Sunderer Deployment Shield - a bit over the top?

If you kill 6 heavies with a skygaurd, they weren't exactly playing with a full deck to begin with, and likely would kill themselves with the tanks way before you got to them.

i didn't say i would kill 6, i said i have a chance to kill a couple, but unless ALL of the tankers are REALLY bad they WILL kill me before i do significant damage to any of them. both situations are very bad but the tanks are by far the worse of the two.

I agree the deployment shield is currently a bit OP. It makes it basically impossible for a lone wolf player to kill a sunderer.

Now you might be thinking "but why should a lone wolf be able to take down a whole sunderer?" Well, because a lone wolf can SPAWN a sunderer to begin with, and sunderers are ridiculously cheap at only 200 resources.

Why should a single player be able to spawn a sunderer but a single player should not be able to kill a sunderer?

Because it's good gameplay that way.

Group protects sundy, if not, group is irrelevant, sundy is no better than another unattended vehicle.

Devs seem to disagree with you. Otherwise the shield wouldn't even exist.

Besides the shield only protects against one non-Max foot soldier. Two working together makes the shield not even matter. The diminishing returns of the benefits from the shield favor Blockade armor in an exponential manner depending on how many actually attack the sundy. And it starts at 2.

Or like I said, one single max pretty much ignores the shields.

So, Let me see if i have this straight

3 c4s will kill a sundy without blockade armor, 4 to kill a sundy that has ....(full?) blockade armor


so- what, deploy shield absorbs 2 bricks- and you cant put blockade on with it, so 2 for the shield, and 3 for the sundy?

Then isnt deploy shield best if you KNOW you've got enemies droppign C4 and there's nothign you can do, because it'll take thme the longest to get enough c4 /get it dropped to kill it?


Or am i wrong?

Devs purposely make game simpler for less organized rambos in attack.
So why again, bringing sundy requires 1 guy, operating sundy requires 0 guys but destroying sundy requires 2 guys with explosives or 1 guy with armor 2-3 times more expensive that sundy itself?

Blockade sundy? Is that one, that still can be soloed by engi?

Making easy life of attackers even easier is good for what gameplay? Surely not for deep and tacticool.

Well like someone else said, a Deci still works. So I guess the thread is moot. One guy with 0 resources can gank it.

Great, now everybody should have a deci and pray that ams will stay unattended for, like what, a minute? If I leave my tank or MAX unattended on enemy's base for a minute, it will be dead 10 times, but sundy owner can go to make a tea and still get back in time to save his clown car.
And ofc being clever and sneaking to AMS under fire with sack of mines is not cool enough to destroy 200 nanites vehicle.

Then go find other unattended vehicles to destroy, lonewolf.

Its hard, they die before I can get to them. We urgently need AFK shield for all vehicles and infantry. It worked wonderful for sundy, isnt it?

That argument actually works better the other way around: Devs made the game more difficult for less organized rambos, because it now takes an actual coordinated effort to down a sundy instead of, well, one unorganized rambo.

I mean your argument is kinda weird anyways, "Since a lonewolf can no longer destroy a sundy the game got more simple for lonewolves"...WAT?
I mean i understand the direction you are coming from here, i just can't agree with it. From my ingame experience the deploy shield was a good change and actually promotes teamplay instead of lonewolfing; You allways needed a team to really guard a sundy, and now you also need one to down a sundy.

My point is that bunch of unorganized rambos can deploy and forget AMSes now. Lonewolfing 1 unattended sundy per run is ok, it was brought by single player too and left with 0 players. If attackers are organized and smart, they can actively defend sundy even without shield. Blockade sundy can be soloed only with mines and getting mines to well defended sundy is hard. Basically I think if you let to put 3 mines under your sundy, you deserve to lose it. Its just sundy, FFS, they are 200 nanites and can be deployed in masses behind every corner. Yes, its important for group, but so is medic, why dont we give medics triple overshield?

No they can't. That was the problem. A dozen defenders would consistently fail to stop a single Engineer on a Flash from mine-bombing a Sundy.

Flash is team based strategy, you need cloaker and engi with C4. And it works even now, just need more explosives.
I often defend sundy, its easy to kill 1 engi before he runs close enough and puts 3 mines and grenade under belly, unless you place sundy in some stupid place, like under tower, which you dont control. Unlike LA, engi cant accurately land from ESF. And lets not forget about mineguard, 2 C4 wont kill full-health sundy anyway.

And if, after many tries, despite pro defence, engi manages to burn your sundy, you just spawn at another one. Full squad can have up to 12 sundies. You failed and lost sundy? So what, they are dime a dozen now.

I love the deployment shield for two reasons. One, the c4 fairies can't destroy it in a single pass. Two, it's not a nerf and it adds to the game.

Yes- one cannot lonewolf against a Sunderer but one can lonewolf with a Sunderer.

That is why I never understood about the whole "lonewolf" argument and one reason I do not think it holds water as an argument for or against the shield. Simply put, if "lonewolf" was a problem then why would they make 1 vehicle that can be pulled by 1 person indestructible against any normal 1 person?

"Lonewolf" cannot take out the abandoned vehicle but "lonewolf" sure can spawn that vehicle- and any AMS sunderer is far more powerful than the amount of explosives carried by any 1 regular "lonewolf". I realize the vehicle costs resources, but what are those even really worth these days being so abundant?

I think the changes are in place because, in general, the game favors attacking in a variety of ways. Moreover, people often say things such as "it sucks when 1 person ends a good fight". Yet, the fight is not over because it's PS2 the fight is never over. All that happened was 1 mobile spawn was destroyed. If you do not have another handy, or a squad beacon, then you will have to think of what to do now- you know logistics.

For most players, however, they really do not want to do this that much (hence why there was never much depth to logistics and what there was has been consistently minimized). They would rather be immediately back where they were in the middle of the grinder doing the same thing over and over- whether for the certs or the sense that "massive" implies many people repeatedly spawning in the same place, dying, spawning, dying... While this can give the appearance of this epic battle it is usually just spawn, shoot, spawn, shoot rather than something deeper that relies upon strategy and logistics.

How are we going to get there?

What if we lose this key resource?

Can we make it to that large opposing for in time?

How can we split this group so we can be here and there at the same time?

What if this key place falls? Should we start sending troops now?

I think many people do not want to be bothered with that kind depth and prefer the more small scale tactics of "how do I get the longest streak possible?"

Not necessarily bad but certainly different than my mentality. Personally, I think the entire spawn system seriously diminishes the games potential and so "stronger spawn rooms" is not a solution to anything but a step in the wrong direction. Still, that is just my mentality and there is nothing that makes it better or more important than people who feel differently.

TLDR; I learned long ago to get over that PS2 is not a very competitive or strategic game.