ToMyMa Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Yep - this was all done in the starter ships (Gunship, Strike and Scout) http://i58.tinypic.com/dt9qr.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_sim Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Silly people, I mean we've about run out of space for more nails in the "Skill > Upgrades" coffin but your welcome to see if you can fit another one and see if it makes a difference. Really the QQers are running low on ammunition. Mastered ships are unfair to fight. FALSE Matchmaking is nonexistent. FALSE Matchmaking algorithms are broken, is the reason we don't get balanced matchups. FALSE But they'll still keep coming. Often times you can spot them 100 clicks away, especially when they say GS and not GSF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SammyGStatus Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) Matchmaking is nonexistent. FALSE Matchmaking algorithms are broken, is the reason we don't get balanced matchups. FALSE Uhhhhh??? Non-premade forms and is a stacked team of 5 ships vs all 2 ships. Granted, ship count doesn't provide an exact skill level, but it does indicate more experience than the 2 shippers, and more upgrades (which never hurt). To say matchmaking ISN'T broken is a farce. Relative to what we could have (in terms of a cross server ranked system), this is definitely broken in my books. Maybe not broken in the sense of "Doesn't work at all", but broken in that the matchmaking has succeeded in a drastic reducation of the population after those 5 shippers vs 2 shippers match ups. I personally would be willing to wait a half hour for a ranked pop with my guild. We'd all just be fooling around in TS / Mumble anyways, so the additional wait time wouldn't hurt. It's a better alternative than having to attempt to police our own community to ensure that the population grows (toons on both sides, toons on multiple servers in case both sides will be slaughtered regardless of our current faction alignment, etc.), rather than see it dwindle after a blow out match, or be forced to drop because of lack of competition. The fact that my guild has GSF toons on 5 servers kind of says something to that affect - we go searching for competition, and thus have invested A LOT of time and effort to fix something that you say isn't broken. If it wasn't broken, I'd have 1 server with my GSF toons on the same server that I do my newly-reduced-to-rare-status PVE content, because the only matches I'd want to play automatically pull the ranked groups queuing across multiple servers. Technically, this is a colossal undertaking if it means redesigning the system architechture, but please don't say that the system isn't broken.. But they'll still keep coming. Often times you can spot them 100 clicks away, especially when they say GS and not GSF. I will agree that if someone types GS instead of GSF, they chave not been doing this long enough to have an "expert" opinion. I also can't trust people to have much experience when my second match in a stock ship went 18-0 and was met with hacking accusations immediately following. THAT is how you play the game Edited May 10, 2014 by SammyGStatus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AceFirstCav Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Just two notes: 1. Using score from TDM where someone used Gunship (even without upgrades) against new players is supposed to be prove of what? Of course that experienced pilots will annihilate newbies no matter of used ship. 2. Silly people, I mean we've about run out of space for more nails in the "Skill > Upgrades" coffin but your welcome to see if you can fit another one and see if it makes a difference. But this picture prove only Skill > No skill. Or do you think that oponents had fully upgraded ships? Summarized: Yes, Skill > Upgrades but this is not prove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToMyMa Posted May 10, 2014 Author Share Posted May 10, 2014 Just two notes: 1. Using score from TDM where someone used Gunship (even without upgrades) against new players is supposed to be prove of what? Of course that experienced pilots will annihilate newbies no matter of used ship. 2. But this picture prove only Skill > No skill. Or do you think that oponents had fully upgraded ships? Summarized: Yes, Skill > Upgrades but this is not prove Well, I couldn't actually hit anything in my gunship Strange, yes, because I can do it on my main in a gunship, but not on my alt. I think that 60% of the kills were in my Blackbolt, while 30% were in my Strike. So that argument is invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SammyGStatus Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 The accuracy is absolute trash Buttttt since we don't pay for our UNLIMITED POWAHHHH (which, coincidentally, is over 9000), accuracy doesn't mean much. The purpose of the post, which is that a stock ship can carry, holds true. Break it down likeeeeeee: Newb ship (good pilot) v newb ship (good pilot) - coinflip that comes down to who is the better pilot with their craft. These are fun matches, but often are frustrating because of the sheer amount of effort needed to be put in for the killing blow. Newb ship (bad pilot) v newb ship (good pilot) - good pilot wins. Upgrades don't matter at all - new players will commit mistakes that they had no idea they were making (like spawning ) Slightly upgraded ship (bad pilot) v slightly upgraded ship (good pilot) - this is no different from the point directly above. The bad pilots still don't understand tactics / situational awareness enough to be effective Slightly upgraded ship (bad pilot) v newb ship (good pilot) - good pilot, any day of the week. Skill trumps upgrades, especially if you don't know how to properly utilize your components / crew skills. Again, tactics play a huge role in this situation Mastered ship (good pilot) v. newb ship (good pilot) - HA!!!! This is the ONLY SITUATION where upgrades TRULY matter (CAPITAL LETTERS!!!). Both players know how to read a battlefield, understand when to switch from fighting to sat capping / defense, etc. The biggest difference is that the mastered ship can actually kill things. Mastered ship (bad pilot) v. newb ship (bad pilot) - the mastered ship has the advantage, but the match will be slow and painful to watch. Just because it's mastered does not make it optimized either. Mastered ship (bad pilot) vs. slightly upgraded ship (good pilot) - gonna go with an edge to the good pilot, but the mastered ship will definitely help the bad pilot out here. For example, missing T3 on a GS's slug means everything takes super long to destroy. In a domination match, clearing a sat takes hours. In long range shooting, I'll need to 3-5 shot most fighters. Add on the defense increases from a mastered ship, as well as their own offensive upgrades and the luck of Irish and they CAN kill. Less often than you'll kill them, but it happens. This is my interpretation of the upgrades here. newb ship with even decent pilots vs newb pilots in newb ships should win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AceFirstCav Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 . I ´m missing option Mastered ship (bad pilot) vs. newb ship (good pilot). There lies ultimate resolve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToMyMa Posted May 10, 2014 Author Share Posted May 10, 2014 The accuracy is absolute trash Buttttt since we don't pay for our UNLIMITED POWAHHHH (which, coincidentally, is over 9000), accuracy doesn't mean much. The purpose of the post, which is that a stock ship can carry, holds true. Break it down likeeeeeee: Newb ship (good pilot) v newb ship (good pilot) - coinflip that comes down to who is the better pilot with their craft. These are fun matches, but often are frustrating because of the sheer amount of effort needed to be put in for the killing blow. Newb ship (bad pilot) v newb ship (good pilot) - good pilot wins. Upgrades don't matter at all - new players will commit mistakes that they had no idea they were making (like spawning ) Slightly upgraded ship (bad pilot) v slightly upgraded ship (good pilot) - this is no different from the point directly above. The bad pilots still don't understand tactics / situational awareness enough to be effective Slightly upgraded ship (bad pilot) v newb ship (good pilot) - good pilot, any day of the week. Skill trumps upgrades, especially if you don't know how to properly utilize your components / crew skills. Again, tactics play a huge role in this situation Mastered ship (good pilot) v. newb ship (good pilot) - HA!!!! This is the ONLY SITUATION where upgrades TRULY matter (CAPITAL LETTERS!!!). Both players know how to read a battlefield, understand when to switch from fighting to sat capping / defense, etc. The biggest difference is that the mastered ship can actually kill things. Mastered ship (bad pilot) v. newb ship (bad pilot) - the mastered ship has the advantage, but the match will be slow and painful to watch. Just because it's mastered does not make it optimized either. Mastered ship (bad pilot) vs. slightly upgraded ship (good pilot) - gonna go with an edge to the good pilot, but the mastered ship will definitely help the bad pilot out here. For example, missing T3 on a GS's slug means everything takes super long to destroy. In a domination match, clearing a sat takes hours. In long range shooting, I'll need to 3-5 shot most fighters. Add on the defense increases from a mastered ship, as well as their own offensive upgrades and the luck of Irish and they CAN kill. Less often than you'll kill them, but it happens. This is my interpretation of the upgrades here. newb ship with even decent pilots vs newb pilots in newb ships should win. Regarding accuracy - as I said, I used mostly the Blackbolt. And it so happens that it uses rapid fire laser... Who knew, that cannon misses SO much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramalina Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 It doesn't need to hit anything, it just lights the way so the rockets can see where they're going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidenti Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Yep - this was all done in the starter ships (Gunship, Strike and Scout) http://i58.tinypic.com/dt9qr.jpg Nice work, homey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SammyGStatus Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) I ´m missing option Mastered ship (bad pilot) vs. newb ship (good pilot). There lies ultimate resolve Oops! Should've had my coffee earlier. Mastered newb vs stock good pilot is gonna be a close one too depending on the ship match up mostly. In a stock gs vs a mastered flashfire, I'm at a severe disadvantage from a RPSLS perspective. Situational awareness will either keep the GS alive or allow the flashfire to pew pew. This is the most even match up, but the advantage still goes to the vet b/c of tactics and gameplay ability. Mastered just means you've played the game enough to get the req to buy everything, or did a couple weeklies and converted via cartel coins. Either way, skill > upgrades, hence why vets are able to still top damage and kill charts frequently in stock ships.... Maybe not accuracy when using a blackbolt though!!! :D:p Edited May 10, 2014 by SammyGStatus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verain Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I never see a true noob in a mastered ship. I certainly see players who improve relatively slowly, or mostly leveled a specific ship through dailies instead of playing it and haven't yet put in their hours on the ship, and those guys tend to misplay pretty badly. But these are a far cry from a true novice. I am 100% certain that an ace in a pathetic ship will destroy a hypothetical noob in a mastered ship. The issue isn't some extra shielding, or some shots. New players literally cannot hit targets and truly don't know to move when shot, providing a 100->0 bead. That they don't even understand what it happening is the big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General_Brass Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Yep - this was all done in the starter ships (Gunship, Strike and Scout) http://i58.tinypic.com/dt9qr.jpg Bragging about doing well against a team that couldn't shoot it's way out of a paper bag ? Show me a picture of that when your team loses then you will have something that makes your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalphitis Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Mastered ships are unfair to fight. FALSE Matchmaking is nonexistent. FALSE Matchmaking algorithms are broken, is the reason we don't get balanced matchups. FALSE 1. Mastered ships, by definition, have an advantage over un-mastered ships. This is just a fact, no point in arguing it. All you can do is argue over how BIG or SMALL of a factor it is. Equating a pilot's skill or experience changes the entire argument. 2. Define matchmaking. If matchmaking means getting a set amount of people together in a game as quickly as possible, than the matchmaking system is nearly perfect. If matchmaking means sorting out players on each team based on some measure of skill (total lifetime requisition, amount of ships, time played), then it is in fact non-existent. This has been proven over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SammyGStatus Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I never see a true noob in a mastered ship. I certainly see players who improve relatively slowly, or mostly leveled a specific ship through dailies instead of playing it and haven't yet put in their hours on the ship, and those guys tend to misplay pretty badly. You've never seen this? It's really kind of sad, but I have had several players who have said *Note - they have said* that they're in a mastered ship, but every match I'm with them I see them going like 1-13 with about a 20% accuracy and under 12k damage, every time. The ship may not in fact be mastered (as an IT specialist knows, customers are all idiots & think they know but they don't have a clue), but they may not be considered a "true noob" because they've clearly played enough to get the upgrades to know what they expect, but I also group the term "newb" and "horrible at this game" together. *shrugs* Semantics, no endpoint protection (IT humor). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidenti Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Bragging about doing well against a team that couldn't shoot it's way out of a paper bag ? Show me a picture of that when your team loses then you will have something that makes your point. Bad Sniffles. BAD. I swear, if you're not on the sofa or digging in the trash, it's something else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verain Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Bragging about doing well against a team that couldn't shoot it's way out of a paper bag ? The big numbers that in this case prove a point are only going to occur during a farm game. The point is that he has 22 kills in as stock ship, and his 80k+ damage shows he's not ninjaing them. If he showed you a loss, it wouldn't prove the point to someone like you. You'd see two enemies outscoring him, then him, then a bunch of red names, then a stack of green at the bottom, and he'd be like "couldn't carry hard enough" and you'd claim something like "this shows that stock ships aren't viable" or whatever. Do you need to see a premade of mostly stock ships beating a premade of mostly mastered ships? Obviously, gear matters. But the gear difference is like 40% to 2x at most. The skill difference is like, 10x or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToMyMa Posted May 10, 2014 Author Share Posted May 10, 2014 The big numbers that in this case prove a point are only going to occur during a farm game. The point is that he has 22 kills in as stock ship, and his 80k+ damage shows he's not ninjaing them. If he showed you a loss, it wouldn't prove the point to someone like you. You'd see two enemies outscoring him, then him, then a bunch of red names, then a stack of green at the bottom, and he'd be like "couldn't carry hard enough" and you'd claim something like "this shows that stock ships aren't viable" or whatever. Do you need to see a premade of mostly stock ships beating a premade of mostly mastered ships? Obviously, gear matters. But the gear difference is like 40% to 2x at most. The skill difference is like, 10x or more. Well, one of my cases in point were also how bad Stock Ship Weapons are... If I had the same amount of kills on my Pike or Flashfire, I'd have around 60k damage... Rapid Fire simply doesn't cut it (as said many a time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_sim Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Uhhhhh??? Non-premade forms and is a stacked team of 5 ships vs all 2 ships. Granted, ship count doesn't provide an exact skill level, but it does indicate more experience than the 2 shippers, and more upgrades (which never hurt). To say matchmaking ISN'T broken is a farce. Relative to what we could have (in terms of a cross server ranked system), this is definitely broken in my books. Maybe not broken in the sense of "Doesn't work at all", but broken in that the matchmaking has succeeded in a drastic reducation of the population after those 5 shippers vs 2 shippers match ups. I personally would be willing to wait a half hour for a ranked pop with my guild. We'd all just be fooling around in TS / Mumble anyways, so the additional wait time wouldn't hurt. It's a better alternative than having to attempt to police our own community to ensure that the population grows (toons on both sides, toons on multiple servers in case both sides will be slaughtered regardless of our current faction alignment, etc.), rather than see it dwindle after a blow out match, or be forced to drop because of lack of competition. The fact that my guild has GSF toons on 5 servers kind of says something to that affect - we go searching for competition, and thus have invested A LOT of time and effort to fix something that you say isn't broken. If it wasn't broken, I'd have 1 server with my GSF toons on the same server that I do my newly-reduced-to-rare-status PVE content, because the only matches I'd want to play automatically pull the ranked groups queuing across multiple servers. Technically, this is a colossal undertaking if it means redesigning the system architechture, but please don't say that the system isn't broken.. A little bit difficult to read, break up into multiple paragraphs would improve. Regardless, after 3 reads I think I got it. The point is that matchmaking is not algorithmically broken. It can only function based on the available que pool. This thread is really an attack on the upgrades QQ, I just expanded it to the Matchmaking QQ as well. People use Matchmaking as an excuse to justify their complaining. Is there an underlying fault in GSF that leads to poor match ups of player, absolutely. But, it's not a poorly written algorithm causing it. It's just poor community development, and I agree Ranked would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuciwalker Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 The point is that matchmaking is not algorithmically broken. It can only function based on the available que pool. To be clear, this has not been established. The only reason we have to believe that matchmaking "works" algorithmically is our faith in the competence of the devs. In order to provide direct evidence that the matchmaking algorithms are correct, we would need to observe them operating on large queue pools, which don't exist on any server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJOhio Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Matchmaking is broken in some cases. Take, for example, my last pub v pub match. If I remember correctly, it was 8 pub v 8 pub match. On one side we had 2 experienced plus 6 new players. On the other side, they had 6 experienced players and 2 new players. I know all the 8 experienced players because we group up a lot. Now, someone tell me how the matchmaking is balanced? Ideal matchmaking would have been 4 experienced and 4 new players in each team. That, I would call matchmaking algorithm working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_sim Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Matchmaking is broken in some cases. Take, for example, my last pub v pub match. If I remember correctly, it was 8 pub v 8 pub match. On one side we had 2 experienced plus 6 new players. On the other side, they had 6 experienced players and 2 new players. I know all the 8 experienced players because we group up a lot. Now, someone tell me how the matchmaking is balanced? Ideal matchmaking would have been 4 experienced and 4 new players in each team. That, I would call matchmaking algorithm working. In that scenario groups will throw off all kinds of matchmaking. Ultimately, you biggest problem is still the same, not enough population to accommodate proper matchmaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts