Galaxy Gunship: Done Right - Page 2

Bags · 2011-02-16, 05:01 PM

The last thing I ever want to hear in PSN is the deathly rain of a Galaxy gunship in its current form.

Peacemaker · 2011-02-16, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

The only problem I have with all the guns being on 1 side is, it would be totally defenseless on the other side. It's bad enough that I can just sit above the gunship without worrying about return fire. Having no guns on 1 side would make it a death trap.

You obviously have not gone up against a good crew. Theres no way to get near them if the pilot and gunners are idiots. Especially in the air. These things should be defenseless unless supported by friendlies. Unless of course they are pointing the correct side at the threat... in that case.... swiss cheese.

Honestly a lodestar would make a better option for a gunship.

Sirisian · 2011-02-16, 10:57 PM

Like I said before if they do add a gunship the guns should be in capsules capable of moving from one side of the ship to the other through the center. The ship would be large and 3 machine gun capsules would move from the left to the right of the ship with one capsule that moved up and down vertically from the top to the bottom of the ship with flak. That is a 5 person gunship.

Aractain · 2011-02-17, 02:07 AM

My problem with the GG was lack of gameplay.

Air cav had little gameplay unless the GG pilot was pretty good so Id rather see a gun on the back so that 1-2 aircraft had to watch out for that damage rather be blown out of the sky with the main cannons. Since thats its only air defense it would be vulnerable to air. Also rewards air cover.

Like some one suggested make the guns less wide angled and have a more defined role. The skill of the pilot would be putting himself at a range and perpendicular angle to the target that allows his gunners free rain (it also encourages and rewards communication).

Infantry should not be dieing to this thing, if they are the pilot is too close. Therefore they should also not be hitting it. Infantry should stay out of this one unless they are not in cover and the GG has run out of real targets I guess.

Vehicles would be the main target sending them running for cover. Focused fire from all three guns would bring one down quickly (like 5-10 seconds).

The skyguard is simply fodder for the current GG (unless you know exactly where it is BEFORE you meet it lol). It would be scared of and thus prioritize something like this:

Oh holy AA, we prayeth at thy alter. May though prtoecteth our skys and save us from the unholy damnation of the vanu probes.

Its my personal opinion that gameplay is fun.

Gameplay happens when you act or react to the enemy. If your dead before you can react, there is no gameplay. If your only option is to run away, there is no gameplay. If you need to avoid damage, prioritise targets, worry about something while doing something else. Thats all A or B quality gameplay. The stuff you want in your games.

Effective · 2011-03-12, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

I agree, remove them entirely.

This

Traak · 2011-03-12, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Lartnev

reward outfits

Lost me there.

Lonehunter · 2011-03-14, 11:11 PM

I really love flying a Gunship. I've only been playing a couple weeks, and gone for years before that so no idea what the impact has been like. I really haven't seen a problem with them, in a big battle they're usually focus fired pretty hard.

If the Gunship is tossed I really really want some kind of huge assault aircraft. I love the huge vechs with multiple gunners idea.

Peacemaker · 2011-03-14, 11:30 PM

I do too but they are too powerful in the smaller fights. Put all the guns on one side with a smaller firing arc. Simple fix to a simple problem. I really like the idea, but two problems always arise when they are used.

1. They can cover everywhere but forward in a rain of death
2. When they are actually being used they take a ton of damage and the gunner cant even see what hes aiming at.

I think putting ALL the guns on one side would make them easier to engage, and also give a boost to the amount of hurt they can lay down in a swath.

Tiberius · 2011-03-15, 06:26 PM

Another ground pounder on would be nice. There's always too many targets lol.

PS Next is gonna be such a clusterfuck I don't think they'll be as effective as they are now, with low pops AA is the first thing to go.

Lonehunter · 2011-03-15, 07:57 PM

Speaking as a Gunship pilot I really think all the guns on one side would make it OP lol (at least without any changes to the guns). One of the biggest hassles is engaging targets so both sides can get a shot. Or to alternate back and forth. Sure if it's a big field of infantry and light vechs it doesn't matter I could plow into the middle. But with most fights that have AA, air, and heavy vechs, getting close enough for both sides to accurately hit targets is suicide

Point being, if all the firepower was on one side it would only encourage me to hit from max range and circle like an AC130. With 2 sides manned it encourages me to get further into the fight, get on top of them or weave between targets.

Tiberius · 2011-03-19, 08:04 PM

I'm for having all the guns on one side, whenever I fly one the gunners on the side I'm not using just jump out anyway.

And when mossies and reavers attack you have to turn the side gunners at them because the tailgun can't hit targets above you.

acosmo · 2012-01-08, 04:11 PM

i dunno bout you guys but this actually looks/sounds very fun

EASyEightyEight · 2012-01-08, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Tikuto

It is most definately inspired by a huge forum topic that I and maybe Hamma witnessed, and many other elders. This forum discussion was increasibly old before old - it was an inspirational discussion of ancients. Gunships were a community idea that got alot of attention. All conceptual. Some months or year(s) later the Galaxy Gunship was created and it was damned lame shit.

Coincidentally, the BFR's were introduced the exact same way.

I guess the moral of the story is: don't let the community come up with any good ideas. The developers will make them into really bad realities.

Well, at least that's how it was 8 years ago

The PS2 team seems to have their heads on right.

xSlideShow · 2012-01-08, 05:11 PM

No need for Gal gunship it would replace my liberator.

CuddlyChud · 2012-01-08, 06:11 PM

I think that both the Dev team and the Planetside community should stay away from "super weapon" vehicles. Things like artillery, gal gunships, super tanks, outfit capital ships, whatever. I don't think the devs messed up because they were bad devs. I think these kinds of weapons are inherently difficult to balance. They sound really cool in theory, but in practice they're simply very frustrating. The devs need to make sure that everyone has access to them, so that everyone can get a chance to experience the content, which means they can't be limited in a way that only a few people can use. However, this means that they're constantly over-powered or under-powered, since their balanced around the unquantifiable (sp?) factor of teamwork instead. A lot of people want these long cool-down or resource intensive vehicles, but limiting content to a small percentage of the player base is the last thing the devs should want.