...and the first thing I thought was " "

wow yeah. The funny thing is that if they had followed the WoT example in the video it would actually give newbies T1 scouts a useful purpose rather than just be cannon fodder. It'd actually be really cool to see how the meta would change if GS had their sensors tweaked so they required scouts to basically be their spotters. Of course then the devs would have to figure out some other way to give ships a weakness other than "slap sensors on them because we all know it's of little/no value."

The WoT design would likely have 40km railguns that are much more efficient, but deal vastly less damage. I don't think the railgun design is a bad one at all, especially in a game with such relatively close range snipers (speaking in terms of "how long does it take you to close into knife range"). I've detailed in other threads what they can generally do with that- I think a decent number of GSF complaints are secretly UI complaints- for instance, if the enemies, instead of all being little red triangles, were different tones and shapes, you'd immediately be able to pick out a gunship shape from a scout shape. The gunship shape being close, not as threatening. The scout shape being far, not as threatening, etc. Instead this information is conveyed one data piece at a time, and by the time you know the lay of the land (the lay that your ship mapped instantly on showing up, mind you), you've already committed to a suboptimal action.

I wasn't really referring to the WoT example they used. I was trying to call attention to the section before it, specifically the example about how sniper mechanics are usually only fun for the sniper, regardless of how balanced the sniper class might be overall. Edited November 3, 2014 by Zoom_VI

The funny thing is that if they had followed the WoT example in the video it would actually give newbies T1 scouts a useful purpose rather than just be cannon fodder. It'd actually be really cool to see how the meta would change if GS had their sensors tweaked so they required scouts to basically be their spotters.

Oddly when i started early access i thought thats how sensors functioned. i was very let down

The WoT design would likely have 40km railguns that are much more efficient, but deal vastly less damage. I don't think the railgun design is a bad one at all, especially in a game with such relatively close range snipers (speaking in terms of "how long does it take you to close into knife range").

 

All fair points. The GS here is much more fairly balanced than in other games I've played. I guess it just stuck out at me how the T1 scout seems like, in concept, was supposed to be a spotter (either for the rest of the team or GS specifically) but didn't work out in practice. While I do think it would be real cool if they redesigned things so the T1 actually had a recon purpose (and thus made the sensor component meaningful) I didn't mean to come across as a "railguns are OP" (so apologies if it did).

 

I've detailed in other threads what they can generally do with that- I think a decent number of GSF complaints are secretly UI complaints- for instance, if the enemies, instead of all being little red triangles, were different tones and shapes, you'd immediately be able to pick out a gunship shape from a scout shape. The gunship shape being close, not as threatening. The scout shape being far, not as threatening, etc. Instead this information is conveyed one data piece at a time, and by the time you know the lay of the land (the lay that your ship mapped instantly on showing up, mind you), you've already committed to a suboptimal action.

 

I remember in BF 2142 snipers had a little crosshair symbol when they were spotted on the minimap which made them stand out among all the other red dots. If they did that here I agree it'd go a long way to improving the usability of the minimap.

If GS could still sight visually and maybe "paint" stuff, that wouldn't be too bad. It would give a point to zooming all the way in.

Good to see someone else posting Extra Credits links! Excellent series.

 

Interestingly, the presence of sensor and communication ranges suggests that a spotter mechanic may have been part of the original concept but didn't survive to release.

I think it is extremely satisfying to kill gunships. So the idea is a success.

You know, T1 scouts, even stock kill gunships very well. You can't just fly straight at them all happyjoyjoy and give them a hug. You have to come at them outside their view and do this one trick called, aiming. The meta in this game is fine, there is plenty of this 'counterplay'.

 

SHOCKER! It requires the players to be cognizant of their team and the meta of the match. This is where GSF fails. It lets the player choose everything without guidance in the beginning. This trial by fire method of learning a new game type is not fun for most people.

Edited November 3, 2014 by zaskar

You know, T1 scouts, even stock kill gunships very well. You can't just fly straight at them all happyjoyjoy and give them a hug. You have to come at them outside their view and do this one trick called, aiming. The meta in this game is fine, there is plenty of this 'counterplay'.

 

SHOCKER! It requires the players to be cognizant of their team and the meta of the match. This is where GSF fails. It lets the player choose everything without guidance in the beginning. This trial by fire method of learning a new game type is not fun for most people.

 

In MOBA games, I oft feel 5 jungle would be much better than those suggested "lanes". Humbug

Oddly when i started early access i thought thats how sensors functioned. i was very let down

 

I'd imagine that it probably could theoretically function that way if all of the sensor ranges on all of the ships weren't tuned so high.

 

I mean, as it is right now I can sometimes be guarding a satellite at one end of the map and tab targeting to scan for nearby enemies will be pointing out enemies 50km-60km away as being my closest targets. Why? Because every ship on the team can see 15km-25km away and relays their targeting data to all allies within 15km, so the data from the opposite end of the map is getting relayed through a couple allies in the middle.

 

For that scouting mechanic to be viable, for gunships to require the presence of allied scouts to be able to identify targets within the full range of the railgun, the communication range would have to be significantly larger than the sensor range. So if sensors defaulted more around 10km and communication was still around 15km, a gunship would have a 5km blind spot within their weapons range unless a scout was ahead of them to extend their visibility.

 

Of course, sensor dampening would probably have to be tweaked too if they were to re-balance the other ranges. I'm guessing that the current ranges for dampening would create some "stealth" cases (certain ships just wouldn't be targetable at all by certain ships unless an ally was nearby to communicate extra sensor data) with the new sensor range I arbitrarily picked out. And that's not a mechanic that should be in the game on anything other than the stealth ship class that they may or may not eventually add to the game (and even then it should probably happen in limited doses as an ability rather than being a passive property of the ship type).

Oddly when i started early access i thought thats how sensors functioned. i was very let down

 

On the 2.5 PTS they worked like that. With sensor dampening visibility could be reduced well below 15km. It got changed to hardcap at 15km because of how broken it was though, because gunships could stack sensor dampening so that they where invisible to everything that was 4km or farther away. Which wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that firing doesn't dispel dampening. So they could basically kill you while stealthed.

They still do. I'll occasionally get slugged, press 'r', and no gunship.

You know, T1 scouts, even stock kill gunships very well. You can't just fly straight at them all happyjoyjoy and give them a hug. You have to come at them outside their view and do this one trick called, aiming. The meta in this game is fine, there is plenty of this 'counterplay'.

 

SHOCKER! It requires the players to be cognizant of their team and the meta of the match. This is where GSF fails. It lets the player choose everything without guidance in the beginning. This trial by fire method of learning a new game type is not fun for most people.

 

I think you are misunderstanding how the OP and the video are using the word "counterplay". They do not mean game balance issues; that is, they do not mean that snipers or gunships have no "counter".

 

What they mean is that dying suddenly to a distant enemy lurking on the edges of your vision is not fun for the person being shot, because they feel like there was nothing they could do to prevent it.

 

Note what Team Fortess 2 did with their snipers - to use their standard rifle effectively, they must remain mostly immobile and zoom in to charge. This is actually quite similar to gunsgips, but in TF2, dead players are shown the location of their killer, making them feel as is they can do something to counter them.

 

Good strategy can counter gunships, of course, but the concept of "counterplay" is about tactics. Despite your diligent efforts, let's say, a gunship has you in his sights. To many players, it doesn't feel like anything they do meaningfully affects their chance of avoiding their shot or forcing them to zoom out. The ability to snipe is only fun for the sniper, not for his targets.

 

Missiles however offer great counterplay. Thanks to the lock on alert, you can try to shake your pursuer before they launch. Thanks to map design, you can try to break LOS. You can use your missile breaks, perhaps even gaining better positioning in the process. Missiles *create choice* for their targets. Gunship blasts don't. That's why people frequently don't like them. It's not a question of overall balance or overpoweredness, but of feeling like you have the agency to fight back and make meaningful choices other than "don't get caught by surprise".

I think it is extremely satisfying to kill gunships. So the idea is a success.

 

It would be even more satisfying to kill bombers - if I could.

And usually they are protected by a few aces.

 

What they mean is that dying suddenly to a distant enemy lurking on the edges of your vision is not fun for the person being shot, because they feel like there was nothing they could do to prevent it.

 

I literally stopped playing my Gunship at all, since I get destroyed all of the time.

I only brush up its dust when the situation is *extremely* dire.

 

Multiply that, and the meta is already changing ... In favour to bombers, scouts and strike fighters ... Gunships will be gon from the game - hooray ! all others who feel annoyed by them will say. Until they get annoyed by bombers or so, that is ...

 

The problem is, that people might try to use only the most overpowered ship, because it is so much satiusfying to destroy everything with it ... And in the end, only bomber vs. bomber matches will remain ...

For example ...

Edited November 6, 2014 by AlrikFassbauer

I think you are misunderstanding how the OP and the video are using the word "counterplay". They do not mean game balance issues; that is, they do not mean that snipers or gunships have no "counter".

 

What they mean is that dying suddenly to a distant enemy lurking on the edges of your vision is not fun for the person being shot, because they feel like there was nothing they could do to prevent it.

 

Note what Team Fortess 2 did with their snipers - to use their standard rifle effectively, they must remain mostly immobile and zoom in to charge. This is actually quite similar to gunsgips, but in TF2, dead players are shown the location of their killer, making them feel as is they can do something to counter them.

 

Good strategy can counter gunships, of course, but the concept of "counterplay" is about tactics. Despite your diligent efforts, let's say, a gunship has you in his sights. To many players, it doesn't feel like anything they do meaningfully affects their chance of avoiding their shot or forcing them to zoom out. The ability to snipe is only fun for the sniper, not for his targets.

 

Missiles however offer great counterplay. Thanks to the lock on alert, you can try to shake your pursuer before they launch. Thanks to map design, you can try to break LOS. You can use your missile breaks, perhaps even gaining better positioning in the process. Missiles *create choice* for their targets. Gunship blasts don't. That's why people frequently don't like them. It's not a question of overall balance or overpoweredness, but of feeling like you have the agency to fight back and make meaningful choices other than "don't get caught by surprise".

 

I missunderstand nothing, while weak, the counterplay with gunships is the BIG GIANT GLOWING BALL OF GONNA KILL YOUS. With the meta the devs have come up with, it works. With the TF2 example, stealth is part of the sniper play, you need to find somewhere to hide to be at all effective. in GSF, most gunships just hang out at distance without worrying about cover since more than likely being tucked up under a rock in a game where you are firing on a Z Axis as much as any other is very limiting and a good way to get killed.

I missunderstand nothing, while weak, the counterplay with gunships is the BIG GIANT GLOWING BALL OF GONNA KILL YOUS. With the meta the devs have come up with, it works. With the TF2 example, stealth is part of the sniper play, you need to find somewhere to hide to be at all effective. in GSF, most gunships just hang out at distance without worrying about cover since more than likely being tucked up under a rock in a game where you are firing on a Z Axis as much as any other is very limiting and a good way to get killed.

 

The only counterplay gunships offer is a visual cue when they are charging up their attacks. This is a good thing for counterplay; I have options as to how to deal with that, but only if I am already observing the gunship. It doesn't add enough, because I can already tell the gunship is going to shoot at me - they're pointed at me and often have me targeted.

 

Compare missiles; they occupy a similar place as a charge-up weapon. There are major differences of course, but bear with me here. If the only cue that an enemy had a lock on you was visual - not the auditory and HUD alert we have now - missiles would be far more frustrating to play against, and the defender would have fewer options to deal with the situation.

 

Again, I do not mean to say that gunships are OP, or that strategy cannot defeat them. I am attempting to explain the common sentiment against gunships; not whether they are fair opponents, but whether they are fun opponents.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Aussircaex

The only counterplay gunships offer is a visual cue when they are charging up their attacks. This is a good thing for counterplay; I have options as to how to deal with that, but only if I am already observing the gunship. It doesn't add enough, because I can already tell the gunship is going to shoot at me - they're pointed at me and often have me targeted.

 

Compare missiles; they occupy a similar place as a charge-up weapon. There are major differences of course, but bear with me here. If the only cue that an enemy had a lock on you was visual - not the auditory and HUD alert we have now - missiles would be far more frustrating to play against, and the defender would have fewer options to deal with the situation.

 

Again, I do not mean to say that gunships are OP, or that strategy cannot defeat them. I am attempting to explain the common sentiment against gunships; not whether they are fair opponents, but whether they are fun opponents.

 

I agree wholeheartedly, I blame the very steep learning curve, it takes a lot of pilots 100s of games to learn that they need to be looking 360 degrees. I know when I'm just screwing around I will tunnel targets and die then laugh that I fell for it, again.

...and the first thing I thought was "

"

 

Gunships are next week dude. This week is battlescouts and last week was bombers.

Edited November 7, 2014 by TrinityLyre

The only counterplay gunships offer is a visual cue when they are charging up their attacks. This is a good thing for counterplay; I have options as to how to deal with that, but only if I am already observing the gunship. It doesn't add enough, because I can already tell the gunship is going to shoot at me - they're pointed at me and often have me targeted.

 

I disagree. You have options for dealing with gunships, at least as a scout. More evasion means that gunship is less likely to hit you. But to take, say, Running Interference, you have to give up other, possibly more useful copilot abilities. Additionally, you can choose to run builds and formations that maximize the chances you'll pick up a gunship on sensors. It's not that you don't have options to counter gunships, because you do.

I disagree. You have options for dealing with gunships, at least as a scout. More evasion means that gunship is less likely to hit you. But to take, say, Running Interference, you have to give up other, possibly more useful copilot abilities. Additionally, you can choose to run builds and formations that maximize the chances you'll pick up a gunship on sensors. It's not that you don't have options to counter gunships, because you do.

 

I think you are missing the point of "counterplay"

 

Saying something doesn't offer counterplay doesn't mean that you can't kill it, or that it is overpowered, or that there are not better options.

 

What it means is it means that that mechanic is something that is only interesting for the user, not the person on the receiving end.

The only counterplay gunships offer is a visual cue when they are charging up their attacks. This is a good thing for counterplay; I have options as to how to deal with that, but only if I am already observing the gunship. It doesn't add enough, because I can already tell the gunship is going to shoot at me - they're pointed at me and often have me targeted.

 

Compare missiles; they occupy a similar place as a charge-up weapon. There are major differences of course, but bear with me here. If the only cue that an enemy had a lock on you was visual - not the auditory and HUD alert we have now - missiles would be far more frustrating to play against, and the defender would have fewer options to deal with the situation.

 

Again, I do not mean to say that gunships are OP, or that strategy cannot defeat them. I am attempting to explain the common sentiment against gunships; not whether they are fair opponents, but whether they are fun opponents.

 

Gunships offer plenty of counterplay. Noobs will be raging at anything that kills them fast and that includes BLC scouts, SIM bombers and even strikes. If those ships are mastered and played by a master, noobs will rage and call for a nerf and lack of fun and lack of counterplay. I see Zoom_VI complaining of the forums quite a lot, must be a great pilot.

 

But let's get back to gunships:

Your first counterplay option - use your eyes when you start the game. You can spot who's playing a gunship. Do it on every respawn or just hit "M" anytime during the match to see what ships each team is flying. I know... so damn hard. Forewarned is forearmed.

 

Your second counterplay option, don't fight in the middle of nowhere, without even a trace of something that can provide you cover from that nasty gunship that touched you from so far away. You choose to fight in an empty space - it's your fault for inviting a gunship to blast you to space dust.

 

Your third counterplay option - move your jets if you were hit with a railgun. There is an obvious animation of railshots even when they miss and especially when they hit. (I'm not even talking about that big Yeloow/Blue/Red glow telling you: "I'm a gunship and I'm about to shoot someone! Come kill me!") It's rare for a railgun to kill you in one hit (unless you're wounded already, meaning you were killed in 2 vs 1, therefore stop complaining about that gunship). Only scouts can be killed with a crit (16% chance) and only if they are running evasion build (meaning low hull and shields). Guess how many shoots it can take for that gunship to land that one hit on that evasive target? Many! Every other ship has time to hit "target last attacker" button and use their damn engine to get them away from that nasty gunship that touched them from so far away. A railgun takes 2.7 seconds to charge to full, takes at least 0.9 seconds to reload and requires at least 25% charge to fire. That's 3.6 seconds before the next fully charged railgun hit (the same railgun used. i.e. slug => slug), 2.7 * 25% + 0.9 = 1.575 seconds minimum before next weakest railgun hit (the same railgun used. i.e. slug => slug), 2.7 * 25% = 0.675 seconds minimum before next weakest railgun hit (different railgun used. i.e. ion => slug). You got hit, start moving or stop complaining. All of these are so much better than a quad & pods scout scoring a sub second kill on you. Or killing you with BLC crit. The situation is the same as with a gunship, but leaves you with much smaller time frame to react. And don't start with situational awareness, because it applies to gunships as well (it's not hard to spot a non moving triangle on a mini-map). You know there is a bursty scout - be ware; you know there is a gunship - be ware.

 

Your fourth counterplay option is stacking evasion. Guess what, railguns require aiming and they have insane tracking penalties, also they require a lot of weapon power and penalize the gunship for holding charged shot too long. A gunship can miss 3-4 times in a row (and BTW, tell me how fun is evasion for a gunship, offers a lot of counterplay for sure). Don't even start comparing railguns to missiles that can be fired while moving and while you have full use of your primary weapons. Change railguns to be lock on weapons that don't care about evasion and you can have your warning sound and even Christmas lights flashing on your screen.

 

Oh and I forgot to say that railguns are mostly useless under 5-6 km range, unless you have some idiot charging a gunship head on in a straight line. In under 5 km range, gunship can only pray for luck with BLC (unless it's a type 3 gunship that can use missiles), but again slower turning speed doesn't win a turn fight (assuming equal skill). I've killed plenty of gunships and trust me, they offer enough conuterplay as a single ship.

 

Gunships are dangerous when they are a part of a good premade where they have people protecting them at close ranges and at that point it's not a problem of gunships offering no counterplay, but premades offering no other counterplay aside from bringing your own team that is equally skilled and geared. And it's not an issue that is unique to gunships, same can be said about bombers, strikes and scouts. Team is about covering weak spots of your team-mates and have them cover yours.

Every other ship has time to hit "target last attacker" button and use their damn engine to get them away from that nasty gunship that touched them from so far away. A railgun takes 2.7 seconds to charge to full, takes at least 0.9 seconds to reload and requires at least 25% charge to fire. That's 3.6 seconds before the next fully charged railgun hit (the same railgun used. i.e. slug => slug), 2.7 * 25% + 0.9 = 1.575 seconds minimum before next weakest railgun hit (the same railgun used. i.e. slug => slug), 2.7 * 25% = 0.675 seconds minimum before next weakest railgun hit (different railgun used. i.e. ion => slug). You got hit, start moving or stop complaining.

 

This only works if:

- the gunship's target is not already damaged and acutally survives the frist hit.

- slug doesn't instagib because of crit talent.

- gunship is not using ion rail on first shot to slow it's target.

- there are zero other players around that could disturb the situation.

 

In my eyes a single gunship is not a problem. It will for sure kill me unexpected at least once during a game, but I will either try to avoid it for the rest of the game or focus it. The problem begins if gunships come in groups, because (much like bombers) gunships have very good synergies to eachother. They can give covering fire to eachother on maximum range, making it impossible to attack one and not getting shot by another. They become exponentially stronger the more they are - to the point that there are deathmatches with 4-5 gunships and it's almost impossible to play anything else than gunship because you cant get in "melee" range without getting kiled as soon as you slow down to kill your target.

It's not impossible to counter that "tactic", but it requires coordination - something that random starfighter groups don't have - while the gunships just need to stay roughly in the same area in range of eachother and hit tab to check if someone comes close.

 

(Same with bombers. A single bomber isn't really dangerous, but they become exceedingly stronger the more there are. It's not impossible to clear a drone/mine-infested satellite but if there are 2 or more bombers it becomes too difficult for most pilots, be it because of the lack of equipment (ionrail or emp and 100% armor pen against turrets, drones and bombers) or experience how to deal with the situation).

 

Oh and I forgot to say that railguns are mostly useless under 5-6 km range, unless you have some idiot charging a gunship head on in a straight line. In under 5 km range, gunship can only pray for luck with BLC (unless it's a type 3 gunship that can use missiles), but again slower turning speed doesn't win a turn fight (assuming equal skill). I've killed plenty of gunships and trust me, they offer enough conuterplay as a single ship.

 

If someone is engaging me because I hit him with a rail he usually is at low hp without shields. It's not that difficult to hit him once or twice to kill him.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Danalon

Noobs will be raging at anything that kills them fast and that includes BLC scouts, SIM bombers and even strikes.

 

I suggest you watch the youtube vid that was linked at the beginning of the thread, because you are completely and utterly missing the point by not just a mile, but like five or ten miles.

 

This argument has nothing to do with whether gunships are overpowered or not. Period. If you think it is your comprehension needs checking.

 

Fact of the matter is that if you start asking people why they quit GSF, the two most common answers I see is

A) gear gap

B) gunships.

 

Now anyone who has achieved success in GSF realizes those are both ludicrous, but whether or not they are true is totally irrelevant, the only relevant fact is that they make people quit, which is bad for the game.

 

I see Zoom_VI complaining of the forums quite a lot, must be a great pilot.

Wat

Bro, I haven't posted here on a regular basis since 2.6. You must be getting confused with all the threads Tritiylyre has been necroing.

 

Also its nice to see people with such lack of names in sig throwing Ad Hominems around like they should be taken seriously.