Galaxy gunships and drop pods as well as other side grades. - Page 4

Pyreal · 2012-05-12, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by moosepoop

make it cost A LOT. problem solved.

The game would be funner if it cost less but was also less powerful then previous versions.

I think the whole idea is rather cool simply for the fact that for the GG to shine you need TEAMWORK. A vehicle that can be manned by a TEAM opens up a lot of TEAMWORK possibilities, and that is always a good thing.

Hmr85 · 2012-05-12, 09:50 AM

I'm fine with the GG making another appearance in PS2. Its all gonna come down to how they balance it out. I'll reserve my judgment till beta to see how it goes before I start screaming from the rafters about it being op.

Trolltaxi · 2012-05-12, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

They don't require more men to operate. To assert that is tunnelvision.

They can take off just as easily with two people in it as with 6. The endurance is the same, the only difference is the amount of firepower you wield.

Note though that the new Galaxy can have an AA gun (perhaps even Flak) ON TOP. I'm not sure if the people saying Reavers/Mosquitos/Scythes will kill these with ease realise just how powerful that is.

No matter how hard you try to prove that a GG can be effectively used with only 2 people in it, it is still not true. (Let doubleboxing and other magic stuff left at what it is - a unique rarity, not something that affect anything in the whole picture.)

A PS1 GG required 4 men to operate at it's full potential. That's when 1 side is filled + the rear gun. They were vulnerable to enemy air and AA, and as they were large as a cloud and slow as a sloth so you could even hit it with whatever you wanted. It was a bullet magnet so while it was intended to be powerful it was usually forced to flee after the first pass. Then it took ages to repair.

We don't know much about PS2 GG-s, but the loadout will be the same - probably. A weaponless pilot, a 'mortar', a heavy chaingun on both sides and the tailgun probably moves to the top. That means a 4 seater where 2 gunners attack, 1 gunner defends, and 1 pilot. Or 4 gunners attacking but 2 of them will usually face the off side and will be bored to hell. Considering the resource cost, the skill cost and the vulnerability it already has some major flaws.

The top gun - even if it is a flak - will probably have a huge blindspot behind and under the GG. The chainguns and mortars will face forward (and downward) so the gunship without friendly air will have a pretty short lifespan. If a group manages to provide air cover they will own. You know that this is a feature in PS, not a bug!

But back to the point. The galgunship has no real ways to defend itself from enemy air.

About the skill: at a point the galpilot will probably have to decide wheter he goes for the standard gal features or the GG setup. After some hundreds(?) of hours played they may be able to max out both but untill then, respawn and logistics of the troops will suffer. It is fun to play AC-130 but if a whole empire goes that way, they will be much slower with the respawn and troop transport. And a 10% longer respawn timer is like a 10% pop disadvntage when the grinder starts.

It will cost a lot. We don't know how it really will affect gameplay, but we are told that it will dramatically, so we can expect that this will also work against mass use of GGs.

I see that you feel GGs are the gamebreaker and they will never be balanced. As I see there are ways to counter them, they have never been an "I win button" for anyone, and they will require the coordination of a larger group to operate effectively. I think they will be a great addition to the game and if they really become overused and PS2 turns out to be the battle of AC-130s, SOE can still mess a bit with the numbers to (not nerfing, but raising the costs for example) so the number of GGs will be normal.

ringring · 2012-05-12, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Khrusky

One thing I don't understand is what the Liberator is supposed to be. What we've heard so far is that it was some kind of flying artillery unit, but surely the Galaxy Gunship has usurped that role. Is the Liberator the new Reaver now?

No, the is mossie/reaver/scythe A2G variant.

It sounds like the new Lib is a mini GG

Baneblade · 2012-05-12, 12:19 PM

So what does this mean for the Liberator?

Sabot · 2012-05-12, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

So what does this mean for the Liberator?

The liberator as we know it from PS1 is gone... no more bombing ala bomb planes from WW2. The Liberator in PS2 is sort of like a GG.. don't tihnk it's as big, and iirc, they are testing it as a 3 or 4 seater... pilot with a big chaingun, I believe it was... gunner to the side (I don't know if they will have 2 gunners there... on for each side, or if there's just one and the guns can be swung around or something). And a tail gunner.

IMMentat · 2012-05-12, 01:11 PM

Don't worry to much about figment, he's the resident fatalist.
See's imbalance and potential for exploits everywhere, not without good cause sometimes but a bit over-tenacious in his pursuit of hard facts (the most easily abused grade of information abailable).

I'm glad of the gal side-grades, it could mean a lot for potential modification of other vehicles.

In terms of the GG, I forsee less threat than figment does.
Air in PS2 will probably need to skirmish, ambush or outrange most targets, with the lightning being the new primary AA platform and being 1 crew a lot more mobile AA will be available to the average player.
The skyguard was a fearsome vehicle but it was lightly armoured and outside of outfits there could sometimes be a problem finding a willing driver/gunner.
I see the GG being the mid-long range artillery of PS2, great for pounding targets from a safe distance, but slow, valuable (XP based advancement remember) and vunerable at closer ranges.
On top of this I still see some form of dropship center grade of air terminal being needed to spawn one, some roaming AA wilfpack will probably have them bookmarked as potential victim sources making GG's less common and a highly tempting target. This is before considering cert requirements to spawn one.

As for 2boxing, yes it happened and yes it probably will continue to happen, but only a fraction of the total playerbase will ever have the resources and willingness to do this in an FPS game and the main reason they did it in PS1 ws due to many vehicles having little/nothing to do as the driver, especially if you were driving around a random (rather eat my own boomer and get emp'd) and not on voicecomms. I don't see PS2 having this particular problem.
A common NC-TR tactic was to park up in range of a base/tower door and spam the main cannon till the xp stopped, Smurfs/NC had a splash damage instakill on the vanguard, Elmo/TR had direct hit instakill on the prowler and faster firing speed, Barney/Vanu had an AV gun strapped to their tank so usually just ran a max over to the tower and walked into a hacked roof door.

To my knowledge PS2 will let anyone drive any basic variant of a vehicle (not once to i recall a dev saying a cert would be needed to drive any specific vehicle, or that anything would be unavailable initially), so if the AA option for the lightning is low enough on the cert-tree (cant think of a single reason it wouldn't be) then a lot of people will be able to adapt quickly to a change in the battlefield needs.

Figment · 2012-05-12, 07:08 PM

Resident fatalist?

Try only person stress testing while the majority of players here just puts up pink goggles, the irony is pink goggles make you do nothing. :/

See, the stats I put up last page are true by definition, you can substitute any values and it will always be true. Dualboxing will mean you have 8 characters gathering resources for four. The Galaxy itself won't cost that much since they will be the only spawnpoint. The question is how much the sidegrading will cost on a regular basis, the firepower and how fast the resources are earned. Beyond that, they will be powerful enough to be intersting for exploiters and there will be more dualboxers due to f2p.

Most players in ps1 not just lacked the equipment (which more people have now), money (account cost, saw more dual boxers during fodder program), but most of all the imagination to dualbox. I very much wonder how many here even think of it as a use-scenario. Well, I do... Hence I see issues sooner and also why I say I think further ahead and further out of the box in use. I'd think of the worst things you could do with something, because if I can think of it, someone else can as well. Ask people about how I play PS. I'm not 'standard issue'. Thing is, once someone does it, others will copy if it is effective and known.

That is why I often say "I thought it through further"... I just... do... :/ and someone has to run wild, out of the box theories, because plain thinking is not going to find exploits. The GG is a pretty easy to exploit unit because it has so much potential for it: hitpoints, firepower and vantage point.

Another question you should ask yourself, is: hoe many of my 1332 enemies on the continent can afford a Galaxy Gunship - and have the intention to pull one. And if they are powerful, how many outfits will use large groups of them? And will you be able to deal with not just one, but large groups of GGs? BFRs were no problem alone. Not even when they were OP. GGs became real problems when they grouped up.

One VS outfit with three GGs lasted quite, QUITE long in full base combat: first to die: AA. After that, getting enough AA up is impossible, especially if then the more refined Aircav makes use of the opportunity. Once they pin you inside, you cannot get out anymore as you cannot bring AA out that suffices. That is not good game design.

Don't know about you, but I don't want tank and base combat to once again be dominated from above by very heavy aircraft constantly. Fast and hard firing solo Aircav will do that plenty.

Raka Maru · 2012-05-12, 07:10 PM

I'm not too worried about the GG's being OP'd. They were a force to be reconnect with in PS1 when fully manned, as they should be. The key was, they were a team and deserved the power. A team of AA foot or GV's could be just as deadly.

Seeing that my main ride (the AMS) will not be showing up, my main ride is now this big flying fortress. I'm wondering how to adapt this to stealth squads in beta. Cannot make judgement until I play it however. Was there a confirmed stealth or cloak option? That may ease my AMS withdrawals.

velleity · 2012-05-12, 08:29 PM

Galaxy Gunships are far too good on defense in PS1, especially around Drop Ships. Also, GGs basically ruined armor fights everywhere else. If this happens in PS2, it's a problem.

I have no morals or qualms about using one, but the fact stands that they helped kill a dying game, along with the mechs.

Skimming this thread, I see a lot of players talk like there is going to be some effective empire high command who will say "do this" and players will. That won't happen. Players will do what they want, which is farming kills.

Raka Maru · 2012-05-12, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by velleity

Galaxy Gunships are far too good on defense in PS1, especially around Drop Ships. Also, GGs basically ruined armor fights everywhere else. If this happens in PS2, it's a problem.

I have no morals or qualms about using one, but the fact stands that they helped kill a dying game, along with the mechs.

Skimming this thread, I see a lot of players talk like there is going to be some effective empire high command who will say "do this" and players will. That won't happen. Players will do what they want, which is farming kills.

If they want the rewards for the mission that the new system will provide, then they will follow orders. Otherwise it is just xp from kills/captures which will be normal but not as significant. I understand the Zerg, if the mission system lives up to its promises, the incentive for doing YOUR missions as a commander can reign in the zerglings to do your will.

Timealude · 2012-05-12, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by velleity

Galaxy Gunships are far too good on defense in PS1, especially around Drop Ships. Also, GGs basically ruined armor fights everywhere else. If this happens in PS2, it's a problem.

I have no morals or qualms about using one, but the fact stands that they helped kill a dying game, along with the mechs.

Skimming this thread, I see a lot of players talk like there is going to be some effective empire high command who will say "do this" and players will. That won't happen. Players will do what they want, which is farming kills.

Have you played planetside? If you have you should know that doing what you want will get you owned over and over again. the only way to win in planetside is to follow orders and work together.

velleity · 2012-05-12, 09:20 PM

Doing what my outfit(s) leaders wanted was immensely effective for my time in game and pleasure. We generally fought outnumbered and won.

Cow herding an empire as continental commander is another story.

Eyeklops · 2012-05-12, 09:50 PM

Galaxy Gunship is coming back? COOL! I hope they have "spare" non-gunner seats so an engineer can ride along to repair in-flight like in BF3. That will help them stay out in the field longer raping tanks and infantry.

Stardouser · 2012-05-12, 09:52 PM

No, just no to in-flight repair. THAT is like having vehicle regen, no vulnerability as you stop to repair. At the very least it must be extremely weak. Battlefield lets helicopters act like flying tanks.