stealthrider Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Seriously, why on earth would you use the most reviled scoring system in the game for new content? Hasn't there been enough complaints about the Point of No Return system in the past two plus years? You want to know why GSF isn't popular, this is reason number one. The Civil War-style scoring system was universally hated when the WZ was first introduced and it has remained hated ever since. Why you would reuse it for not one but two maps for GSF is just mindboggling. It is NOT FUN to have a point of no return. It is NOT FUN to make comebacks nigh impossible. It is NOT FUN to have to sit through several minutes of a battle that is already lost, with no hope of turning it around. I thought this was all made clear ages ago, what the hell Bioware? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom_VI Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Except unlike civil war, in GSf the nodes change hands far more easily than in the ground game. Pulling out a three cap in the last 100 points of a match is not all that unheard of. I can attest to several such matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthrider Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 Except unlike civil war, in GSf the nodes change hands far more easily than in the ground game. Pulling out a three cap in the last 100 points of a match is not all that unheard of. I can attest to several such matches. Good for you. The majority of matches are not even remotely like that. The majority of matches are either blowouts in the first two minutes that become completely unwinnable due to the winning team camping a single point at the PoNR or close matches that end up the same way, with the winning team camping one point once the PoNR hits. It's terrible design and not fun at all, for either team. Winning with a PoNR feels just as bad as losing due to one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom_VI Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Well all I hear so QQ about people using their heads, the horror. I will also point out that 2.6 will bring a plethora of AoE weapons that will effectively kill the satellite camping strategies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthrider Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 No it will not, because camping the satelite isn't the issue. The issue is that at a certain point a team needs only hold one satellite to win, which is a LOT easier than holding two. It's the reason Civil War was/is so hated and the reason Domination is just as bad. Moreover, the match can spiral out of control in no time at all, particularly if it's an uneven match. If you don't get a full group you may as well repeatedly suicide for the duration, 'cause by the time the group fills up the PoNR will have come and gone. The point I'm trying to make is that comebacks are nearly impossible for anything other than a perfectly coordinated team. If you have a perfectly coordinated team, though, then you're probably not the ones that need to worry about comebacks. It's silly and stupid, especially when they could have used the Novare Coast system instead. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the Civil War system is better than the Novare Coast one at accomplishing the same exact goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zharik Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Seriously, why on earth would you use the most reviled scoring system in the game for new content? Hasn't there been enough complaints about the Point of No Return system in the past two plus years? You want to know why GSF isn't popular, this is reason number one. The Civil War-style scoring system was universally hated when the WZ was first introduced and it has remained hated ever since. Why you would reuse it for not one but two maps for GSF is just mindboggling. It is NOT FUN to have a point of no return. It is NOT FUN to make comebacks nigh impossible. It is NOT FUN to have to sit through several minutes of a battle that is already lost, with no hope of turning it around. I thought this was all made clear ages ago, what the hell Bioware? So other than the enemy having 950+ and all 3 sats, what exactly is the point of no return? I've been involved in some SERIOUS comebacks that required a triple cap, but still happened... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthrider Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 So other than the enemy having 950+ and all 3 sats, what exactly is the point of no return? I've been involved in some SERIOUS comebacks that required a triple cap, but still happened... Yeah? Can you count them on more than one hand? I doubt it. What you're describing is an *extremely* rare occurrence. Particularly with PuGs, the vast majority of games have a point of no return closer to the start of the match than the end. It's worse than Civil War in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zharik Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Yeah? Can you count them on more than one hand? I doubt it. What you're describing is an *extremely* rare occurrence. Particularly with PuGs, the vast majority of games have a point of no return closer to the start of the match than the end. It's worse than Civil War in that regard. Well historically speaking it is rare, kind of like rare but *special* occurrences that happen in sports. The thing that you are talking about is "If things stay as they are, we're gonna lose!" point of "no return". Yes, there is a basic math concept that this is easy to spot. The hard part is making some people realize that "Just cap A & B, ignore C" is a horrible strategy and LEADS to your scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoloGrinder Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 What is killing GSF and bringing 90% of all matches rapidly to a point of no return is the imbalance between the republic and the empire in space. more than 90% of all the games on my server are won before the launch as the republic is a premade with mastered ships and the imps are brand new to it. Fix the imbalance and save GSF no matter the scoring system. Ignoring the imbalance will have the same effect on the forums as people will quit talking about GSF entirely but for a different reason. If left unbalanced it will simply die out as a failed expansion. I am asking the devs to please step up because I for one like GSF and want it to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zharik Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Yeah? Can you count them on more than one hand? I doubt it. What you're describing is an *extremely* rare occurrence. Particularly with PuGs, the vast majority of games have a point of no return closer to the start of the match than the end. It's worse than Civil War in that regard. http://aisthesis.shivtr.com/gallery_images/653377 We were down 800 (something) to 995 when we turned BOTH of their sats neutral, it ... was ... EPIC! Once the ^ happened I was watching for it to happen again... http://aisthesis.shivtr.com/gallery_images/659023 http://aisthesis.shivtr.com/gallery_images/659024 So I guess my thing is to never give up and never "settle" for 2/3 sats. Always press the enemy and at a minimum try to disrupt what they are trying to do. (this assumes close skill/gear between the players) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sadishist Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I happen to like Civil War... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthrider Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) So I guess my thing is to never give up and never "settle" for 2/3 sats. Always press the enemy and at a minimum try to disrupt what they are trying to do. (this assumes close skill/gear between the players) That's three examples, out of how many games? A hundred? Two hundred? Five hundred? More? The quoted part should stand out to you as wrong, though. There are no rated GSF queues, and there is currently no matchmaking. Odds are any matchmaking system Bioware comes up with won't be perfect. Therefore, skill/gear discrepancy is a HUGE deal. GSF will also be opening up to F2P players very soon, and that means even more players that aren't geared and don't know what they're doing. Capping all 3 is not easy even when everyone knows what they're doing, let alone holding them for any period of time. Capping all 3 when you're behind, possibly *very* behind, and holding them for the rest of the game without losing even one? That's just not going to happen; I'd imagine one out of every hundred games ends that way, if that, and it'll just get worse when a flood of F2Ps enters the fray. But here's the thing. They could have used the Novare Coast system, and it would've been a lot better. Can you disagree with that? I doubt it. They had this system in the game already for Novare Coast, and they could have easily used it again with minimal tweaking to the maps. Hell they could have made one map Civil War and one map Novare, but they chose not to. It's ridiculous that we have two maps with the same objectively-worse-than-Novare system. Edited January 28, 2014 by stealthrider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zharik Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 That's three examples, out of how many games? A hundred? Two hundred? Five hundred? More? The quoted part should stand out to you as wrong, though. There are no rated GSF queues, and there is currently no matchmaking. Odds are any matchmaking system Bioware comes up with won't be perfect. Therefore, skill/gear discrepancy is a HUGE deal. GSF will also be opening up to F2P players very soon, and that means even more players that aren't geared and don't know what they're doing. Capping all 3 is not easy even when everyone knows what they're doing, let alone holding them for any period of time. Capping all 3 when you're behind, possibly *very* behind, and holding them for the rest of the game without losing even one? That's just not going to happen; I'd imagine one out of every hundred games ends that way, if that, and it'll just get worse when a flood of F2Ps enters the fray. But here's the thing. They could have used the Novare Coast system, and it would've been a lot better. Can you disagree with that? I doubt it. They had this system in the game already for Novare Coast, and they could have easily used it again with minimal tweaking to the maps. Hell they could have made one map Civil War and one map Novare, but they chose not to. It's ridiculous that we have two maps with the same objectively-worse-than-Novare system. (actually that's only 2 examples) Allowing yourselves to get to that point means you deserve to lose 99.5% of those matches. It is kind of like allowing the other (football) team to score 6 touchdowns in the 1st half. Yes technically you can score 6 in the second half, but are you likely to? That's my point, though is to be open to changing your strategy mid game if you are digging a hole on the scoreboard. Also, there are some times that your team is simply outmatched by the other team. When that happens, I try to lure some of the better pilots out away from the action to give my teammates a chance to cap some sats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthrider Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) (actually that's only 2 examples) Allowing yourselves to get to that point means you deserve to lose 99.5% of those matches. It is kind of like allowing the other (football) team to score 6 touchdowns in the 1st half. Yes technically you can score 6 in the second half, but are you likely to? That's my point, though is to be open to changing your strategy mid game if you are digging a hole on the scoreboard. Also, there are some times that your team is simply outmatched by the other team. When that happens, I try to lure some of the better pilots out away from the action to give my teammates a chance to cap some sats. You're a lot more likely to score 6 touchdowns in the second half than you are to score nine, which is what the Civil War system forces you do to if you want to come back. Oh, and you also need to prevent them from scoring even a single one from that point forward. And you'd have to go an extra fifty yards per score, too. If it were Novare, you'd only need to score seven to win, and if they scored again you could attempt to match it. That's what makes it a better system.: there's actual opportunity for comebacks without needing a hail mary to do it. Basic analogy here, you need to do 150% more than your opponent to come back. 3 sats instead of two, spreading your team between three locations while they can devote fully to one, etc. You need to *massively* outplay a team that may have only *slightly* outplayed you to get into this position. The point of no return could come at 800-600 and you'd have to turn a relatively close game into a massacre in your favor just to have a *chance*. How does that seem fair to you? Edited January 28, 2014 by stealthrider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elly_Dawn Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Good for you. The majority of matches are not even remotely like that. The majority of matches are either blowouts in the first two minutes that become completely unwinnable due to the winning team camping a single point at the PoNR or close matches that end up the same way, with the winning team camping one point once the PoNR hits. It's terrible design and not fun at all, for either team. Winning with a PoNR feels just as bad as losing due to one. wait, let me get this straight, you're complaining about landslide victories/losses and in the same breath complaining about matches that come down to the wire... looks to me like someone's just looking for a reason to complain about something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthrider Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) wait, let me get this straight, you're complaining about landslide victories/losses and in the same breath complaining about matches that come down to the wire... looks to me like someone's just looking for a reason to complain about something... It's terrible design. It was terrible design when Civil War was first introduced, and people complained about it then. It's still terrible design now, but apparently people accept terrible design nowadays. Seriously, someone explain to me why a system like Novare's wouldn't be objectively better than the current one. I'd really, really like to hear that explanation. Edited January 28, 2014 by stealthrider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zharik Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 It's terrible design. It was terrible design when Civil War was first introduced, and people complained about it then. It's still terrible design now, but apparently people accept terrible design nowadays. Seriously, someone explain to me why a system like Novare's wouldn't be objectively better than the current one. I'd really, really like to hear that explanation. I don't ground PvP (I think that is TOO much about gear and too little about player ability) so I am not sure what you mean by Novare's system... But being that almost everything is equal what is wrong with the current system (from a fair start/you decide your own fate win or lose, standpoint)? Honestly the Imps have a legit complaint about Spaceyards... C is defintely farther than for the pubs, and both A and C have obstructions in the way where the Pubs get a straight shot. Other than that the maps are fair... unimaginative, but fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elly_Dawn Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) yep it looks to me like it's player imbalance, not the game's system... meaning they give up too easy, they see the opposing team has like a 100 point lead and give up, with the whole it's hopeless attitude... sad that some people want to blame anything but themselves... i'm not sure if the OP just rolls over and quits but apparently if he doesn't he gets stuck with players that do often... my suggestion would be to find a good coordinated team, it does wonders, GSF is not Cowboy friendly until it goes live with Team Deathmatch, and even then the teams coordination is still gonna be a factor... Edited January 28, 2014 by Elly_Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPryde Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) You want to know why GSF isn't popular, this is reason number one. GSF is not popular? Dammit, I should stop playing it then and stop getting queue times under 3 minutes per match. The scoring system of GSF is far more dynamic than it is for Civil war, as it is a lot easier to flip nodes. In civil war, all 8 people can stand around a node and tap it and it will do no good at all, if there is ONE enemy with ONE aoe attack, stopping them. Also the time is 8secs if there is one person tapping and still 8 secs if the whole team tries to tap. In GSF, each additional tapper is drastically reducing the time to capture. A team of 4+ fighters can easily flip a node within seconds and a single defender might be able to stop them for a while, but will easily be shot down and make for an almost instant capture. I have been in many games, that did never see the point of no return... and I have been in many games, that were a landslide victory... if the current system were changed to novare-system though, I would guess, that most games would end due to timing out as neither side got the 1000 points.... if the sats do not count as long as you hold only 1. Also, neither Novare nor Civil war system allows neutral node, once they were captured. The GSF system does. Just cause you ripped control from the opponent doesn't mean, that you got control. In Civil war and novare, every node will get captured once and can never return to neutrality... only switch sides. Edited January 28, 2014 by JPryde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthrider Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 I don't ground PvP (I think that is TOO much about gear and too little about player ability) so I am not sure what you mean by Novare's system... Same setup, three points to capture. The difference? In Novare, points only tick down for the enemy team if you hold two of the points. The only point of no return in Novare is the point where it takes longer to cap than there is time left; until the last few seconds there is *always* the opportunity for a comeback. It's an objectively better system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armonddd Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 It's an objectively better system. No, it's an objectively better system than Civil War. GSF is different from the ground game. As stated, the capture system is vastly altered (for various reasons). Because of this, someone capturing the point is not inherently more vulnerable than he would otherwise be. In fact, because you can use the satellites to block line of sight while capturing, you're probably less vulnerable than you are normally. At the same time, there's no way to simply aoe a point for the purpose of stopping captures; you have to physically put yourself on the point, which may expose you to enemy fire from those already on the point and also may not play to your ship's strengths. Finally, general survivability is reduced because GSF runs at a much faster pace, making it much faster to remove defenders and flip a point than it is in the ground game. All that said, because of the major differences between GSF and the ground game (3D combat, the balance of short vs long range weapons, etc) and my own inexperience with the ground game over the past year, I think it's a mistake to compare the two methods of capture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zharik Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Same setup, three points to capture. The difference? In Novare, points only tick down for the enemy team if you hold two of the points. The only point of no return in Novare is the point where it takes longer to cap than there is time left; until the last few seconds there is *always* the opportunity for a comeback. It's an objectively better system. So must control more than 50% to score? Hrmmm that might discourage more and more new players than getting some points for controlling 1 of 3 points. Honestly when the Preferred started playing I was encouraging the experienced guys to seriously take it easy on them. Cause 1000-5 stompings did nothing to encourage them to try again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slivovidze Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Domination game mode is usually played like this. We may and probably will get another objective based game modes, where the system will be more or less different. Also, games in GSF tend to be mostly one team steamrolling the other, winning 1000-[less than 300], or a freakishly balanced games that end 1000-[900 or more]. In the first ones, the point of no return (your most favourite phrase, it seems) is the beginning of the match when the 5-ship, mastered team sees the 2-3 newbie ships pilots in the enemy team. In the second case, there is no real point of no return. If it was the Novare system, the steamrolling games would be pretty much the same, except they would always end 1000-0, and the balanced games would just take longer and end with timeout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RebekahWSD Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) It's not a perfect system but it's much better than ACW. The nodes a FAR easier to flip with multiple attackers capping faster and the lack of interrupts. Also, the simple fact that the nodes can be turned NEUTRAL once capped makes the game far more dynamic than ACW. Quite often holding the node neutral (something that can be done by just one player) is enough to turn the game around. And I have to say that while come from behind wins are the exception, they are also FAR more common than in the ground game. That's part of the reason I like GSF so much more. Edited January 28, 2014 by RebekahWSD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliJoe Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Seriously, why on earth would you use the most reviled scoring system in the game for new content? Hasn't there been enough complaints about the Point of No Return system in the past two plus years? You want to know why GSF isn't popular, this is reason number one. The Civil War-style scoring system was universally hated when the WZ was first introduced and it has remained hated ever since. Why you would reuse it for not one but two maps for GSF is just mindboggling. It is NOT FUN to have a point of no return. It is NOT FUN to make comebacks nigh impossible. It is NOT FUN to have to sit through several minutes of a battle that is already lost, with no hope of turning it around. I thought this was all made clear ages ago, what the hell Bioware? I've had a lot of terrible matched, but I don't jump on the forum. Yes, it's extremely frustrating. I have to remind people in chat in GSF to hug satellites not chase after people. Yes, there is a learning curve. Yes, there *are* people who GSF all the time and gear up *one* ship and play that *one* ship. *shrug* Ground PVP is more gear(expertise) based. GSF is more skill and power distribution based. Give me a stock ship and I can still handle my ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts