne and deployed states. You have a massively inflated ego that can only be matched by your stupidity.

Enjoy being a non-factor.

Actually Skitrel said there will most likely be shields in his first post.

This shield concept upon deploying was mentioned in the first AMS/Gal thread about 3 months ago by me and taken as a "probable" assumption by Skitrel on which he bases it to be a good design. In fact it was because I stated the amount of hitpoints when flying would otherwise be preposterously huge in comparison to the amount of hitpoints needed to be a field base.

Thanks for trying, sadly you didn't quite have the full picture. So basically, you agreed with everything I said, disagreed with everything Skitrel proposed and somehow call me out on it? >.> Ehm. Yeah good luck with that.

EDIT: Found it for you, note the time stamp: 01-28-2012, 01:21 AM. As far as I'm aware, I was one of the first, if not the first to bring that up. However, this has never been mentioned in any dev post or commentary. So Skitrel insinuating there'd probably be one is a bad assumption.

Originally Posted by Figment

@Warborn: It's not the landed vehicle that worries me, it is the flying one. I'd put a recharging vehicle shield (like field turret, starts at zero charge) on a deployed (not landed!) Gal. Then in flight it is not invulnerably strong, especially when used in numbers, while providing a more sustainable field base.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...eployed&page=2

SteinB · 2012-03-21, 10:59 AM

Higby has already said in the GDC video that they are still working on ideas on how Galaxies will physically deploy. This could certainly include the wings folding in a way that gives the turrets better fields of fire.

A point also missed in many of these Galaxy/AMS discussions is that we will be able to capture and use spawn points inside of enemy bases. Galaxies will not have to survive for the entire fight for a base, just until an interior spawn point is secured.

KrazeyVIII · 2012-03-21, 11:00 AM

Large ego: confirmed. Superiority complex: confirmed.

Non-factors trying to get@ppl

CuddlyChud · 2012-03-21, 11:06 AM

Unbridled cynicism !> unbridled optimism. I trust the devs. Maybe i'm just old fashioned like that. I can see a lot of ways where having the Gal as a deployment method will be more fun than the old AMS (which IMO wasn't much fun to use).

Kran De Loy · 2012-03-21, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

So yes, you sir, are a biased fanboy who doesn't know squat.

Troll card? btw: I didn't bother reading any thing else of your shit talk.

Figment · 2012-03-21, 11:19 AM

Krazey == troll? Confirmed. Would you care to admit you were making premature conclusions too and missed the sarcasm and point of a couple posts? That'd be mature...

Krazey, I don't have an inflated ego, I'm simply confident that I'm correct and can make certain assumptions. Is it arrogant to be correct and state so? Fine. Then I'm arrogant.

Originally Posted by SteinB

Higby has already said in the GDC video that they are still working on ideas on how Galaxies will physically deploy. This could certainly include the wings folding in a way that gives the turrets better fields of fire.

Quite. Certainly why they need to have feedback on how it'd be used, what its limitations might be and more importantly what it'd have to be useful for. Some ideas wouldn't hurt either.

If the model will deploy differently remains to be seen, up till now all it does is put up a term next to it (see gameplay vid). It could help, but even if you change the wings folding, you will still have pretty big dead zone angles (see Wall Turrets) and if you raise the guns to reach over the Gal, you also may run the risk of increasing its profile (what you lose in profile horizontally, you may gain vertically) making it even easier to hit behind cover. Ball joints or ball turrets also only have half a globe they could cover and that may even be alightly less (120-140 instead of 180 deg, for instance). Plus, if you raise the guns for instance, it'll be harder to hit something nearby and would simply create different deadzones.

All in all, from PS1 Gal experience, a landed gal's guns aren't extremely useful due to the size and layout of the Galaxy, regardless of on what part of the Gal they are. The only useful one and most likely one to be manned will be the top AA gun, IMO. Beyond that, everyone should deploy the Gal back first to enemy approach route, to get the most out of the tail gun. That puts the tail in the way of the top gun...

It's not an uninformed opinion, it's considering a large amount of alternative configurations as well as how you would both defend and take it out in each case. Each and every one of them will have severe weaknesses, easily exploited.

A point also missed in many of these Galaxy/AMS discussions is that we will be able to capture and use spawn points inside of enemy bases. Galaxies will not have to survive for the entire fight for a base, just until an interior spawn point is secured.

Hehe... Also a point made by me many months ago, but then my assumption that you would need to be able to capture local spawns was considered "premature" as well. Again, nobody considered it till then... But hey it's arrogant to say that...

In fact, I would go as far to say I've not once been shown wrong with any predictions yet... :/

@Kran: trollcard? No, it's based on a long posting record of Skitrel around here. It's not a random insult, it's an observation. And argumented at that. If you can prove he's not a fanboy that embraces everything no questions asked and critiques anyone who critiques, be my guest and I'll happily retract the statement.

Figment · 2012-03-21, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

Unbridled cynicism !> unbridled optimism. I trust the devs. Maybe i'm just old fashioned like that. I can see a lot of ways where having the Gal as a deployment method will be more fun than the old AMS (which IMO wasn't much fun to use).

As I've stated many times before in other threads: it can be used as a spawn point in certain situations, particularly in zerg situations and in long distance to enemy situations.

But it does not and will never suffice for small ops teams. Which is why I and many others have advocated for alternatives to the Galaxy that have passive defenses so we don't need to be around it continuously.

The AMS with cloak shield is a perfect candidate for the job as it has proven its usefulness for almost a decade. >_> How is that unbridled cynicism? I'd call that critical realism.

EDIT: What would you call people dismissing the AMS arbitrarily (no arguments made to why) as obsolete, non-modern game mechanic, even a horrible game mechanic?