BrianDavion 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. except how do they address this imbalance? because the imbalance is ultimately "more and better pilots on the republic side" how does BW address this? It's a hard question, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Applejacxs Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) I love Nova coast. I i could go for this ideal. The lady who does the voice work for imps vs pubs on imps side awesome. It feel like a punch in gut any time you lose when she says "Retreat or die fighting." Edited January 29, 2014 by Applejacxs added something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthrider Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share Posted January 29, 2014 All I've heard you guys say is that it's better than Civil War. Even if it is better than Civil War, it's still worse than Novare. I've yet to see an argument that it is not. Novare's system would be considerably better, both for new pilots and experienced ones. New players wouldn't be discouraged by steamrolls, as they'd have the opportunity to come back at all times without needing to *massively* outplay the enemy to do so (and don't tell me that holding three sats for the duration of the match isn't massively outplaying the enemy). Experienced pilots would also enjoy it more for the same reason; they'll never be able to sit back and coast to a victory, which feels absolutely awful and unfun. Instead they'd have to keep working throughout the match, never letting their guard down even if a match *seems* like a sure victory. People were overjoyed when Novare was first released, as we finally had a true 3-point domination style map. It was unanimously praised and for good reason. Civil War was *hated*. Where is the logic in choosing to emulate CW over Novare? Bottom line, they could have at least *tried* to use the Novare system. At least for one map. We didn't need two identical maps, especially with the CW system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zharik Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 All I've heard you guys say is that it's better than Civil War. Even if it is better than Civil War, it's still worse than Novare. I've yet to see an argument that it is not. To be honest all I have heard from you is that you like it better. Basically the same thing. I've offered that with the players' skill/gear imbalanced as it is, the "must control 2 of 3 to score" will create MORE disparity in the final score, not less... This will make 1000-0 matches MORE common, not less. You have stated that passing the "point of no return" is a terrible way to lose OR win. That's nonsense, like saying football teams don't dump gatorade on the coach's head with 44 seconds left on the clock and you're up by 12 points with the ball... (take a knee QB = sit on one satellite team, cause they've EARNED it at that point) That's part of earning a win! Managing the clock is part of any game. I'm sorry that you get bored or whatever with this set up, but it is FAIR FROM THE START, which is the only thing that matters. Oh and for the record, you appear to be the only person here that has posted this being a problem. I am sure that there are others that feel as you do, but with all the people responding to you, maybe you are in the minority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallwyn Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 At OP: Right, you truly are living the SW dream... Because thats what Luke did in EP4, when attacking the first Deathstar. He went on the Imperial forums and started to complain about how unfair it is for them to attack in "full force"... oh wait, no he didnt. He went into the trench, flew towards that exhaust port even with one of the best Fighter pilots in the galaxy on his tail and got the job done. And thats exactly how i feel when my team manages to take a "lost cause" game from the Imps. I like those close call games (1000 to 900+) the most, even if we lose by a few points. I dont like the games when my team is dominating, forcing the enemy back to its spawn point while controlling all 3 capture points... Im much happyer if im against impossible odds and know i did my best to turn the tide, even if i fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPryde Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 [...]. New players wouldn't be discouraged by steamrolls, as they'd have the opportunity to come back at all times[...] Sorry, but aren't you just deluding yourself? In a steamroll game, there is virtually NO chance, that the underdog can capture two satellites. They will have a hard time to keep one. So in all matches, where one side is obviously better than the other, the outcome would change from 1000:700 or 1000:300 to 1000:50 at most... and the 50 would be from newbies on the winning team flying into asteroids. When did the Novare System ever allow a late comback, if your enemy is stronger or better organized? In GSF, the underdog got at least the chance to keep one sat and pop the other two to neutral... which is far easier than capturing them (and which is totally impossible in your beloved novare system). I claim, that most games, who see a point of no return early on, would end up as a landslide victory for the exact same team and with the loosing team gaining even less points... in the novare system. In most games, where both teams actually got a chance to win, the point of no return is reached very late... and I have seen many games, where the "obvious winner" lost control of his one satellite for long enough to let the others catch up. I have even a record of a 1000:999 victory... a result, which I have never even remotely seen in Novare. Now please, explain to us, how the novare system would make such matches any better for the underdog? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elly_Dawn Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 i'd really like to address this one part as the rest is just an advertisement, paid for or not idk... (and don't tell me that holding three sats for the duration of the match isn't massively outplaying the enemy). if your team loses to a 3 cap it's because your team couldn't act as a team... example: the other day my team came up against a Republic Guild (not naming names) that is notorious for stomping everyone they face with scores like XX:1000... i got a group of 4 together we ended up against that guild and i thought we were gonna get stomped again, but our 4 worked as a team this time and we ended the match 6XX:1000, we lost but we finally gave them hell... now imagine if all 8 of our team had their act together like the winning team did, the score would have been much closer... teamwork is key, if you don't want to play as a team you don't really want to win, you just want to be on the team that wins for you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomaad Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 i'd really like to address this one part as the rest is just an advertisement, paid for or not idk... if your team loses to a 3 cap it's because your team couldn't act as a team... example: the other day my team came up against a Republic Guild (not naming names) that is notorious for stomping everyone they face with scores like XX:1000... i got a group of 4 together we ended up against that guild and i thought we were gonna get stomped again, but our 4 worked as a team this time and we ended the match 6XX:1000, we lost but we finally gave them hell... now imagine if all 8 of our team had their act together like the winning team did, the score would have been much closer... teamwork is key, if you don't want to play as a team you don't really want to win, you just want to be on the team that wins for you... Marry me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxIncubixx Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) i'd really like to address this one part as the rest is just an advertisement, paid for or not idk... if your team loses to a 3 cap it's because your team couldn't act as a team... example: the other day my team came up against a Republic Guild (not naming names) that is notorious for stomping everyone they face with scores like XX:1000... i got a group of 4 together we ended up against that guild and i thought we were gonna get stomped again, but our 4 worked as a team this time and we ended the match 6XX:1000, we lost but we finally gave them hell... now imagine if all 8 of our team had their act together like the winning team did, the score would have been much closer... teamwork is key, if you don't want to play as a team you don't really want to win, you just want to be on the team that wins for you... Not really it can mean that your side is full of people that DONT have fully pimped flashfires/stings and or gunships and or new players... while the other side has premades with fully upgraded ships (this is happening on TOFN, its impossible to play GSF on imperial side, 99% of the time its a loss by 3 cap), its like playing warzones when everyone was put together on the same brankets , lvls 50 with the rest, its more or less the same whats happening here. GSF WAS a skill based game at the start but it isnt anymore. It stopped beeing when there are players with gimped new ships and players with fully upgraded out ships. AND its going to be even worse when bombers arrive. Edited January 29, 2014 by xxIncubixx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turretboy Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 All I read is noobs who play GSF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elly_Dawn Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) that was exactly the situation, Incubi, no one in my group of 4 really had over lv.3 anything on our ships, the other 4 didn't seem to be maxed either, but the guild we played against are flying mostly if not all maxed ships and are organized... what i'm saying is with even just a decent team that works together, you can still prevent a total stomping... it's still very much skill based, it's just not cowboy friendly, the team has to work together... Edited January 29, 2014 by Elly_Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okiobe Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 This 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. and this 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. Lopsided games are not the result of the scoring system. It is because one team out-plays the other. If one teams starts losing to a 3 cap in the first 2-3 minutes of the match what makes you think they will be able to grab and hold a 2 cap (Novare system) late in the match? Don't blame disorganization/skill disparity on the scoring system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armonddd Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 All I've heard you guys say is that it's better than Civil War. Even if it is better than Civil War, it's still worse than Novare. I've yet to see an argument that it is not. did you completely ignore my post or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psandak Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Just chiming in on the side of the majority here. It's all been said, so I won't repeat it. Suffice it to say, comparing ACW to GSF domination is apples to oranges for the simple fact of neutral satellites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyberneticDucks Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 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 agree, i absolutely hat it. i have been on numerous threads complaining about the whole 'capture and hold' idea. it is way overdone in SWTOR and you just don't see that thing happening in star wars. usually in star wars they are trying to destroy a shield generator or shoot down a capital's engines or something. i have never seen in star wars little ships circling or even sitting at some stupid satellite. i would really like to see something like battlefront where there is two warships with fighters blowing up life support and engines of the capital ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armonddd Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 GSF WAS a skill based game at the start but it isnt anymore. It stopped beeing when there are players with gimped new ships and players with fully upgraded out ships. AND its going to be even worse when bombers arrive. Yes, gear is more important than skill and good f2p players are going to get stomped by bad but upgraded players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zharik Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Yes, gear is more important than skill and good f2p players are going to get stomped by bad but upgraded players. Gear is more important than skill? Let a noob fly your mastered flashfire vs me in a baseline Blackbolt. Bet I win 9+ of 10 times... Gear is not more important than skill. It only decides the outcome when skill is close. The problem you are citing is when gear + skill vs noobs = stomped... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armonddd Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Gear is more important than skill? Let a noob fly your mastered flashfire vs me in a baseline Blackbolt. Bet I win 9+ of 10 times... Gear is not more important than skill. It only decides the outcome when skill is close. The problem you are citing is when gear + skill vs noobs = stomped... You didn't click the link, did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zharik Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 You didn't click the link, did you? Nope... And my point still stands... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armonddd Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Nope... And my point still stands... Try that. You know, just in case there wasn't heavy enough sarcasm when I posted it to give you an idea of my opinion on the subject. Or in my response. Or in the other thread I posted on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zharik Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Try that. You know, just in case there wasn't heavy enough sarcasm when I posted it to give you an idea of my opinion on the subject. Or in my response. Or in the other thread I posted on the subject. Ya know sarcasm is kinda hard to detect by mere words typed on in chat, on a post, etc... You're gonna get reactions such as mine if you are not more clear. I suggest using /sarcasm off at the end of such a post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armonddd Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Ya know sarcasm is kinda hard to detect by mere words typed on in chat, on a post, etc... You're gonna get reactions such as mine if you are not more clear. I suggest using /sarcasm off at the end of such a post. I suggest clicking a link when that link composes literally the entirety of the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zharik Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I suggest clicking a link when that link composes literally the entirety of the post. You know that some people avoid links on forums, as in don't want to visit random websites willie-nillie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armonddd Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 You know that some people avoid links on forums, as in don't want to visit random websites willie-nillie. The website warns you when it's an external link, and I'm pretty sure the puu.sh and puush.me domains are entirely free of anything other than what the file extensions claim. I mean, if you never want to look at a posted screenshot, that's up to you, but understand that you're choosing to miss out on context every now and then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danylia Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Yes, gear is more important than skill and good f2p players are going to get stomped by bad but upgraded players. Before I start, let me tell that I generally agree with what you said (or, since you were being sarcastic, agree with opposite of what you said). Now, when I look at the screenshot, I see these things: 1. You are a good pilot 2. A good pilot may do well even in completely stock ship No objections, but emphasis on "may". You definitely did well in the match on screenshot. However, there are additional things I see (or don't see) on it - feel free to correct me. 3. You had at least few more or less decent teammates. The performance of individual goes up with the performance of team. Once I was the single veteran among all participants in a match. I could - and did - capture and hold any satellite I wanted. But we still lost, because the rest of my team combined was unable to do the same, so the enemies were always holding the remaining two satellites. 4. It was a long match (I cannot read your score, but I think the first digit is 8 or 9). Longer match = more time to get numbers (though as a counterargument, others had the same time to get their own numbers). 5. Your objectives are relatively low, so you probably focused on hunting down enemies. Nothing wrong with that (especially if they were gunships), but again, it's easier to get the numbers when dogfighting than doing "dirty hugging work". (Of course, I don't forget the fact that you were winning in these dogfights). 6. What I can't see: the quality of enemy's ships, their composition (lots of tier 1 scouts, lots of Gunships etc.) and the actual course of the match. Here it's up to speculation. It's possible that you focused and eliminated the enemy's "aces", but it's also possible that your kills come from the less experienced enemies (for example lots of newbie Gunships). I once topped the scoreboard in kills with my lightly upgraded Quell, although I sat on a satellite the whole time. That was because two very inexperienced players spend the whole match flying straight at me, getting killed (with turrets assistance), respawning and repeating ad nauseum. In the end: again, I generally agree with your premises. But there are so many variables in each match that saying "good pilot will always triumph" is as wrong as saying "gear will always beat skill". Edited January 30, 2014 by Danylia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts