Would GSF be more fun without gunships?

[Brewski]

Anybody who doesn't agree needs to play on Shadowlands on the Imp side. I saw a pub gunship get 37 kills a few minutes ago. Another gunship on that team got 17.

 

54 kills from 2 players. Bioware dropped the ball so hard it's laughable.

 

The Empire side on The Shadowlands has issues far beyond gunships. They can't win a match no matter how may gunships the Republic side has or does not have. High end Republic Scouts and Strikers routinely score double digit kills, and it's a rare match that doesn't end around 1000 to 100.

 

The truth is it's not gunships on The Shadowlands, it's lower Empire participation feeding poor matchmaking. Hopefully it will get better when Preferred players gain access next week. Until then the only way to get a real challenge is to luck out and get paired with (or against) the few decently geared and skilled Empire players, or to play on the Pub side and get a Republic/Republic match-up.

[Wainamoinen]

The truth is it's not gunships on The Shadowlands, it's lower Empire participation feeding poor matchmaking.

 

I have a couple chars on Shadowlands, and created a level 1 Imp just for the purpose of GS there.

 

Took an interesting scoreboard screenshot of my first match with him, no upgrades at all, and only stock crew. Will try to remember to post it a bit later once I get home, I'm so certain everyone will find it fascinating. Or mildly diverting.

 

Might fly my Imp main over there some more.

 

And in answer to thread title: no, GS would be worse without gunships. They add tactical variety and therefore demand a higher level of play all around, and that makes it more fun. Deathmatch arenas are dribble, deathmatch dogfights would be too (presumably in the entirely empty space free of any obstacles that I also saw advocated).

Edited January 7, 2014 by Wainamoinen

[Zoom_VI]

I think if they got rid of Dfield and everyone just flew Novadive/Blackbolt it would be way more fun.

[Altheran]

Gunships are the most suitable solution against scouts turning around a satellite (one ship tracking him, the Gunship killing him when he shows up), or else you'd need much more ships to track them down and hope you can hit them enough to kill them.

 

On my server there is a scout duo who "professionalize" in doing so. You can't imagine how it's nearly impossible to take a satellite from these two, unless you have a Gunship or that you attack with 4-5 people (otherwise, the time you kill second one, the first one had enough time to come back).

You can guess how I am happy that Gunships exist because of them.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Altheran

[Icebergy]

No

 

+5char

[xyrmagus]

Only tweak gunships need is that Ion Rail Gun's debuffs should scale with the charge level. Half charge = half effect, etc.

 

Having a gunship spam you with that makes no sense and leaves you a sitting duck for team mates. If you fly slow or straight enough to get a fully charged shot with the other rail gun on you, you deserve to be one shot (just like if you can't evade a proton torpedo you deserve to die through your shields).

[Wainamoinen]

I have a couple chars on Shadowlands, and created a level 1 Imp just for the purpose of GS there.

 

Took an interesting scoreboard screenshot of my first match with him, no upgrades at all, and only stock crew.

Here we are.

edit: killed link

 

Couple of screen shotes

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-FiHf9mqJhSQzlfbmpkakFoVk0/edit?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-FiHf9mqJhSdE9DY0JWMW5md3c/edit?usp=sharing

 

I'm not the best player in the world, and definitely no teenager with lightning reflexes. My point is that having an idea how to play Galactic Starfighter goes a long way.

 

It was frustrating having basic ships and missing the crew I wanted, but even in the most basic ships possible I could still do a decent job.

 

Conclusions: 1) It's worth trying to improve your play; 2) it's worth Bioware thinking hard about throwing F2P newbs (or any newbs) in with experienced players because they're likely to be toast. Some will persevere and get better, but others will pack it in and complain about it being unfair (and, being fair, getting destroyed isn't fun).

 

edit: dammit, first one was the wrong link. Second two are fine.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Wainamoinen

[Brewski]

Here we are.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-FiHf9mqJhSbk9wM3NUUkI1QkE/edit?usp=sharing

 

Couple of later ones same day, still terrible ships.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-FiHf9mqJhSQzlfbmpkakFoVk0/edit?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-FiHf9mqJhSdE9DY0JWMW5md3c/edit?usp=sharing

 

I'm not the best player in the world, and definitely no teenager with lightning reflexes. My point is that having an idea how to play Galactic Starfighter goes a long way.

 

It was frustrating having basic ships and missing the crew I wanted, but even in the most basic ships possible I could still do a decent job.

 

Conclusions: 1) It's worth trying to improve your play; 2) it's worth Bioware thinking hard about throwing F2P newbs (or any newbs) in with experienced players because they're likely to be toast. Some will persevere and get better, but others will pack it in and complain about it being unfair (and, being fair, getting destroyed isn't fun).

I would be interested to know when you play, as I don't recognize most of the names on your list. (I tend to play 9-11 ish EST) I'd also be interested to know if these are all the matches you played recently, or if you hand selecting a few "good ones".

 

The reason I ask is that if you see this all the time, your experience is far different from mine. I played four matches on the empire side last night, and it was a good night relatively speaking. 2 ended in 1000 to 150ish routes where we lost badly, we lost another 1000 to 400 and eked out a victory in the fourth 1000 to 900. (That was an excellent match.) I also played three matches as Republic, all victories, one semi close (the Empire had 700) and the other two routes, once of which ended 1000 - 17. Overall the win record when I play both sides is about 85-90% Republic wins.

 

I should point out that, although I am far from the best player on my server, I am no slouch. In the unbalanced matches on the Empire side I am almost always in the top 3 on my own team. I fly an Ocula (because it looks better than the Sting) that is about 90% mastered, and I know tactics and consider myself an above average player based on where I place in every match.

 

The problem is not will, it's matchmaking, and those who keep saying the other faction has to "suck it up" and play better are missing the point. When matches are that unbalanced the opposing players have no chance to get better because they are basically floating targets. That leads to frustration, which leads to players who run both factions to switch to the easy-mode side, further unbalancing it, and players who don't just dropping it and playing something else.

 

I don't mind losing, and do so quite often happily. What I wind is winning or losing in a match that is completely unbalanced. It's bad enough that I've taken to flying ships I suck at on the republic side just to try and even it out a bit.

 

Hopefully this gets better next week when we have a flood of new players, but I feel that is less likely by the day, matchmaking remains the biggest issue that needs to be addressed as GSF develops.

[Wainamoinen]

I would be interested to know when you play, as I don't recognize most of the names on your list. (I tend to play 9-11 ish EST) I'd also be interested to know if these are all the matches you played recently, or if you hand selecting a few "good ones".

 

The reason I ask is that if you see this all the time, your experience is far different from mine.

Names in first link might be unfamiliar because like a noob I copied the wrong link and it's from TRE. Second two were fine. Teach me for rushing a post before logging out.

 

I'm in UK, so the timestamps in the filenames are EST +5. That makes them 11.43am EST and 12.16. I'd been asked to roll up a new char to join up with some people later on Saturday so I wanted to get the new guy on Fleet and with a couple of basic upgrades before joining up (he got to Fleet and made level 10 that evening).

 

They weren't deliberately cherry-picked - perhaps I'd be more likely to take a shot if I did great, but I promise I didn't do terrible in any. They were taken because I wanted to see what a bog-standard basic ship could do. I didn't include a later one where I'd actually - horrors! - bought a distortion shield. Also note that they are both defeats, I'm not claiming the Imps on Shadowlands win all the time.

 

I'd actually agree that matchmaking is vital, but you do need a pool to select from before matchmaking can work. My screenshots above show: 1) You can do a decent job in a basic, stock ship; 2) Plenty of Imps on Shadowlands aren't doing great if someone in a Mk I Scrubmachine can output much more. But the fact I'm in a Mk I Scrubmachine in those means they have the potential to get a lot better if they practice a bit and learn how to play the game.

 

I sometimes play later on Shadowlands too, but timezones being what they are, probably not past 8pm EST. That would most likely be on my main on that server too. He has a bit better ships.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Wainamoinen

[Brewski]

They (and everyone else for that matter) do have the potential to get better if they play more. No debate there. However, they have no incentive to do so. That's my main point.

 

When you lose you get half the reqs you get from a win. When you lose badly it's even worse. When you lose badly 90% of the time you play, you end up having no desire to even bother. When you have the option to switch to the Republic side and win 90% of the time instead, it's hard to resist. It's a vicious cycle.

 

So what I'm saying is matchmaking should take skill/gear into account first over faction. In cases where one faction has more skilled/geared pilots queued than the other, they should be facing same faction matches against each other instead of mismatched queues. That way you have fewer unbalanced matches, and a better overall experience for everyone, allowing everyone the option to progress to the highest level matches without having to grind hundreds of loses more than they would if they played the opposite faction.

 

Just my thought.

[Wainamoinen]

However, they have no incentive to [improve]. That's my main point.

 

Hmm, I'd say that depends on the individual. I like to get better at games, and can see my improvement in performance through scores on the board.

 

When you lose you get half the reqs you get from a win. When you lose badly it's even worse. When you lose badly 90% of the time you play, you end up having no desire to even bother. When you have the option to switch to the Republic side and win 90% of the time instead, it's hard to resist. It's a vicious cycle.

Again, depends whether you care more about being on the winning side or making the win. Always losing no matter how well you play would admittedly get depressing, but a) neither side ALWAYS loses, anyone claiming that is guilty of emotional exaggeration; b) I wouldn't find much to enjoy in being repeatedly carried to victories I did nothing to deserve (I realise this isn't universal and that people can be very creative in justifying why their contribution was vital. Someone had to guard the spawn point, surely?)

 

So what I'm saying is matchmaking should take skill/gear into account first over faction. In cases where one faction has more skilled/geared pilots queued than the other, they should be facing same faction matches against each other instead of mismatched queues. That way you have fewer unbalanced matches, and a better overall experience for everyone, allowing everyone the option to progress to the highest level matches without having to grind hundreds of loses more than they would if they played the opposite faction.

 

Just my thought.

Agree, at least so far as that if you can make two good teams of one side, pit them against one another rather than either one against the bumbling noobs of the other faction.

 

As with ground PvP matchmaking, you're back to how to rank pilots: by upgrade (gear), by skill, or some mixture.

 

My first thought would be something like a ranking of (total team points in last ten matches) x (average total upgrade cost of ships in loadout).

 

Perhaps you could simply do it on the points (just scores, no gear).

 

Thus starting pilots would have zero match points, gradually boosting them up until they have a ten-match record.

 

Ideally have teams facing each other with all of similar ranking, failing that with a similar total ranking of all pilots on each team.

 

Average ship upgrade rather than total to mitigate advantage of single-ship-upgrading as low ranking.

 

Keep the rank invisible, it's for matching purposes and doesn't mean anything for long term standings.

 

TL;DR: Agree that matchmaking to allow people to learn without getting stomped will keep more playing; this is a good thing. Once again, yay matchmaking. Once again, do we have the numbers to do it properly?

Edited January 8, 2014 by Wainamoinen

[fungihoujo]

To those who like dogfighting with a kb and mouse- perhaps.

 

But not everyone enjoys that. Clearly all those playing GS's would disagree with you.