Gatekeepers

Capt.Bly
Capt.Bly
Force to be Reckoned With
Joined Sep 2014 Posts: 1,642
If the Warhounds have a thermal range of 75, how are they firing at my gatekeepers soon as they get into firing range? I know they are because, when I'm attacking a base with Gatekeepers in it, I'm able to do the same. Th firing range on the warhounds is 98, I'm able to fire on submerged gatekeepers from that 98 range, something is definitely awry.
players first my ****
  • Jason Ensinger
    Jason Ensinger
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Sep 2012 Posts: 4,094
    My guess is that Thermal Imaging range is also sonar range and cloak efficiency, or lack thereof, increases sonar range further. I've noticed GKs tend to become visible and targetable at more like 90 range than the full 98, but definitely seems higher than 75.
  • Broke Bloke
    Broke Bloke
    Potential Threat
    Joined Feb 2020 Posts: 59
    Before the update, people were adding sonar to their warhounds so I added stealth to my gatekeeper build. That is called strategy. A concept long lost to the game makers...

    Sonar/stealth do not, in any way effect thermal. Thermal sees everything in its range. That's it, it cannot be buffed with any sonar (unless the sonar independently out ranges the thermal). Likewise, stealth only effects sonar. Lack of stealth does not improve thermal capabilities. 

    If the warhounds are shooting from more than the 3 tiles (75 thermal) range, then something is definitely broke undocumented. 

    Example, my gatekeeper has 65% stealth. With that much stealth, there is no way for warhounds to increase sonar to the point where sonar is more effective than the new thermal. 

    I want to know what kix has to say about this.
  • Capt.Bly
    Capt.Bly
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Sep 2014 Posts: 1,642
    Am I the only person that has noticed that Warhounds can fire on Gatekeepers from full range of their weapons? 

    players first my ****
  • Ser_Gregor_Clegane
    Ser_Gregor_Clegane
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Nov 2015 Posts: 3,301
    My guess is that Thermal Imaging range is also sonar range and cloak efficiency, or lack thereof, increases sonar range further. I've noticed GKs tend to become visible and targetable at more like 90 range than the full 98, but definitely seems higher than 75.
    Thermal & sonar are 2 different things, neither improves the other.

    Sonar, you can extend your range with specials, but it can be countered with cloak efficiency improvements. 

    Thermal, no range extensions possible, but no counter to it. Instant detection at the advertised range.

    They do not work hand-in-hand generally. Unless the hull itself doesn't have 'true re-targeting' for missiles, in which case you might use Sonic Targeting to provide that (which would be better to use another special that offers that capability, seeing as sonar is next to useless)

    As to the actual, vs advertised range of the Warhound.. I'll just wait & see..
    I specialize in wife removal, crushing heads & just violence in general.
    I fear nothing, your pixels are nothing compared to my physical might (8'0", 420lb)
  • Capt.Bly
    Capt.Bly
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Sep 2014 Posts: 1,642
    My guess is that Thermal Imaging range is also sonar range and cloak efficiency, or lack thereof, increases sonar range further. I've noticed GKs tend to become visible and targetable at more like 90 range than the full 98, but definitely seems higher than 75.
    Thermal & sonar are 2 different things, neither improves the other.

    Sonar, you can extend your range with specials, but it can be countered with cloak efficiency improvements. 

    Thermal, no range extensions possible, but no counter to it. Instant detection at the advertised range.

    They do not work hand-in-hand generally. Unless the hull itself doesn't have 'true re-targeting' for missiles, in which case you might use Sonic Targeting to provide that (which would be better to use another special that offers that capability, seeing as sonar is next to useless)

    As to the actual, vs advertised range of the Warhound.. I'll just wait & see..
    Warhounds have a thermal range of 75 and I have 85% cloaking on my gatekeepers, which I know has no effect on the thermal, however my subs are being shot from the 98 range of the warhounds. This was my whole point on this post.
    players first my ****
  • Ser_Gregor_Clegane
    Ser_Gregor_Clegane
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Nov 2015 Posts: 3,301
    Capt.Bly said:
    My guess is that Thermal Imaging range is also sonar range and cloak efficiency, or lack thereof, increases sonar range further. I've noticed GKs tend to become visible and targetable at more like 90 range than the full 98, but definitely seems higher than 75.
    Thermal & sonar are 2 different things, neither improves the other.

    Sonar, you can extend your range with specials, but it can be countered with cloak efficiency improvements. 

    Thermal, no range extensions possible, but no counter to it. Instant detection at the advertised range.

    They do not work hand-in-hand generally. Unless the hull itself doesn't have 'true re-targeting' for missiles, in which case you might use Sonic Targeting to provide that (which would be better to use another special that offers that capability, seeing as sonar is next to useless)

    As to the actual, vs advertised range of the Warhound.. I'll just wait & see..
    Warhounds have a thermal range of 75 and I have 85% cloaking on my gatekeepers, which I know has no effect on the thermal, however my subs are being shot from the 98 range of the warhounds. This was my whole point on this post.
    & I was clarifying something for someone


    If you have issues with the game, you should go to Replay, find the issue in your base hit, take a screenshot showing the specific issue, then submit a ticket.
    I specialize in wife removal, crushing heads & just violence in general.
    I fear nothing, your pixels are nothing compared to my physical might (8'0", 420lb)
  • highlander1
    highlander1
    Greenhorn
    Joined May 2012 Posts: 20
    I don't have much problem with the changes Kixeye made overall but I do have a problem with the debuff of GK'ers, a hull that only just came out. This is the problem with their strategy, they create a decent weapon or ship and then because some people whine, they debuff it, not cool. They could have made all the other changes and just left the GK'ers as they were. They do this one step too far way too often and then wonder why they are losing players... not smart business practices is why you are losing players!
  • Jason Ensinger
    Jason Ensinger
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Sep 2012 Posts: 4,094
    Capt.Bly said:
    My guess is that Thermal Imaging range is also sonar range and cloak efficiency, or lack thereof, increases sonar range further. I've noticed GKs tend to become visible and targetable at more like 90 range than the full 98, but definitely seems higher than 75.
    Thermal & sonar are 2 different things, neither improves the other.

    Sonar, you can extend your range with specials, but it can be countered with cloak efficiency improvements. 

    Thermal, no range extensions possible, but no counter to it. Instant detection at the advertised range.

    They do not work hand-in-hand generally. Unless the hull itself doesn't have 'true re-targeting' for missiles, in which case you might use Sonic Targeting to provide that (which would be better to use another special that offers that capability, seeing as sonar is next to useless)

    As to the actual, vs advertised range of the Warhound.. I'll just wait & see..
    Warhounds have a thermal range of 75 and I have 85% cloaking on my gatekeepers, which I know has no effect on the thermal, however my subs are being shot from the 98 range of the warhounds. This was my whole point on this post.
    Just to make sure; you do realize that a sub only needs to be in sonar/thermal range of one hull to be visible and targetable by all hulls, right? I've hit a lot of bases the last couple of days and have not seen visibility at 98 range, though admittedly it does seem a bit higher than 75, maybe even closer to 90. Is it possible and convenient for you to record and post the behavior you describe?
  • KODIAK BEAR
    KODIAK BEAR
    Incursion Leader
    Joined May 2012 Posts: 1,423
    I don't have much problem with the changes Kixeye made overall but I do have a problem with the debuff of GK'ers, a hull that only just came out. This is the problem with their strategy, they create a decent weapon or ship and then because some people whine, they debuff it, not cool. They could have made all the other changes and just left the GK'ers as they were. They do this one step too far way too often and then wonder why they are losing players... not smart business practices is why you are losing players!
    ^ this

     
    Remember Kixeye, PLAYERS FIRST!
  • Jason Ensinger
    Jason Ensinger
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Sep 2012 Posts: 4,094
    I don't have much problem with the changes Kixeye made overall but I do have a problem with the debuff of GK'ers, a hull that only just came out. This is the problem with their strategy, they create a decent weapon or ship and then because some people whine, they debuff it, not cool. They could have made all the other changes and just left the GK'ers as they were. They do this one step too far way too often and then wonder why they are losing players... not smart business practices is why you are losing players!
    ^ this

     
    Naw, all the nerfs with this update were equally BS, lol. My first impression of RoE changes isn't great, but I absolutely loathe the malicious nerfs that came with it.
  • MillionDlrBil
    MillionDlrBil
    Moderator
    Joined Apr 2013 Posts: 296
    If you look close here you'll see that the built in rockets and thermal range are the same at 75 (which is just shy of 4 land tiles for reference).
    The Thermal range is correct at 75 and working as intended. 

  • MillionDlrBil
    MillionDlrBil
    Moderator
    Joined Apr 2013 Posts: 296
    Closing, tested and answered and going off topic. 
This discussion has been closed.