Galactic Starfighter....suggestions to give it wider appeal, short and long term

[Asbetos]

Limit the amount of allowed gunships in a match to 3. The game is nearly unplayable against premades that stack gunships. Reps on the Progenitor are untouchable at times because of pro gunships.

 

Just call me up when you got problems, 1 of my buddies and I enjoy eating those "pro" gunships.

 

P.S. Imps do it too, as often as the Reps.

 

This is how I would see it. That kind of restriction is not something extraordinary. It was used in other games and it worked fine.

 

Those games were not MMORPG's aka you could switch the server as often as you wanted with absolutely no penalties involved.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Asbetos

[LordArtemis]

Capital ships

If anyone here knows Battlefield 1942 there was a map where both teams had to destroy the enemies Carrier. That would be appropriate for GSF as well.

 

I always use Star Wars Battlefront 2 as an example.

 

If you can pick up a copy, give the game a try. That is exactly what GSF should have been IMO....and I believe it would have been much more popular if it was.

Edited January 7, 2015 by LordArtemis

[Verain]

I always use Star Wars Battlefront 2 as an example.

 

If you can pick up a copy, give the game a try. That is exactly what GSF should have been IMO....and I believe it would have been much more popular if it was.

 

I always use WoW as an example.

 

If you can pick up a copy, give the game a try. That is exactly what SWTOR should have been IMO...and I believe it would have been much more popular if it was.

 

 

 

 

......

 

 

Simply put man, Battlefront is a whole damned game. If your complaint with GSF is that it isn't a whole A grade standalone game in and of itself, well, there was never any chance of pleasing you.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Verain

[LordArtemis]

I always use WoW as an example.

 

If you can pick up a copy, give the game a try. That is exactly what SWTOR should have been IMO...and I believe it would have been much more popular if it was.

 

 

 

 

......

 

 

Simply put man, Battlefront is a whole damned game. If your complaint with GSF is that it isn't a whole A grade standalone game in and of itself, well, there was never any chance of pleasing you.

 

Argumentum ad absurdum.

 

This is a straw man logical fallacy. Your not wrong in saying that Battlefront is a game all by itself, but I am not speaking to the entire game...I am speaking to the space battle element, specifically the space battle elements in that game that are missing from this one.

On foot combat with simple avatars, simple abilities

Capital ship combat

Ability to man turrets, take control points in capital ships or defend them

Attack the capital ships directly

AI controlled fighters involved in the fight

PVE section

Joystick control

Reliance on skill instead of gear/equipment

Twitch movment

 

If you are arguing that this would not give the feature much wider appeal across the playerbase, then so be it. Obviously you and I have rarely agreed on this issue. You are not a big fan of my views naturally, and that is fine.

 

But to extend the argument to hyperbole is unnecessary and silly IMO. You have already clearly and concisely stated your position, and I do not stand to deride or demean that position. I welcome you to restate it if you feel necessary.

But lets keep the conversation in the realm of logic, shall we?

Edited January 7, 2015 by LordArtemis

[LordArtemis]

In addition to the requisition bump that came with 3.0, I'd suggest the following:

 

1) Reduce the costs of buying ships

2) Make all base weapon components unlocked by default

3) Make crew member unlocks legacy based (if you have all companions on 4 classes, you get them all available)

4) Make a new reputation tier tied to gsf. It's too late to feed into KDY rep now, so have a new one. Give Legend tier access to a really sweet mount (like a full size battlescout or something equally outlandish).

5) Sell conversion items that take ship requisition from your total and turns it into a tradeable fleet requisition. This allows people to gear alts and friends' ships, and still fits the current revenue model.

6) Allow people to buy extra versions of ships to try new builds.

 

Quite a few good suggestions there.

 

I would also like to see Hangers become like Strongholds....with all of your ships in physical form, and all of the perks that come with Strongholds.

 

I bet that would help increase the adoption rates among the playerbase.

[Teschmacher]

How to give it a wider appeal;

 

1). Remove GSF entirely from the game. It's a poorly-coded, poorly implemented knockoff (some might even say shameless ripoff) of Star Conflict, a ukranian F2P game on Steam with a playerbase 3,000x larger than that of GSF) with watered-down mechanics, stripped of everything that makes that game GSF plagiarizes popular (namely tiered matchmaking).

 

2). Reverse engineer the source code for any of Totally Games' space sims from the 90s (X-Wing, TIE Fighter, X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter, X-Wing Alliance). Can't be any harder than reverse engineering the source code for a game that was still in beta when you plagiarized it, can it?

 

SWTOR players never asked for a grindy gear-dependent pvp warzone disguised as a 3D space shooter (anymore than they asked for an on-rails Starfox ripoff at launch). They asked for space combat no more sophisticated than what was available 20 years ago. EA didn't listen. Ergo, vis a vis, concordantly, GSF is only played by a few dozen fanbois who consistently drive everyone else away (not with their leet ace combat skills, but with their arrogant, condescending, haughty, snot-nosed attitudes).

 

TL;DR: The only way to give GSF a wider appeal is to ditch it and start over by finding a better space game to copy.

[LordArtemis]

How to give it a wider appeal;

 

1). Remove GSF entirely from the game. It's a poorly-coded, poorly implemented knockoff (some might even say shameless ripoff) of Star Conflict, a ukranian F2P game on Steam with a playerbase 3,000x larger than that of GSF) with watered-down mechanics, stripped of everything that makes that game GSF plagiarizes popular (namely tiered matchmaking).

 

2). Reverse engineer the source code for any of Totally Games' space sims from the 90s (X-Wing, TIE Fighter, X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter, X-Wing Alliance). Can't be any harder than reverse engineering the source code for a game that was still in beta when you plagiarized it, can it?

 

SWTOR players never asked for a grindy gear-dependent pvp warzone disguised as a 3D space shooter (anymore than they asked for an on-rails Starfox ripoff at launch). They asked for space combat no more sophisticated than what was available 20 years ago. EA didn't listen. Ergo, vis a vis, concordantly, GSF is only played by a few dozen fanbois who consistently drive everyone else away (not with their leet ace combat skills, but with their arrogant, condescending, haughty, snot-nosed attitudes).

 

TL;DR: The only way to give GSF a wider appeal is to ditch it and start over by finding a better space game to copy.

 

Ouch. I don't think it is without merit. With some improvements, IMO, it could be a hit.

[Verain]

How to give it a wider appeal;

 

1). Remove GSF entirely from the game.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, Angry 2D PlayeryGuy. Don't get to close to the cage: he's small, but he could draw blood, and we wouldn't want to have to hurt him. A live specimen is pretty valuable, because they are so very, very fragile. Note the vulnerable flank: you can tell he's been hurt in that area many, many, times. Flankhurt? The veterinarians have a term for it.

 

It's a poorly-coded, poorly implemented knockoff (some might even say shameless ripoff)

 

I told you not to antagonize him! He almost lunged at that child. Note the enlarged pupils. If you'll direct your attention to the monitor on the right, you'll see on the color enhanced view that his pulse is literally racing. I'd like to remind you that he's someone's brother, and you have made him mad.

 

SWTOR players never asked for a grindy gear-dependent pvp warzone disguised as a 3D space shooter

 

Careful, the spontaneous prophecy is a documented side effect of his condition. He claims to speak for All Men. This might be caused by a lack of iodine in the diet. This mode is less dangerous than the excited mode he was in mere moments ago, but it is infections, especially if any devs stop by: lack of sleep weakens their immune system, and the false enthusiasm can slip past their natural defenses. If infected, the devs might actually begin to listen to the ravings of this symptom, even take them seriously.

 

Are there any devs in the audience?

 

No? Ok, good. I guess I didn't really need to ask.

 

 

GSF is only played by a few dozen fanbois who consistently drive everyone else away (not with their leet ace combat skills, but with their arrogant, condescending, haughty, snot-nosed attitudes).

 

The injured flank presents itself again. Note the long parenthetical as he rages- far too long for a salient point, but still able to injure any who get too close.

 

 

A sad, sad specimen. I think you gentlemen know what to do if you see it, or its bretheren queued up in the wild.

 

 

 

It's only humane.

[SithAceI]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, Angry 2D PlayeryGuy. Don't get to close to the cage: he's small, but he could draw blood, and we wouldn't want to have to hurt him. A live specimen is pretty valuable, because they are so very, very fragile. Note the vulnerable flank: you can tell he's been hurt in that area many, many, times. Flankhurt? The veterinarians have a term for it.

 

 

 

I told you not to antagonize him! He almost lunged at that child. Note the enlarged pupils. If you'll direct your attention to the monitor on the right, you'll see on the color enhanced view that his pulse is literally racing. I'd like to remind you that he's someone's brother, and you have made him mad.

 

 

 

Careful, the spontaneous prophecy is a documented side effect of his condition. He claims to speak for All Men. This might be caused by a lack of iodine in the diet. This mode is less dangerous than the excited mode he was in mere moments ago, but it is infections, especially if any devs stop by: lack of sleep weakens their immune system, and the false enthusiasm can slip past their natural defenses. If infected, the devs might actually begin to listen to the ravings of this symptom, even take them seriously.

 

Are there any devs in the audience?

 

No? Ok, good. I guess I didn't really need to ask.

 

 

 

 

The injured flank presents itself again. Note the long parenthetical as he rages- far too long for a salient point, but still able to injure any who get too close.

 

 

A sad, sad specimen. I think you gentlemen know what to do if you see it, or its bretheren queued up in the wild.

 

 

 

It's only humane.

 

Just ROFL!

[Teschmacher]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, Angry 2D PlayeryGuy. Don't get to close to the cage: he's small, but he could draw blood, and we wouldn't want to have to hurt him. A live specimen is pretty valuable, because they are so very, very fragile. Note the vulnerable flank: you can tell he's been hurt in that area many, many, times. Flankhurt? The veterinarians have a term for it.

 

 

 

I told you not to antagonize him! He almost lunged at that child. Note the enlarged pupils. If you'll direct your attention to the monitor on the right, you'll see on the color enhanced view that his pulse is literally racing. I'd like to remind you that he's someone's brother, and you have made him mad.

 

 

 

Careful, the spontaneous prophecy is a documented side effect of his condition. He claims to speak for All Men. This might be caused by a lack of iodine in the diet. This mode is less dangerous than the excited mode he was in mere moments ago, but it is infections, especially if any devs stop by: lack of sleep weakens their immune system, and the false enthusiasm can slip past their natural defenses. If infected, the devs might actually begin to listen to the ravings of this symptom, even take them seriously.

 

Are there any devs in the audience?

 

No? Ok, good. I guess I didn't really need to ask.

 

 

 

 

The injured flank presents itself again. Note the long parenthetical as he rages- far too long for a salient point, but still able to injure any who get too close.

 

 

A sad, sad specimen. I think you gentlemen know what to do if you see it, or its bretheren queued up in the wild.

 

 

 

It's only humane.

 

You're only reinforcing my point.

[Verain]

You're only reinforcing my point.

 

I'm reinforcing the point where you don't understand the game, but I doubt that was your intended point.

[Kuciwalker]

Argumentum ad absurdum.

 

This is not a thing.

 

First, "argumentum ad absurdum" would translate roughly as "argument to absurdity", which doesn't really make sense and of which none of the plausible interpretations represent a fallacy.

 

Second, the phrase you are going for is "reductio ad absurdum", which is not a fallacy but rather a proof technique, whereby the user shows the falsehood of his interlocutor's argument by extending that argument to the most extreme possible case and showing that it reaches an absurd result. It is essentially just an extended modus tollens.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Kuciwalker

[LordArtemis]

This is not a thing.

 

First, "argumentum ad absurdum" would translate roughly as "argument to absurdity", which doesn't really make sense and of which none of the plausible interpretations represent a fallacy.

 

Heh.

 

Argumentum ad absurdum means reducing an argument to the absurd. That most definitely makes sense if used in the correct context (in this case it was, as it was a logical fallacy, IE, you are asking for this, so you are asking for this, or the two are the same when they are clearly not). This is not a reduction to absurdity, as it does not present an extreme argument. It presents a negation.

 

There is only one plausible interpretation. The one that defines the statement in common circles...do not reduce an argument to absurd platitudes to make your point.

 

Second, the phrase you are going for is "reductio ad absurdum", which is not a fallacy but rather a proof technique, whereby the user shows the falsehood of his interlocutor's argument by extending that argument to the most extreme possible case and showing that it reaches an absurd result. It is essentially just an extended modus tollens.

 

If I was going for that phrase I would have used that phrase. Again, it is common to use both. I prefer something more pertinent. This is not quite an extreme extension, rather a negation, as you alluded to in your final point.

 

This is not the first time I have had this argument....I actually argued your point to my college professor, and he corrected me as I have now done for you...at least in so far as to clarify the reason for my use of Argumentum as opposed to Reductio.

 

Let me give two examples....

 

I always get shortchanged by the guys are Starbucks.

 

Argumentum ad absurdum - I always complain about things that are not important.

 

Reductio ad absurdum - Do you get shortchanged at Dunkin Donuts? Then you do not get shortchanged at Starbucks.

 

 

By the way, dropping the law of contrapositive, impressive. I suppose the inference justifies the contention...I will give you that. I would be interested in your "extended" angle, however. It is clearly negation, so I am not sure I understand the extent of the law as you have indicated.

Edited January 11, 2015 by LordArtemis

[Verain]

If I was going for that phrase I would have used that phrase. Again, it is common to use both. I prefer something more pertinent.

 

Well, I don't like to flaunt it, but I have a subscription to both The World Wide Google and also Wiki-pedia: A Harmless Encyclopedia Accessible To The Plebian Classes. I used both of these obscure tools to dig up this page:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

 

I know the link won't work if you don't have the subscription, so I'll copy paste (shhh, don't tell!):

 

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

 

 

 

LA, your post up there, right above mine? I'm pretty sure it doesn't really mean anything. Certainly, everyone in the world uses them as the same thing. My guess is, you assumed Kuci was correct, and then wrote a bunch of defensive text to double down, taking his brief mistake and making a whole belief system out of it.

 

 

Now that this has happened, I guess you'll need to rationalize it too, and super double mean it.

 

 

 

 

 

But yea, they are the same thing. Kuci just hadn't seen "argumentum ad absurdem" before (I'm not sure I had either).

 

Here's other things from the first page of google, saying the same thing:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Argumentum+ad+absurdum

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Edited January 11, 2015 by Verain

[AlrikFassbauer]

Well, I don't like to flaunt it, but I have a subscription to both The World Wide Google and also Wiki-pedia: A Harmless Encyclopedia Accessible To The Plebian Classes. I used both of these obscure tools to dig up this page:

 

This is the style of writing I find in books by Terry Pratchett as well.

Remember, I used the term "style", not anything else.

[Costello]

I've been in a couple of games lately where people on my side have got 0 kills, 1 assist or so and many many many deaths and very very low damage. It maybe that they are just incredibly bad and shouldn't be allowed to play GSF cause they are worse than useless. But often when these stats appear the other team has a number of vets in gunships.

 

It appears that they are getting tag teamed one shoted (technically maybe 2 but maybe just one critical), and what can they do they have 2 basic ships a fighter and a scout the moment they get close they get destroyed. So maybe to offer wider appeal and not drive off everyone that has no real chance against a fully upgraded gunship to have dog fighter matches. Only Fighters and Scouts are allowable so they even if you may suck and not have as good a ship as other people its not a case of fly towards gunship get blown up, fly back to the fight get blown up, do anything and get blown up. Instead there could be done dog fighting and then blown up or at least get close enough to shot at the person your fighting before being blown up.

[LordArtemis]

Well, I don't like to flaunt it, but I have a subscription to both The World Wide Google and also Wiki-pedia: A Harmless Encyclopedia Accessible To The Plebian Classes. I used both of these obscure tools to dig up this page:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

 

I know the link won't work if you don't have the subscription, so I'll copy paste (shhh, don't tell!):

 

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

 

 

 

LA, your post up there, right above mine? I'm pretty sure it doesn't really mean anything. Certainly, everyone in the world uses them as the same thing. My guess is, you assumed Kuci was correct, and then wrote a bunch of defensive text to double down, taking his brief mistake and making a whole belief system out of it.

 

 

Now that this has happened, I guess you'll need to rationalize it too, and super double mean it.

 

 

 

 

 

But yea, they are the same thing. Kuci just hadn't seen "argumentum ad absurdem" before (I'm not sure I had either).

 

Here's other things from the first page of google, saying the same thing:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Argumentum+ad+absurdum

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

 

I mentioned it was common to use both. They are usually interchangeable, but one is more often used than the other, and both have focused meanings.

 

I thought both meant the same thing as well until I was corrected on it. But he could be right, you could be right...it is hard to say it seems.

 

At any rate, it is undeniable that the introduction of the denial of the conclusion into a valid argument produces a contradiction and establishes the conclusion, which is the core basis of both contentions.

 

I suppose we can only go by what we have been taught. Not all teachers are perfect naturally.

 

That was a GREAT post BTW. Good form.

 

I digress...

Edited January 12, 2015 by LordArtemis

[Verain]

I mentioned it was common to use both. They are usually interchangeable, but one is more often used than the other, and both have focused meanings.

 

Your earlier reply was way better ("Shenanigans!").

 

The point is that they ARE interchangeable. Not usually, but in all circumstances. They are two Latin phrases used to refer to the same exact thing. That's why all the dictionaries redirect one to the other, as does the wikipedia article. If they meant different things, the nuance would be spelled out in multiple places.

 

Hey, here's a fun experiment: why not add some section about the nuanced difference as you understand it to the wikipedia article. 9/10 times it will get reverted by someone who knows what they are talking about, but if just one media source (all of whom apparently use wikipedia as gospel) grabs it, then, BANG, your misunderstanding can show up everywhere!

 

Remake the language in your image! It will be less harmful (and a whole lot more likely to stick) than forgetting that Artemis has been a goddess for millenia...

[LordArtemis]

Your earlier reply was way better ("Shenanigans!").

 

The point is that they ARE interchangeable. Not usually, but in all circumstances. They are two Latin phrases used to refer to the same exact thing. That's why all the dictionaries redirect one to the other, as does the wikipedia article. If they meant different things, the nuance would be spelled out in multiple places.

 

Hey, here's a fun experiment: why not add some section about the nuanced difference as you understand it to the wikipedia article. 9/10 times it will get reverted by someone who knows what they are talking about, but if just one media source (all of whom apparently use wikipedia as gospel) grabs it, then, BANG, your misunderstanding can show up everywhere!

 

Remake the language in your image! It will be less harmful (and a whole lot more likely to stick) than forgetting that Artemis has been a goddess for millenia...

 

Hmm. Your running out of material there Le Champ St. Verain. Your usually on spot.

 

They obviously DO NOT mean the same thing. One references Argumentum, the other Reductio. Any contention to the contrary is ludicrous. They are USED to reference the same error in logic, or to be more clear for you REFER to the same error in logic, and are interchangeable because they speak to the same kind of logical fallacy, which I have said MORE THAN ONCE. But they do not mean the same thing....

 

THAT is why the link to the same description. They are applied to the same logical fallacy. I am unsure as to why you seem to be struggling with this simple truth.

 

I chose to use the more literal form for your specific logical fallacy. My point was my comment was appropriate, and in that statement I am correct.

 

I have to admit, I do so enjoy watching you iceskate uphill however.

 

At any rate Verain, I do enjoy our chats and the free bumps you provide, of course...that is when you are not falling short of the mark with a post like this.

 

Come on...your post before this one was almost perfect.....I really liked it. You have a particular talent for snark, which I can appreciate, but then you disappoint me with this drivel....

 

You can do better. I EXPECT you to do better. Keep up.

Edited January 11, 2015 by LordArtemis

[SammyGStatus]

How to give GSF a wider appeal? No Latin on the forums X.X

 

I could also see a pre-match notification saying "Hey, thus dude will wreck you if you don't coordinate your attacks against him." Hit man mentality, but the opposition just is THAT bad sometimes, even post 2.5 when a GS could rock an entire team of 8 no problem

Edited January 11, 2015 by SammyGStatus

[LordArtemis]

How to give GSF a wider appeal? No Latin on the forums X.X

 

I could also see a pre-match notification saying "Hey, thus dude will wreck you if you don't coordinate your attacks against him." Hit man mentality, but the opposition just is THAT bad sometimes, even post 2.5 when a GS could rock an entire team of 8 no problem

 

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

 

There is no doubt that any amount of changes or adjustments will not change the fact that some players are just that good, and some ship types excel at certain types of tactics. Still, I feel some adjustments and changes do have merit, and could help to increase the appeal of the feature overall.

[JadenYugari]

I've been in a couple of games lately where people on my side have got 0 kills, 1 assist or so and many many many deaths and very very low damage. It maybe that they are just incredibly bad and shouldn't be allowed to play GSF cause they are worse than useless. But often when these stats appear the other team has a number of vets in gunships.

 

It appears that they are getting tag teamed one shoted (technically maybe 2 but maybe just one critical), and what can they do they have 2 basic ships a fighter and a scout the moment they get close they get destroyed. So maybe to offer wider appeal and not drive off everyone that has no real chance against a fully upgraded gunship to have dog fighter matches. Only Fighters and Scouts are allowable so they even if you may suck and not have as good a ship as other people its not a case of fly towards gunship get blown up, fly back to the fight get blown up, do anything and get blown up. Instead there could be done dog fighting and then blown up or at least get close enough to shot at the person your fighting before being blown up.

The "dogfight matches" sound really nice., Id definitely play it.

But Im afraid that this would probably kill the regular queue. Most of newbie pilots basicaly expect a lot of action but when they play their first matches they are hit in the face with the need to think heavily about tactics, as in "where to position themselves", "what ship class to pick against the class enemy picked and how to counter my own counter", "what components are good against certain classes" etc etc. Newbie pilot doesnt want to think about chaging ship classes on the go, they dont want to watch what the enemy picked, then choose the appropriate ship and adapt the tactics, they dont want to compare two positions on the map and think which one of them is better. They just want to grab their ship and go enjoy some action, kill some enemies and maybe cap a satelite or two.

If you implement a mode where gunships and bombers are banned, it would kill the regular queue since it would offer matches with less "boring stuff" and more fun and action for newbies.

 

But my personal opinion is.....go for it. Id rather play this mode than the gunship/bomber campwars I get 80% of time I queue for GSF.

[arkanone]

Star Citizen's closing in on $70 million in funding and while Bioware's capable of opening up the space combat gameplay beyond PVP arenas, we're still stuck with Galactic Gunship.

[Verain]

Dude, no one knows what the Star Cit guys are even MAKING yet. Yea, it could be amazing. But maybe it's a game where you have to buy a three hundred dollar ship to play in a space arena, and if you REALLY want the good ship for your space pvp, you need to first create a farm mule to run cargo.

 

Again, it could be the best game ever, but we really don't know a lot of what the intent is.

[LordArtemis]

Dude, no one knows what the Star Cit guys are even MAKING yet. Yea, it could be amazing. But maybe it's a game where you have to buy a three hundred dollar ship to play in a space arena, and if you REALLY want the good ship for your space pvp, you need to first create a farm mule to run cargo.

 

Again, it could be the best game ever, but we really don't know a lot of what the intent is.

 

I hate to say this, but I have to agree with my esteemed colleague Verain here. At this point it is still anyone's guess, it could be the best thing since sliced bread, or fall short of the mark.

 

it is just too early to judge it's merits IMO.