GS aren't problem at all... problem is that everyone play them in deathmach so it became camping fest. And for me as scout pilot it's very boring to just shoot non moving targets. And of course it's quiet hard to shoot down good GS when other 2 GSs have you target lock.

I'd say that makes them a problem, yes. They're the easy way out, and when there's several of them, they're hard to counter... except by OP scout pilots (they're not a majority) or other gunships. So it's more often than not gunship standoffs which makes it boring/tedious. Since we can't very well reprogram the users, I'd say the gunships is a problem then. At the very least they should be nerfed to not be the 100% natural go-to for a huge majority of people.

when there's several of them, they're hard to counter... except by OP scout pilots (they're not a majority) or other gunships

This is often the case, but not for the reasons you might think. A gunship wall is perceived as hard to counter (just as entrenched weapons emplacements with overlapping fields of fire are hard to counter) because countering requires some tactical adaptation and somewhat risky behavior. Newer pilots get frustrated by this because 1) they haven't actually gotten used to getting shot at/destroyed to the point of being able to shrug it off and retain target discipline, and 2) they haven't yet developed the thinking/experience needed to understand gunship weaknesses and exploiting these to their advantage.

The primary weakness of all gunships is close-range combat. Some gunship pilots are better than others at managing this weakness, but the fact remains that within 4000m everything becomes a serious threat to gunships. Most gunship pilots will move when they take damage or are under threat of taking damage (e.g. another gunship pilot gets the drop on them, or when an opposing pilot is within 4000m and bearing down). This neutralizes them as a threat, but as soon as they're allowed to settle again they're dangerous again. The nice thing is that you don't have to be an OP scout pilot to rattle an entire team of gunships into moving, thereby neutralizing their ability to destroy your team. You just need to survive long enough to get them moving and therefore not overlapping their fire/covering each other (yes, it helps if there are at least 2 pilots doing this, but 1 good pilot can achieve this alone), which makes them easier targets for anyone on your team who chooses to support your formation scattering tactic (even if they don't, at least you've drastically reduced the threat the gunships posed while you survived). Good gunship pilots will have stronger target discipline, won't get rattled, and can still be a threat while moving (or snap in and resume becoming a threat again quicker), but that speaks more towards individual pilot ability/personality than any inherent advantage of the gunship.

The real question, then, is how one goes about actually disrupting a formation of gunship pilots whose ships are more or less fully upgraded (and have the crew members most suited to their role). Scouts, in particular the T1 (Novadive/Blackbolt) and T2 (Flashfire/Sting), are ideally suited to this because 1) they can have high evasion, which increases their likelihood of actually surviving long enough to get in close range with gunships; 2) they have high speed, which helps them close distance gaps faster than many gunship pilots can adjust; and 3) with sensor dampening equipped, good scout pilots can avoid being seen while executing a wide flanking maneuver. Strikes have none of these advantages, which is why they are usually not good at intercepting gunships unless those gunships get within 7500m (either because they moved close to get a better shot at a target, or the strike pilot was able to take advantage of a distracted gunship pilot to get that close). Bombers, like strikes, can only really take advantage of gunship close-range weaknesses if the gunship pilots themselves get close, or if a distracted gunship pilot fails to see a bomber closing the gap (hyperspace beacons play a huge role in helping bombers and strikes close gaps on gunships in this regard). But again, all of these things have everything to do with pilot ability/experience and little or nothing to do with ship class advantages/disadvantages.

A gunship wall is perceived as hard to counter (just as entrenched weapons emplacements with overlapping fields of fire are hard to counter) because countering requires some tactical adaptation and somewhat risky behavior.

A gunship wall is harder to counter than any other tactic in the game because when built right it has very few exploitable flaws. If an enemy team spawns too many bombers, gunships can take them out from a safe distance. If they spawn too many scouts, bombers are the natural answer (railgun drones ignore evasion, seeker mines force tem to save their cooldowns).

However, a couple of bombers and the rest of the team in gunships cannot be easily countered by any other composition. Scouts are forced to pop distortion field when approaching a good gunship or they will be shot en route. This only leaves them with a single missile break, even though they'll usually be flying straight into a nest of seekers (not to mention the Condor/Jurgoran has cluster missiles). Once they've used both cooldowns, they are forced to retreat and wait for them to refresh. A good gunship will simply kite through DF and then shoot you. You can't endlessly chase them because you'll die to other gunships, or bomber ordinance. You can only maintain your stay in enemy nests for a maximum of 6 seconds. After DF wears off, good gunships will kill you.

The real question, then, is how one goes about actually disrupting a formation of gunship pilots whose ships are more or less fully upgraded (and have the crew members most suited to their role). Scouts, in particular the T1 (Novadive/Blackbolt) and T2 (Flashfire/Sting), are ideally suited to this because 1) they can have high evasion, which increases their likelihood of actually surviving long enough to get in close range with gunships; 2) they have high speed, which helps them close distance gaps faster than many gunship pilots can adjust; and 3) with sensor dampening equipped, good scout pilots can avoid being seen while executing a wide flanking maneuver. Strikes have none of these advantages, which is why they are usually not good at intercepting gunships unless those gunships get within 7500m (either because they moved close to get a better shot at a target, or the strike pilot was able to take advantage of a distracted gunship pilot to get that close). Bombers, like strikes, can only really take advantage of gunship close-range weaknesses if the gunship pilots themselves get close, or if a distracted gunship pilot fails to see a bomber closing the gap (hyperspace beacons play a huge role in helping bombers and strikes close gaps on gunships in this regard). But again, all of these things have everything to do with pilot ability/experience and little or nothing to do with ship class advantages/disadvantages.

I mostly agree with this. However, sensor dampening will usually be useless, and taking a long detour in order to deroost enemy gunships is not worth the time in my opinion. Sensor dampening will be useless because you won't be able to hide inside 15k of their focus cone, meaning they can see you where it's important. Furthermore, taking a long detour takes you out of the match for a longer time than it takes them, meaning you're gimping your own team by doing that (even if they can't see you approaching on the minimap, which the most probably can).

As stated however, using your evasion cooldowns in order to make your approach means you won't be able to stay in for long.

Fact is, gunships are complimentary to each other because they cover both close and long-range effectively. A bomber or two can fill in the rest. In TDM (and TDM only, domination is a different matter) scouts won't win a match against a competent bomber + gunship combo.

If the blitz team can make it over to other teams spawn they can rack up 20-30 kills for a point lead by focusing down

Either that, or feed the enemy team a bunch of kills..

The real problem fighting gunship balls is not the gunships, it is the bombers. I think we should seriously consider doing something about bombers to promote more action in a game. I was in a TDM match with premades using voice on both sides that ended 12-6. I don't mind slower chess match battles as much as some, but a little more action is desired by most pilots. Without the bombers, it is much easier for good scout pilots to disrupt a gunship heavy team.

People should be clear however that getting rid of or nerfing bombers will not end one sided matches. One sided matches will still happen just as much if there were no gunships or bombers But eliminating bombers might create more active matches.

One advantage of bombers is that it is much easier for newer pilots to contribute to their team in a domination match with a bomber, and anything that helps newer pilots is a good thing. Maybe just allow bombers in domination?

The real problem fighting gunship balls is not the gunships, it is the bombers. I think we should seriously consider doing something about bombers to promote more action in a game. I was in a TDM match with premades using voice on both sides that ended 12-6. I don't mind slower chess match battles as much as some, but a little more action is desired by most pilots. Without the bombers, it is much easier for good scout pilots to disrupt a gunship heavy team.

 

People should be clear however that getting rid of or nerfing bombers will not end one sided matches. One sided matches will still happen just as much if there were no gunships or bombers But eliminating bombers might create more active matches.

 

One advantage of bombers is that it is much easier for newer pilots to contribute to their team in a domination match with a bomber, and anything that helps newer pilots is a good thing. Maybe just allow bombers in domination?

Come on now.

Certainly, I don't disagree that the strategic use of bombers - and their nests, when well-placed and used appropriately - can lead to slower TDMs. But you cannot use that 12-6 match as any kind of barometer for GSF in general. As you noted, that particular game was between two full premades, coordinating on voice. Plus, those teams (SRW & Self-Inflicted) have faced off many times, and know each other inside and out. On a day-to-day basis, how often does that scenario play out? Any pug vs pug (or even 4-man+pugs vs 4-man+pugs) match will inevitably develop in a completely different way. I'm trying to say that the 12-6 game was a total outlier.

If your complaint is about tedious, low-scoring affairs...while I'd agree that bomber nests can produce a match that moves at a snail's pace, I don't believe bombers are the chief offenders. Ignoring premades, some of the slowest TDMs I've ever seen have been pure gunship chess. Like, literally 8 GS vs 8 GS. If every gunship is competent, those kinds of games can be unbelievably slow.

And this from a guy who actually enjoys the chess matches. I realize most people don't.

Some TDMs devolve into chess because pilots with mid-level experience revert to GS when they don't know what else to do. It's safer to sit back and try to snipe than to barrel headlong into a GS wall.

tl;dr - I'd argue that most slow matches result from either 1) highly coordinated and experienced teams playing safely, and 2) sheer gunship chess. The former is a rare sight, and in a way, represents the pinnacle of the evolution of a certain playstyle. I don't see this situation as a problem unless the participants do. The latter is much more common. The only way to address these is to convince some of those GS pilots to hop into something else...harangue a couple of them into going scout, and if they're competent, the match is sure to move in a totally different direction.

I think the chief problem people have with all gunship or gunship + trace of bomber deathmatches is that in a game that seems to have a fairly rock-paper-scissor style of balance, the most readily workable counter at pretty much all levels of both skill and organization, is to answer with a mirror strategy.

So for example, if the opposition is scout heavy, then increasing your gunship ratio and having a bomber or two to shelter, shifts the match balance to be unfavorable to the scouts.

It holds generally for most combinations of ships. Overloading on a particular type allows the other team an advantage if they shift composition to take advantage of the weaknesses of that type. It works on teams overloaded with scouts, strikes, or bombers.

The problem is that gunships cover for the weaknesses of gunships pretty well, and a bomber or two covers for the weaknesses of gunships almost perfectly.

So while the counter to excess of any of the other ship classes is to load up on a different ship class, the counter to an excess of gunships is an excess of gunships. That sort of breaks the, "counter an excess of ship A by increasing your amount of ship B," system of team composition balance.

The question is whether the solution is to buff strikes until they can kill one bomber in less time than it takes 3 gunships to kill the strike, or if it's to buff the strike until it can pick off one gunship before 3 gunships can kill it.

The question is whether the solution is to buff strikes until they can kill one bomber in less time than it takes 3 gunships to kill the strike, or if it's to buff the strike until it can pick off one gunship before 3 gunships can kill it.

You could make strikes specifically better at killing or annoying gunships at longer ranges, for instance by making missiles better against gunships. I have three suggestions there:

- Only one missile break on gunships.

- Strikes get missile range extenders, and possibly missile speed extenders as well.

- Lock on time for missiles is halved when a gunship is charging. (You're shooting at a stationary supernova after all - how hard can it be to lock on to that?)

Another possible option would be to give the emp missile more range and have it disable railguns. That would mean sitting in a bomber's nest carries some risk.