Sunderer Shield

Discussion in 'Test Server: Discussion' started by Xebov, Jul 30, 2014.

  1. Doc Jim

    One person can pull, place and defend a spawnsundy, but one person can't destroy it, that is the problem.
  2. r4zor

    As someone who is a dedicated Sunderer-AMS driver, I am not so sure the Sunderer SHIELD is a good idea!
    Now I have not yet tried it on PTS, but already thinking of a rechargeable shield that soaks up "~3 C4s" gives me some serious headaches.

    To be fair, I also complain about the vulnerability of Sunderers (c4 and or mines) and I hate getting killed by c4/tankmine fairies/runners instagibbing my Sunderer. However, there are some very good reasons the Sunderer has to remain vulnerable. Maybe not as vulnerable as it is now but definitely vulnerable. Let me therefore express a few thoughts on the whole affair.
    I know one can counter some of the arguments listed below since I did not fully elaborate them, however, you should be able to get the general drift.

    - The offensive side is already having a huge advantage in this game. Defending bases is too difficult, especially compared to PS1, leading to many problems.
    1) we have spawncamping and camping with vehicles, leading to an easy "lockdown" of the spawnbuilding by a few vehicles or Libs/Gals.
    2) This in return has also to do with bad somewhat imperfect base design, with spawns being too exposed and capture points being too remote (and the way to them being too exposed as well)
    3)The assaulting force, therefore, always has a huge advantage. Unfortunately, this does not really involve tactics or good teamwork. Most of the time all it takes is a few lonewolfs with "force-multiplier" vehicles/weapons that can completely block the defenders attempts to get to the capture point. Think of a Bulldog-Galaxy, Lolpodding ESFs, one-man-tanks camping spawns etc etc.
    4) People complain about "zergside", but zerging (as in overrunning enemy basis, one after another, with a huge zerg) is being promoted by the lack of advantage for the defenders*.

    - The only way for defenders to change the tide is destroying the AMS(s) or calling in major reinforcements. This however, is sometimes problematic:
    1) There may be more than one AMS and depending on how organised the attacking force is, an AMS may already be easily defensible (e.g. AI mines, Engis constantly repairing it, etc etc)
    2) The "next base" to retreat to and pull reinforcements may either be too remote (e.g. when a base is cut-off from the lattice) or may not have access to MBTs/heavy armour. And the warpgate (where you can pull said heavy armour) may to be too distant or camped etc etc
    3) This already shows, again, how the attacking side is being favoured in this game.

    - Sunderers are already very strong vehicles. Since I often drive Sunderers and use them as Advanced Mobile Stations (literally!) I know what I'm speaking off.
    1) My Sunderer is equipped with Blockade Armor, Bulldog & A30 Walker, making it quite good at defending itself from light armour, infantry (due to Bulldog) and airchavs (Walker). I tend to stick to my deployed Sunderer, switching seats between Bulldog and Walker and fending off whatever comes close and the single Walker is already quite good at deterring and killing aircraft!

    Now imagine we had a Sunderer Shield in the defense slot. This would remove blockade armour, yes, however, AFAIK the shield is capabe of soaking up ~3 C4s (and probably 1-2 Tankmines) therefore effectively denying the Sunderer being killed by a single infantry. Now what are the repercussions?

    A) In small fights (up to 12vs12) the defenders will have an even harder time destroying that Sunderer. Now you might say "so they need teamwork!" but this is kind of an one-sided argument. The attacking force does not necessarily need teamwork. They could all be random (or clueless) lonewolfs attacking and would against a similarly set-up defending force have a rather easy time, since the Sunderer is now much more durable. The shield will regenerate in the time the one-two defenders that attack the sunderer were killed, respawned and moved again to the Sunderer and the damage will also be repaired by then.

    B) In bigger fights (with 24vs24, 48vs48 or even more players) there will be not only more Sunderers with that shield, but also much more players continuously spawning at the AMS (making it harder for a few organised players to get through to the AMS)

    C) As with most things in this game, this may also increase the discrepancy between newer players and veteran players. Newer players may not have the certs (ammo, enough deployables etc etc) to counter a shielded AMS. E.g. if the shield soaks up around 4 AV rockets, it would take 2-3 players using infantry AV rocket launchers in order to counter a single guy with a Sunderer. And they would only be able to take out the Sunderer if the defender(s) would ignore the attackers (shooting 4-5 infantry rocketlauncher rockets takes damn long... in the meantime your more likely to be taken out after the first or second shot!)

    D) Imagine a shielded Sunderer with both guns manned. 2x Walker AA guns would be quite deadly against air, the shield would absorb 1-2 volleys of rocketpods, leaving the Sunderer unharmed. 2x Furies combined with the shield could rip through most armour trying to take out that Sunderer, etc etc.

    This is not supposed to be a "OMG WE'RE DOOMED!!!11" post ;) I just want to show that the shield has to be carefully balanced in order to not make it overpowered.

    Having a truly "advanced mobile station" may of course also be a good thing, making the Sunderer a deployable outpost that is defendable and may hold its own. However, with the current state of the game and the above mentioned favor towards zerging/assaults instead of defending, this may be a problem.


    * There have been multiple threads on this lately with a couple of good points. The lack of Combat Engineering (CE) deployables is one thing that also contributes to bases being less defensible and zergs having a good chance to steamroll onwards. Another is bases being too close to each other, and another is the mentioned lack of defender-advantage.
    • Up x 1
  3. Stanis

    The certs change recharge time.
    10 - 8 - 6 seconds since damage.

    The certs should change recharge rate.
    6 second before the shield bounces back is a very short time.
    It means one missed shot from a single source and the reload timer screws you over.

    Also we have no efficient means of attacking shields. Or perhaps we do.
    Some have said they are vulnerable to Infantry weapons.

    If they are vulnerable to AI weapons such as Kobalt, Canister, PPA that normally do very little to shields it makes mix-role vehicles somewhat effective against them.

    It really needs to go live to see how much impact a shield has.
    I know that on a well defended sunderer being attacked and pushed by the enemy I'd rather have blockade.
    That increased damage resistance is far more useful when a couple of engis are trying to repair a low health sundie.
  4. Stormsinger

    Personally, I like this cert option - I do not think there should be ANY scenario in which a single (non max) infantry should be able to blow a deployed Sunderer - as it stands, anyone can drop from an aircraft at high altitude, place mines, and blow them up before they render for sundy defenders. With the shield, it will simply take 2 players doing this instead of one.

    Although, I do admit that 5 mines should turn a sundy into dust, regardless of loadout. If someone has the time to place / blow five AV mines, sundy defense is asleep. I just want a reliable way to remove placed mines - the repair tool disarm isnt enough, mines are frequently impossible to target these days, especially on Hossin.

    Edit: Yes, I realize I contradicted myself, 5 mine kills is a good exception, in my opinion.
  5. Hosp

    People are overreacting slightly. In 12-24+ battles these aren't a bad thing and will be a necessary evil with the upcoming resource revamp.

    However, this becomes a big problem in smaller battles. In your 1-12 battles where you might only have a handful of people to try and take one of these out. The people defending it have a distinct advantage. They don't need to pull some form of AV to defend it unless it's being attacked by a vehicle.

    So if it's a 5 on 5 battle, it becomes very easy for 1 person to defend it, particularly with rapid respawns. That said...remember, these sundies don't have blockade armor. once that deploy shield is down, they are much weaker than what we've grown accustomed to.

    An outfit mate and I, along with a couple randoms, did a full battery of tests with TR and NC weapons on it (sorry VS, we ran out of time). Including vehicles. If you're not pulling a tank, the next easiest way to kill one of these is with AV MAX (TR HEG, NC Ravens) or get 2 HAs w/ RLs or 2 Engs w/ AV Mana (or some combination). It's pretty clear they don't want these soloed because someone snuck into/ejected into a pack of zerglings with blinders. But, once the shield is down, the sundies are paper.

    My only big gripe is...TR Lockdowns (MAXs & Prowlers) will shred these sundies if they can get bead on em.
  6. r4zor

    Just tested it on PTS:

    The shield automatically pops up 10 to 6 seconds after taking damage (depending on the level).

    As of now, the shield absorbs 3 infantry AV rockets or 1 C4 + 1 rocket, or 2 c4, only after that the Sunderer takes damage. If you're using the Decimator, the third Decimator will do some damage to the Sunderer (~5-10%)

    Shield will also absorb two tankmines and a stickynade. Three tankmines and a stickynade lead to ~5% dmg to the Sunderer.
    Four tankmines + sticky = 25% dmg to Sunderer. Five tankmines + sticky = 45% dmg.

    The shield takes some time to fully recover (e.g. at 6 seconds it pops up but is not fully recovered).
  7. qquqq

    base turret shield please
    • Up x 1
  8. SenEvason

    I ran across a couple guys testing the shield. Small arms fire had no effect on the shield. You need AV weaponry to affect it at all.
    • Up x 1
  9. Hosp

    I remember you!

    Also, AV nade seemed to have no effect. Why not make AV nade work to knock this shield out and double the time till recharge kicks in? Still makes it a process for a solo HA to kill. Throw AV nade, (Run up if necessary), after detonation deploy 2 C4, ( Run away if possible), rocket.

    EDIT: and before someone says "AV nades will be spammed in big battles!" If you can spam AV nades at it...that sundy is either in a bad location, or it's about to go down with or without an AV nade.
    • Up x 1
  10. SenEvason


    I thought that was weird as well. That might work, but it's still not all that much more of a process for the HA. When soloing a Sundy, they run up to it, throw C4, then rocket. If the AV grenade was changed to take down the shield and increase its recharge, the HA would just throw it while he's running up to it from a distance, and then have a whole 12 seconds to carry out blowing it up. At most, it may increase his time by a quarter of a second; with his shield it is even more time to plant and rocket.
    Also, I'm not sure if that would be possible to do without affecting the rest of the game. From what I understand, damage works based on weapon type and resists. I think that if they buff the AV to knockout the shield, they would at the same time be buffing it's damage against other vehicles.
    Of course, the AV grenade could probably use a buff anyway.

    However, to argue for the other side, I'd say that it gives the HA back its role of being the go-to AV class, which would be a good thing.
    • Up x 1
  11. Hosp

    Having this back and forth with outfit mate in our forum. You guys are probably right, not do the double time effect on recharge. But just knocking it out. If HA is to far, or not fast enough to do the job, shield goes right back up.

    Also, didn't meant to buff the AV grenades damage, i meant to add it as an additional effect. This way it's still its normal useless self against most other vehicles and more useful against MAXs as normal.
  12. SenEvason

    Maybe if they add a sort of EMP effect to it, they could take down the Sundy's shield(also, we totally should have tried an EMP grenade to see if anything happened). But that may still affect other parts of the game. I don't know, without knowing exactly how the game works, it's difficult to figure out a way to change weapons without screwing things up in other places.
  13. Hosp

    True. An EMP nade is a good idea from a teamwork perspective. But as I mentioned, in small battles, it'll be near impossible for defenders to take out an enemy sundy with enemies rapidly spawning by it. So a viable quicker way to take it out should exist. But you're right, alot of moving parts with this one. Will make things interesting.
  14. DatVanuMan

    I like the idea of the shield. Mainly because I wait for other people to put it on fire and then blow it up:p
    However, I hope they release new ESRLs that are balanced and yet amazing. Something unique, that's all:)
  15. Runegrace

    If bases are extremely defensible, the only force that CAN take them is a zerg. Taking a heavily populated biolab requires 50-100% more troops. Taking Underground Nanite Analysis you often need about 4 times the force of the enemy. If bases are super-defensible, you'd need a mass zerg to ever take a single base while the defenders redeploy-hop to stop anything less.

    Things like the next stage of the resource revamp will likely be better with curtailing zerg balls. I've also been wondering about the idea of having XP-incentives on a per-hex basis. Maybe if having 70% pop at a base resulted in an XP penalty for the zerging faction…you know, something to show that getting XP isn't very challenging when you outnumber 2:1. Might be unpopular, but might incentivize looking for more even fights over easy spawn-camping zerg ones.
  16. r4zor

    Which is why PlanetSide 1 was so much better in these regards. There were only a maximum of 4 spawnpoints available on the whole continent:
    - The closest base spawnroom, the closest tower spawnroom, the closest AMS and (only if you BOUND yourself to it) another BASE of your choice/your squadleaders choice.

    Planetside 1 didnt have the "Redeployside" problem, which in PS2 totally ruins and negates the need for logistics and coordinated defenses.
    Bases were also more defensible, but they could be taken out in several ways:
    - Kill the generator (not some SCU bs, it was a Generator that powered the whole base and could be taken out by a single sneaky guy (if the defenders were unaware) using ~6-7 Boomers) and the base would be unpowered, denying spawns, denying vehicle-acquisition, denying equipment terminals
    - Drain the NANITES. If a base went to 0% NTU power, it would go neutral, denying spawns, denying acquisitions etc.
    - Kill the spawns. A coordinated MAXcrash to the spawns could DESTROY them.

    So yes, this was a better system. It made bases actually defensible, denied a stupid "onrolling" of the zerg because bases couldnt just be taken on storm.

    Additionally it also avoided the population imbalance problem we have now. Right now any empire with ~40% pop can steamroll onwards and win every basefight since bases are already indefensible (except for Biolabs, but they are just crap IMHO!) once the attackers have around 55% pop at that base.

    So anyway, these are all problems that we pointed out during beta. After 9 years of experience in PS1 most veterans had an idea what worked and what not, unfortunately, it was already too late by then =/
    • Up x 1
  17. Makora

    I would not be against this idea is IF the whole sunderer mechanic wasn't completely ********. And I mean the whole package of it having a respawn passive, it's survivability and ease of access.

    Let me theorycraft a bit based on the stuff we have seen and heard on both PTS and live.

    Fast-tracked respawning makes it more difficult to push up to the enemy sunderer because the "defense" will constantly replenish (meatshields). And due to the fact that two or three engineers can make a sunderer completely immortal when attacking it at range, you practically NEED to get in close to make sure the damn thing gets taken care of.
    Sunderes can be deployed in much MUCH better defended places then some spawn-rooms are. In fact they can be "glitched" into areas where they, by all rights, should not be. For example, the amp-station "armpit zone" as I like to call it. This means that if a base fight is to be taken as an isolated area, the attackers can sometimes have a better angle on a base, especially since there are no respawn time differences between the two respawn methods.
    Lastly the relative ease that sunderers can be replaced, makes losing one a moot point. If the fight is big and the attackers are dedicated on taking the base, losing one or two sunderers will not stop the assault.

    Lastly, the purpose, the idea of the game is to hold as much territory as possible. Good fights are a bonus. My objective is to halt an enemy assault on my base ASAP. I have no interest in drawing the fight out unless there's a strategic reason for it. Not that I am a zergling, but the name of the game is to own as much of the map as possible.

    Granted the balancing aspect of this change is that the sunderer is far more squishy when not deployed. So the general purpose "battle sunderer" concept will remain the same. It's just the idea that making it more difficult to destroy a theoretically infinite number of something is a bit wrong. I hate losing my sunderer. Everyone hates it when their stuff gets squished. But it has to happen.
    • Up x 1
  18. Atis

    So, how exactly is mandatory team effort to destroy sundy and less team effort to defend it in already attackers-biased game good?
    Single platoon now can keep like 15 sundies deployed around, how much time and players will it take for defenders to clear them out and whos gonna defend cc at same time?

    Only thing that come in mind is that devs are trying to make AMSes a main spawn points for both sides and keep spawn room as backup. But current base layout is not ready for that.
  19. LtBomber

    I tought about the shield a lot:
    As i stated earlier, under "normal" conditions it is quite hard to single-man a defended sundi! "Defended" is a keyword. The shield should not be lazy man's defense. I suggest moving the shield to the utility tree and make it a activation and time based ability.

    What will change:
    You still need to defend your Sundi, best at sitting in it! If you see someone charging in for a sucide, just hop to the drivers seat and pop the shield. now you are (lets say for example) 10 Sec protected, just like a Vanguard. That gives you and your teammates the time to clean up the mess (kill the guy in case of C4, difuse mines). After those 10 sec the ability is on cooldown for one minute.

    I think this would be fair.
    It still gives the defending team the option to solo a sundi, but if the driver defends his sundi, it will be quite hard. Of course the shield can ONLY be triggerd if the sundi is deployed, it should not become a alternative to the more field based firesuppression.

    If the current shield makes it way up to live, i suggest removing the weapon systems of the sundi if one decides to equip it.

    About the argument of keeping the battle going: Bring more Sundies, or tanks to protect them.
    Park them not close to cornors, this way a single kobalt can farm all runners.
    Place a motion spotter...
    Place mines...
    As you see, there are plenty of ways to keep the battle going. For attackes it isnt all about of just rushing in...
  20. Zeewulf

    Yay, so they decided to make a deployed Sundy harder to kill than a MBT ?

    It's a transport vehicle and a soft spawn point, it's supposed to be able to be destroyed easily.

    If that lone guy gets through then your side isn't defending it properly (and no i'm not a C4 fairy either).

    At this rate it's going to be better to pull a sundy, drive up and deploy and then start shooting rather than use a MBT. Hell why not just give it Halbards also and be done with it.
    • Up x 1