Current capture mechanic heavily favors using Burst Laser Cannons

[Nemarus]

More and more, I'm seeing pilots choose to fly Flashfires or Quarrels (or their Imperial equivalents) because they can use Burst Laser Cannons.

 

Now I want to say this upfront--I do not think there is anything wrong with Burst Laser Cannons. They offer a different playstyle, and considered in a vacuum, I think they are properly balanced against other weapon types.

 

But given the current capture mechanic in Domination, I am starting to observe that using BLC's offers a significantly increased ability to win matches. This is due (in my mind) to the combination of several things:

 

1) Orbiters: Capturing a contested satellite almost always requires clearing out other fighters who are closely orbiting the satellite, even while at least one person on your team closely orbits the satellite as well. Even if attackers outnumber a defender 5:1, if the defender is a crafty pilot with decent defensive upgrades, he can circle the satellite for a very, very long time, weaving above and below. I've seen others do it, and I do it quite well myself.

 

2) Line of Sight Limitations: It is very hard to kill a close-orbiting defender with many primary weapon types, because they have a narrow firing arc, high tracking penalty, and require sustained line of sight to deliver consistent damage. Secondary weapons, even Cluster Missiles, have an even harder time, because getting even 1.3 seconds of LOS is difficult given the satellite's structure.

 

3) Short Capture Range: If you move even a little bit away from the satellite (even vertically) to try and get more consistent LOS, you will be out of capture range and potentially cede control of the satellite. Thus you are bound to stay very, very close to the satellite so long as it does not have a turret.

 

4) Burst Laser Cannons have a wide firing arc, very small tracking penalty, and by design deliver their damage in bursts, rather than in a sustained stream like other primary weapons. That means that you only need a split second of LOS in order to hit someone with a single shot that does significant damage (especially at close range). While it is rarely enough to kill, two or three such hits can (delivered in two or three separate, brief windows of LOS). Doing the same amount of damage with another primary weapon would take a much longer window of sustained LOS that just doesn't occur in satellite orbiting contests.

 

Again, I am not arguing that BLC's are overpowered or need a nerf. In long range combat, they are definitely outclassed by other primary weapons. One can certainly rack up huge damage and kill numbers using Quad Laser Cannons or Heavy Laser Cannons, taking out enemies as they come in from spawn or try to make their way to a node. But that situation only really happens if your team is already dominating with two turreted nodes.

 

However, in a closely contested match of Domination, the winner is determined far more by who wins the satellite-orbiting duels than who wins the longer range fights in open space. If your team is behind or under pressure, then you absolutely must have one or more defenders closely orbiting a satellite, even as you send your own attackers to try and liberate one of the satellites belonging to the enemy team. And those satellite orbiters, whether on defense or offense, will be far more effective at maintaining/capturing control if they have Burst Laser Cannons to deal with other orbiters.

 

This requirement feels a little onerous to me, since BLC's are only available on 2 out of the 5 ships in-game right now. And one of those is the Gunship, whose railgun allows it battlefield influence/power at long range as well. With my BLC-toting Gunship, I can have my cake and eat it too--I kill turrets with my railgun, Barrel Roll into position under the satellite, and use my BLC's to remove any defenders. Then I use my railgun to intercept/soften any incoming

 

So in the end, what am I saying? Am I calling to a nerf to BLC's or to change which ships they are available on? Absolutely not.

 

Instead, I think the issue could be solved more gracefully and universally by tweaking the capture zone on satellites. Make it a donut/cylinder shape, around the *outside* of the satellite. Ships can still fly close to the satellite to get cover and regen shields, but they should not be in a capture/defend position while doing so. To capture/defend a satellite, you should have to be in a more exposed position--still relatively close to the satellite, but not "amongst" it (i.e. not inside the diameter of the solar fins).

 

That way, craft using any kind of primary weapon, not just BLC's, could have a legitimate chance at clearing away defenders/capturers. And BLC's would still be useful for clearing out foes hiding amidst the satellite (even if they are not capping at that instant) or simply as a gameplay alternative for those who prefer close-up shotgun style play.

[Kuciwalker]

If you outnumber the enemy 3:1 you will capture despite them orbiting.

[Itkovian]

An interesting suggestion, and definitely an issue that needs addressing, I think.

 

At the very least, extending the capture range might also be effective, allowing people to move further away from the sat and still prevent the cap while getting longer LOS on orbiters.

 

Either way, fixing the orbiting mechanic sounds like a good idea.

[Itkovian]

If you outnumber the enemy 3:1 you will capture despite them orbiting.

 

That does not answer his concern at all. OF COURSE outnumbering anything 3 to 1 will resolve any situation, what it does NOT resolve however is any game imbalance (if anything, it underscores the existence of said imbalance or poor design).

[Kuciwalker]

He specifically called out a scenario in which one team outnumbered the other 5:1 at a node and was prevented from capping by a single pilot expertly dodging around the satellite.

[Itkovian]

He specifically called out a scenario in which one team outnumbered the other 5:1 at a node and was prevented from capping by a single pilot expertly dodging around the satellite.

 

Good point... but in any case, that still doesn't address the balance issue he's mentioning.

[Zoom_VI]

But it is changed to the OP's suggested mechanic, then the capture mechanic would highly favor gunships b/c they can quickly clear the now exposed orbiters.

 

and No to overall extended capture range, often I find that I can only get caps when a ship strays out a bit to get a line of fire.

 

Honestly the inability to get a line of fire while capping is intentional, just as you cannot cap a node in novare while a opponent is capping and you cannot stop the opponents cap without breaking your own. Same principal I think.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Zoom_VI

[Hyde_v]

He specifically called out a scenario in which one team outnumbered the other 5:1 at a node and was prevented from capping by a single pilot expertly dodging around the satellite.

 

That, I believe, is intended. I believe the tutorial cards say that if you want to capture a satellite, you must clear it of enemies. Sounds like a good mechanic to me.

 

Five to one, or three to one, and you cannot stop the one orbiting enemy. The pilot is good.

[Kuciwalker]

It is clearly not intended because it is not actually what happens. If you have at least 3 of your ships capping vs 1 of their ships, your cap will proceed.

[sentawan]

I don't see much of a problem here. If you are definitely going to weave the satellite, you may choose burst cannons. There is no problem there.

 

The problem is not in the capture mechanic; it is inability of others to know how to capture. You only need one person from your team to weave the satellite, preferably a scout that has the speed and maneuverability to get behind the enemy's weaver. I personally have no problem getting behind and killing most enemy weavers on my scout with quad cannons. If your team has a weaver, all you need to do is get above or below the satellite, camp, and kill the enemy weavers. Gunships do this pretty well also. The problem is that people don't do this. They are too busy trying to dogfight and chasing kills away from the satellite, which makes people focusing on capping nodes believe they have to be as close as possible.

 

You only need a couple people on gunship kill duty. The rest should be killing those on the node.

[sentawan]

That, I believe, is intended. I believe the tutorial cards say that if you want to capture a satellite, you must clear it of enemies. Sounds like a good mechanic to me.

 

Five to one, or three to one, and you cannot stop the one orbiting enemy. The pilot is good.

 

This is me. I've done it 3 to 1 many times. However with 5 to 1 there is bound to be a person not stupid enough to weave the satellite... and will hit me from a distance.

[Itkovian]

It is clearly not intended because it is not actually what happens. If you have at least 3 of your ships capping vs 1 of their ships, your cap will proceed.

 

Oh, I see then, my apologies. I misunderstood.

 

But has this been actually confirmed? In my experienced I've always needed to clear the sats totally to stop a cap, and my own mere presence would stop the cap.

[Zoom_VI]

It is clearly not intended because it is not actually what happens. If you have at least 3 of your ships capping vs 1 of their ships, your cap will proceed.

 

I have never had this happen, I think what you experience is the 1 defender accidently strays to far in order to evade and the three guys insta cap.

[sentawan]

The closest person wins, but there is a slight buffer range. The range is not very big. So if 3 enemies are very close and you move farther than the 3 enemies, then they will quickly cap as the more ships of same faction that are closest caps faster.

[Serrit]

It is clearly not intended because it is not actually what happens. If you have at least 3 of your ships capping vs 1 of their ships, your cap will proceed.

 

Is this true? If so, then yeah it does resolve the issue of trying to cap against a single stubborn dodger. Anecdotelly though, I'm sure I've been a single figher orbiting against 2 or more enemies also orbiting, and have not had the node capped by the opposition.

 

@OP - nicely written post - completely describes most of the matches I'm in these days. I wonder if communication can help to alleviate it though. If you tell your team that you'll stick to the orbiting, then they have more freedom to take advantage of distance and 3D space, and will hopefully be able to focus down any orbiting opposition.

[sentawan]

If you have at least 3 of your ships capping vs 1 of their ships, your cap will proceed.

 

This is NOT true. See my posts above. I have solo defended from cap against 3 or more multiple times. It is about who is closest, not number of ships. Number of ships only matters if there is no enemy close. Then it reduces the amount of time to capture by increasing the number of friendly ships.

[LeonBraun]

I've been that 1 orbiting scout many times to help get a win for my team. I've also seen others do it. The best response to this is not to try to attack the orbiter horizontally from the side of the satellite, but to fly down, flip your fighter up to face the bottom of the satellite and fire away.

[Nemarus]

I've been that 1 orbiting scout many times to help get a win for my team. I've also seen others do it. The best response to this is not to try to attack the orbiter horizontally from the side of the satellite, but to fly down, flip your fighter up to face the bottom of the satellite and fire away.

 

This would be a valid counter, except that going even just down to the tip of the antenna puts you out of capture contention.

 

So sure, you can do this if there is one Scout. But if you're trying to make sure they don't gain that last bit of control of spawn a turret, you are out of luck.

 

So in the end I've found that it's better to just take BLC's and fight while orbiting.

[sentawan]

But if you're trying to make sure they don't gain that last bit of control of spawn a turret, you are out of luck.

 

Again, this is because you are playing with people who are much more interested in chasing kills than killing cappers. If you are on the node keeping them from capping... nothing is stopping another person from killing people off the node by shooting down on them "vertically".

[Nemarus]

Again, this is because you are playing with people who are much more interested in chasing kills than killing cappers. If you are on the node keeping them from capping... nothing is stopping another person from killing people off the node by shooting down on them "vertically".

 

Yes, but that is very hard to communicate in the heat of battle, over text, while trying to type while flying ... not to mention the person may not even be looking at the chat window.

 

Everything else in GSF--the interface, the sensor/comm system--seems intent on automating what requires manual communication in warzones. But to have a capture mechanic which can only be countered by mandated communication is no good.

 

Most importantly, no one wants to be the node-sitter because it's NOT FUN. And if something is not fun, then it should not be a mechanic of the game.

[sentawan]

Yes, but that is very hard to communicate in the heat of battle, over text, while trying to type while flying ... not to mention the person may not even be looking at the chat window.

 

You don't have to communicate... if the node is flashing... there is someone that needs to be killed on it. Pretty simple. Again... its dummies who have the attention span of gnats trying to chase kills.

[MCaliban]

Nemarus writes a thread about wanting to extend the capture range?

 

It must be Thursday.

[Nemarus]

You don't have to communicate... if the node is flashing... there is someone that needs to be killed on it. Pretty simple. Again... its dummies who have the attention span of gnats trying to chase kills.

 

Yeah, but as a competent player who wants to win, I feel like I ALWAYS have to be the one who goes and sits on the node, because no one else will.

 

And that necessity led me to have to change my playstyle, my ship of choice, my build, etc. I had a Pike all rigged up to be a long range killer, but I soon realized Heavy Laser Cannons are useless near a satellite (as they should be). I'd put BLC's on it, but they aren't even available. They aren't available on the Star Guard either.

[RahzZalinto]

Oh, I see then, my apologies. I misunderstood.

 

But has this been actually confirmed? In my experienced I've always needed to clear the sats totally to stop a cap, and my own mere presence would stop the cap.

 

 

Yeah he is wrong. Your cap will NOT procede until the enemy leaves the satellite.

Edited December 12, 2013 by RahzZalinto

[Armonddd]

However, in a closely contested match of Domination, the winner is determined far more by who wins the satellite-orbiting duels than who wins the longer range fights in open space. If your team is behind or under pressure, then you absolutely must have one or more defenders closely orbiting a satellite, even as you send your own attackers to try and liberate one of the satellites belonging to the enemy team. And those satellite orbiters, whether on defense or offense, will be far more effective at maintaining/capturing control if they have Burst Laser Cannons to deal with other orbiters.

 

I believe this is the heart of your post, so I will respond to it instead of the remainder of your points. If I've misjudged, I apologize.

 

To put my reasoning into context, I'll give you my general experiences. I main the Ocula (equivalent to the Sting, Flashfire, and Skybolt) with burst lasers and cluster missiles and play almost exclusively in premades, often but not always with Ventrillo; I resubbed last Wednesday (the day after launch) and co-founded a Galactic Starfighter guild on Thursday or Friday night. Since then, I've only played a very few matches without my friends. I've played a total of 248 matches and won 173, mostly by three-capping at the start and farming kills wherever they happen to be. I've earned hundreds of offense and support medals and recently broke 100 ace medals. My experiences are certainly biased; though I have 75 losses to my name, I have not lost more than half a dozen times while part of a premade. I like to be so bold as to think I know what I'm doing.

 

You are absolutely correct in saying that satellite duels are more important than duels in open space. I cannot count the number of times an easy three-cap has turned into a struggle to hold two points because my teammates fight and die over what is essentially meaningless territory. I would go so far as to say that there are only three cases when open space duels are justified: when fighting or defending gunships (who are designed to sit in open space and snipe targets on or near satellites), when attempting to prevent reinforcements from descending upon a point you already control, and when seeking out a specific dangerous player to prevent him from arriving at a satellite (I'm looking at you, Painbot). These rules hold true for all matches, not just closely contested ones as you mention.

 

The reason why I disagree with your proposed change comes from this quote:

If you move even a little bit away from the satellite (even vertically) to try and get more consistent LOS, you will be out of capture range and potentially cede control of the satellite. Thus you are bound to stay very, very close to the satellite so long as it does not have a turret.

 

Let us start with an assumption: there should never be a single person capturing a satellite unless that person is of significantly above average skill and the satellite has few defenders. This holds true both theoretically and practically: the majority of captures, in my experience, require two or three people, at least, to quickly cap the satellite and begin gaining points. At point B, it's easy to get ten, fifteen, or even sometimes twenty people into the fray, some circling around the satellites attempting to kill off enough of the other team for long enough to begin the capture process and others providing support as gunships (sniping the poor guys at the satellite) or otherwise (chasing off the gunships for long enough to turn the tide). At the other four points, premades coordinate assaults and PUGs stream towards an apparently vulnerable satellite until there's enough people there to take it.

 

In any match - close or not - it is vital to define a battle at a satellite in more than one dimension. Most PUGs define the battle by the single dimension of circling around the satellite; this will always be to the advantage of the defender, who can easily slip in between various structures on the satellite, flip above or below it, or use defensive cooldowns to prevent himself from being hit. The attackers must attempt to follow him, predict his movements and cooldown uses, and use their own abilities in the small and hard-to-predict timeframes they will be effective for. In short, the defender forces the attackers to react to him - and in doing so, he has won and they have lost. When one side loses the initiative of a battle, that side has begun to lose the battle.

 

In order to claim victory, the attackers must regain initiative. The rules of the battle are not working for them; they must change the rules in order to win. This can be as simple a tactic as painting a missile lock on the target - many players appear to drastically overestimate the effectiveness of a missile or perhaps drastically underestimate how much time a lock requires - so that he panics and, in attempting to break the lock, crashes. Against more skilled opponents, however, this is less fruitful; a new dimension must be added to the battle. A supporting gunship with an ion cannon is hard to predict and can lock down multiple defenders with a single shot. A skilled opponent can drop to relative below or rise to relative above the satellite and maintain line of sight long enough to deal serious damage. In either case, the defender is now forced to react to the attackers - and in many cases, the defenders simply don't realize what's happening in time to prevent it, or my teammates circling the satellite give them very little maneuverability to react even if they do realize the change.

 

Again, these tactics are required in both close-fought games and absolute curbstomps. Even in the worst case situation - the game is extremely close, the satellite I'm attempting to capture is neutral or worse, and I'm the only attacker on point against two or more enemies - I will always gladly drop below or above the satellite in order to change the rules and force the other player(s) to react to me. The enemy now has two options: he can react to me, losing his claim to the satellite; or he can continue to circle around the satellite, often (I like to imagine) smugly considering the progress he's making towards its capture, as I turn around, blow him up, and claim the satellite for my team before the other team gains many, if any, victory points.

 

That is why I prefer the Ocula with burst lasers - not because it is the best at circling satellites both defensively and offensively, but because it is the fighter most capable of quickly and unpredictably changing the rules of engagement, with the weapons to kill enemies who do not recognize these changes equally quickly.