I saw this

[CrazyOldMystic]

Noobs, rookies, and whatever things in gsf are not what they should be in my opinion. When I flew a sting on my sith, I honestly thought it was bombers who had been blowing me out of the sky at extreme range. Recently I took a prolonged stab at the bomber. Turns out what is turning gsf into a sniper range is the gunship. Essentially are they op yea they really are, because what ends up happening during certain matches is nearly a entire team will use gunship to snipe the other team. This being said I do not think their is anything that can be done. Given the extreme charge up time on the guns of the gunship, and its role. You cant nerf it to make it balance without destroying its ability to conduct its role.

 

On the scout end where people are crying that the sting is op. It really isnt, the scout is fast, but a good pilot from the other team in a scout can shoot it down.

 

As for the bomber a interesting, and difficult role to play, if your not playing the stand still make a fort role at a given location.

 

All and all missiles and rail guns with a range of 10k is what is causing problems in gsf, but like I said you cant nerf the rail gun/gunship without destroying its role.

 

I do not believe their is any solution except bite the bullet and try not to fight in the open for long periods of time. Yes I know you can drive a gunship from its position. Trying to keep my post to the point and short.

[WiseStranger]

I suggest you watch the youtube vid that was linked at the beginning of the thread, because you are completely and utterly missing the point by not just a mile, but like five or ten miles.

 

This argument has nothing to do with whether gunships are overpowered or not. Period. If you think it is your comprehension needs checking.

 

Fact of the matter is that if you start asking people why they quit GSF, the two most common answers I see is

A) gear gap

B) gunships.

 

Now anyone who has achieved success in GSF realizes those are both ludicrous, but whether or not they are true is totally irrelevant, the only relevant fact is that they make people quit, which is bad for the game.

 

 

Wat

Bro, I haven't posted here on a regular basis since 2.6. You must be getting confused with all the threads Tritiylyre has been necroing.

 

Also its nice to see people with such lack of names in sig throwing Ad Hominems around like they should be taken seriously.

 

Pffff. I've seen that video way back when it was released. You're not a Columbus here. If you want counterplay with no gear gap - go play chess, but don't crawl back here complaining that you got out-skilled. You can not create good counterplay without giving both sides equal conditions (and even in chess someone has the first move). It's easy to take things out of the context and theorize about how an ideal game should play. They offer no concrete examples of problems to which solutions were found. They even say there that they have no concrete way of designing good counterplay. The only time you can say there is no counterplay when you are out of the game without even having a chance (killed on loading screen at the spawn by a guy with a shotgun or one shot by a sniper). In GSF you have a choice on how to upgrade your ship and what ship to bring to avoid being one shot and it's rare that you are one shot (exceptions are Damage Overcharge, rare lucky railgun crit or intentional builds that run with low shield and hull in exchange for better RNG chance of survival)

 

And in case you couldn't read in between the lines of that video, by no counterplay they mostly point to things that render you unable to do anything: crowd control that renders you unable to act until you're dead & skills that consistently one shot you. There are no individual ships in this game that do not offer counterplay options aside from very specific builds of scouts (TT+CF+Quads/BLC+Pods) and lucky crits from a slug railgun on very specific targets that chose to have low shield+hull builds. The problem GSF has is stacking of certain ships (i.e. Bombers in domination.) Gunships in TDM can be countered by bunch of evasion scouts, because as soon as a gunship started to move, you need just one scout of equal skill to kill it. Unless gunships are in voice chat, even one good scout can kill them. And if they are in voice chat - it's no longer a problem of individual ship, but teamwork. In that video, they advocate for counterplay and balance to be revolving around teams not individual players, but let's face it... do you really think GSF will win from restricting it to 4-8-12 man teams? Most people who complain are noobs that solo que. But why don't we balance the game at that level? I'm sure everyone will be happy to have their ships nerfed because BioWare chose to balance the game around people with lowest ability.

 

People quit for various reasons, some say gunships, some say scouts, some say bombers. Do you have an objective data on it? No! Therefore don't put your "Because I said so" in a list of references, it's not credible enough.

With the same face you can say "Aces make people quit GSF" since often you can hear "I don't like that <Insert Name> he kills me all the time and I can't do anything! Must be a cheater! I quit until s/he is banned for cheating!" or "This game is ruled by premades, I quit until they ban premades or at least make a solo que only option!". Why don't you propose an awesome solution to roll a dice at the start of the game and decide who wins by pure chance. That would make noobs happy. No more gear or skill gap. Just pure chance! Awesome!!!

 

There are always going to be unhappy people and catering to unhappy people is a wrong move. They will just find something else to blame for their lack of skill.

 

I'm not missing a point of that video, you can not create an ability that will make defeated player to feel that it was fun how they were defeated for as long as Win > Loss in terms of rewards. After being defeated 10 times in a row they will start complain and eventually quit. And if Win = Loss in terms of rewards, who cares! The whole PvP was pointless to begin with. Let's just imagine that at 10:1000 or 1:50 win you do not get final scoreboard and instead of win/loss you get a message: "It was a fun war-game, as usual friendship wins! Get back to your mother-ship for a round of hot drinks and singing of Christmas carols. Admiral <insert name> out.". I don't know how about you, but I don't need that kind of PvP.

 

And it doesn't matter if your complain posts were old or not. Most important part is - they were and still exist and you still make more of them. I judge you on the basis of your posts. I don't need to see your signature or toon to have an opinion about what you say. By trying to shift it to "I don't see anything in your sig therefore you don't know what you're talking about" you don't showcase your intelligence. All you showcase is your inability to take factual information from the post.

 

And if you still want to argue about no counterplay gunships - speak with notable gunships of the GSF community (i.e. SammyGStatus, Verain, Fractalsponge, Kuciwalker, etc) about how well they do as a single gunship against equally skilled oponents or notable scouts of the GSF community (i.e. tommmsunb, Scrabs, etc) about how they deal with a single gunship.

[LilSaihah]

I'm not missing a point of that video, you can not create an ability that will make defeated player to feel that it was fun how they were defeated for as long as Win > Loss in terms of rewards.

 

Um, I may be missing something here, but...

 

I play GSF because it is fun to fly a space plane and shoot other space planes with my space lasers and space missiles. I don't play it for the rewards.

 

It's definitely possible for you to lose while also having fun. Well, maybe not you, but I can have fun when I lose a game, because the scoreboard is only that- a scoreboard. Close games in GSF- even, and arguably especially losses- are more fun than stomps in my favor. When you get those amazing comebacks when your team pulls everything out and pulls off a win? Best part of the game. Best part of any game.

 

And if you still want to argue about no counterplay gunships - speak with notable gunships of the GSF community (i.e. SammyGStatus, Verain, Fractalsponge, Kuciwalker, etc) about how well they do as a single gunship against equally skilled oponents or notable scouts of the GSF community (i.e. tommmsunb, Scrabs, etc) about how they deal with a single gunship.

 

Few points here;

 

1. You may be mistaking countering for counterplay. Which ships you fly is more of a meta, or out-of-game, decision than one that you make while playing, and counterplay usually revolves around how you deal with a threat once it becomes extant in play.

2. I'm just dropping into the thread, so forgive me if the thread has already moved from the direction stated in the OP, but the point doesn't seem to be whether top-of-the-line players know how to deal with game mechanics. The point is whether fresh players know, or can easily learn, how to deal with these mechanics. One of the problems with GSF, I'd argue, is that new players don't even have the tools to deal with some threats.

[WiseStranger]

Um, I may be missing something here, but...

 

I play GSF because it is fun to fly a space plane and shoot other space planes with my space lasers and space missiles. I don't play it for the rewards.

 

It's definitely possible for you to lose while also having fun. Well, maybe not you, but I can have fun when I lose a game, because the scoreboard is only that- a scoreboard. Close games in GSF- even, and arguably especially losses- are more fun than stomps in my favor. When you get those amazing comebacks when your team pulls everything out and pulls off a win? Best part of the game. Best part of any game.

 

 

 

Few points here;

 

1. You may be mistaking countering for counterplay. Which ships you fly is more of a meta, or out-of-game, decision than one that you make while playing, and counterplay usually revolves around how you deal with a threat once it becomes extant in play.

2. I'm just dropping into the thread, so forgive me if the thread has already moved from the direction stated in the OP, but the point doesn't seem to be whether top-of-the-line players know how to deal with game mechanics. The point is whether fresh players know, or can easily learn, how to deal with these mechanics. One of the problems with GSF, I'd argue, is that new players don't even have the tools to deal with some threats.

 

So even you admit that close games that you win give you most satisfaction, but I'm not talking about that. What I'm talking about is no matter how fun you design the ability and even if there is a counterplay designed for that ability it's still not fun when it's used on you. I would be amazed if you enjoyed missiles hitting you and killing you. Same applies to blaster fire and mines and railguns. But all of these are tolerable, because none of them can consistently one shot you. (Yes in rare cases that I outlined before slug railgun can one shot you, so can proton torpedo and other combinations of components can score sub second kills). The whole point of that video is to say that it's not fun when you don't have a choice and bound to die and OP points at gunships. My argument that with rare exceptions, there is plenty of time to react to a gunship shooting at you, meaning there is a counterplay option. And if you're fighting against a gunship and another ship, don't complain, because your teammate couldn't get on that gunship and chase it away. The problem is not the gunship, but the fact that you're fighting a team by yourself. And a team is supposed to win (other things being equal).

 

I don't mistake counter for counterplay. Missile break is a counter when it's used after the missile is launched at you (for as long as a missile reload time is longer than missile break reuse time, it's a hard counter). Ability to fly defensively and using engine skills while the missile is being locked on you is a counterplay. People just don't complain about missiles since it's obvious that any ship that has them will use them on you.

Why don't you complain about damage from blaster fire / rocket pods that if done right is unavoidable? It does damage right away and in some cases for about as much as a railgun hit (or even more). You can be dead before you even know it when TT+CF+Quad/BLC+Pod scout gets behind you while you're trying to kill that other guy. How is that any different from getting a hit from a railgun? In case of a railgun though, you know you have at least 0.675 seconds to do something. In case of the scout - not really. Arguments such as situational awareness apply equally to gunships and to scouts. You can see all ships within 15 km (OMG, 15 km is the exact range of a railgun!).

 

The threat of a gunship is obvious as soon as you see them selected by the enemy. A threat of a bomber on a node is obvious as soon as you see enemy selecting it. You can see what the enemy has in stock for you and you have up to 5 ships to choose from to be most competitive. You can see what your team is selecting and choose a ship to complement that composition.

 

The fact that noobs don't know how to deal with different ships is not the gunship issue. It's a tutorial issue and the fact that we can't do dueling in space where experienced pilots can teach noobs a few tricks.

[LilSaihah]

So even you admit that close games that you win give you most satisfaction, but I'm not talking about that.

 

Yes you are.

You are talking about it right now.

If you're not talking about that, then don't bring it up.

[WiseStranger]

Yes you are.

You are talking about it right now.

If you're not talking about that, then don't bring it up.

 

Too bad you had nothing else to say. Just for you I shall elaborate.

 

When I say "...for as long as Win > Loss in terms of rewards", rewards include things you can see in game as well as satisfaction from winning. When people start to get satisfaction from loosing, the thing about having fun from experiencing an ability/mechanic used on them might become true.

 

Most frustrating losses (in case you didn't know it) are the losses where you were so close to victory, but wasn't able to reach it by a hair. To give a more earthly example for you, it's much less frustrating to be late for a train by 30 minutes than by 30 seconds and see how it takes off. Repeated losses when you were bested by just a tiny bit do not provide for fun experience. I have no idea why you even started with all the crap about having fun from loosing in a close game if you admit that winning is better than loosing. I just pointed out this inconsistency. (All of this "fun from the game you lost" is just an illusion people sprout to cover up the truth: "I lost that game. I wasn't good enough"). I pointed that as something for you to think about. I overestimated you. On the other hand it's so nice of you not to say that I wasn't actually talking but typing. That would have landed you extra marks... or not.

[Zoom_VI]

I'm not even going to bother responding to someone who opens every post with a Ad Homin.

 

My battle record tells me I have a 9/1 kill/death ratio and a 90% win/rate. You can take your Ad hominems elsewhere.

[Drakkolich]

Too bad you had nothing else to say. Just for you I shall elaborate.

 

When I say "...for as long as Win > Loss in terms of rewards", rewards include things you can see in game as well as satisfaction from winning. When people start to get satisfaction from loosing, the thing about having fun from experiencing an ability/mechanic used on them might become true.

 

Most frustrating losses (in case you didn't know it) are the losses where you were so close to victory, but wasn't able to reach it by a hair. To give a more earthly example for you, it's much less frustrating to be late for a train by 30 minutes than by 30 seconds and see how it takes off. Repeated losses when you were bested by just a tiny bit do not provide for fun experience. I have no idea why you even started with all the crap about having fun from loosing in a close game if you admit that winning is better than loosing. I just pointed out this inconsistency. (All of this "fun from the game you lost" is just an illusion people sprout to cover up the truth: "I lost that game. I wasn't good enough"). I pointed that as something for you to think about. I overestimated you. On the other hand it's so nice of you not to say that I wasn't actually talking but typing. That would have landed you extra marks... or not.

 

I think most people talk about the fact that they enjoy losing close matches more then winning by a landslide because they actually finally had a challenging game. You are right though if a player is constantly losing close games that would get very frustrating, I just don't think that this is where this whole I prefer losing close games mentality is coming from. I don't think anyone is going to argue that winning that close game is way more fun then losing it.

 

With the matchmaker having so much trouble lining up decent games with the low populations on most servers, I personally know a lot of players that only get good matches every 15-20 games. While losing still sucks these "good" or "close" games are what have become the most fun part of the game, since the rest of the games have just become mindless slaughters.

 

While I agree with you as I'm very competitive winning is what matters most, I can see how some people would be happy with just getting to fly vs opponents of their skill level.

 

 

 

Briefly I'm going to go over the counter play vs gunship, as it definitely is there.

 

-Evasion is the best natural defense to railguns

-You can always see a gunship via targeting if it is in range to fire on you

-You can always check your map to know exactly how many and what players are playing gunship

-Other then the absolute highest evasion build (which already counters gunships) you cannot be one shot by one unless they have Damage Overcharge, which is broadcasted on your screen

-It's very obvious when you have taken damage from a gunship this is that you know to immediately be evasive to avoid the next shot

-When a gunship is charging its railgun it gives off a giant color aura of the railgun its firing so you know that its charging and even what rail its charging (Red = Plasma Yellow = Slug Blue = Ion)

-If you target a gunship you can see who he is targeting and if he is facing in your direction in case he's trying to be sneaky and shoot you without targeting you

 

 

 

Now looking at the part where if having the ability used on you is fun or not, no one ever wants to die however these things I've put up above are actually very fun to do to help in not getting killed vs a gunship. Constantly making sure you arn't in range of a gunship, watching for the huge glowing balls, getting evasive if one does happen to shoot at you, instantly popping your evasion cooldowns to help evade that next shot, keeping track of not only who on the enemy team got the Damage Overcharge buff but what ship class he's playing. Don't get me wrong these are all very difficult to do all at the same time, but that is what counter play is.

 

If we take a league of legends reference blocking skill shots by using the minions while still killing the creeps and keeping good positioning so you don't get ganked is very difficult, but that's what counter play is. If anything missile counter play is way more boring then gunship counter play all you do is manage your missile break cooldown and once its down hide until its back up, that's very easy counter play.

 

All I'm trying to say is there are plenty of things you as the player can do to avoid railgun damage and yes they are difficult. Is it fun to actually get hit by the railgun no, but avoiding getting hit by that shot and then killing the gunship is so much more rewarding then pressing "3" and avoiding a strike fighters missile and then killing him.

 

So yes there is gunship/railgun counter play at work in GSF, could it be improved probably. I really liked the idea of different ship classes having different targeting icons to be able to pick out the ones you want to target first.

[Drakkolich]

Since were talking about Extra Credits a show I really really like I figured we could also talk about this video.

 

In GSF I really think the FOOS (First Order Optimal Strategy) is the Railgun. It acts very much like the noobtube in call of duty. It allows lesser skilled players to get kills on the higher skilled ones.

 

Now I know everyone is going to hop on and say but a lot of the good players are still using the Railgun as their primary weapon. However I think the really hard part of playing gunship is staying alive while using it. Doing damage in a gunship while there is no pressure on you is very easy, however the really good pilots are the ones that are able to kill people and stay alive with all that pressure.

 

You could even think of the bombers drones and mines as FOOS, as they don't require a whole lot of skill to use and get a big pay off. This gives newer players a way to do very helpful damage for their team while still learning the rest of it.

 

This might be one of the brand new players biggest problems, the 2 starting ships are actually really rough to learn on. If you have a friend starting up, maybe consider telling them to try a drone bomber as with the slow flying and drones to help him do damage, he can learn to fly and shoot all while still getting that feeling of "I'm helping my team".

 

Let me know what you guys think about this, please watch the video if you want to comment on what I'm talking about though.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Drakkolich

[WiseStranger]

I'm not even going to bother responding to someone who opens every post with a Ad Homin.

 

My battle record tells me I have a 9/1 kill/death ratio and a 90% win/rate. You can take your Ad hominems elsewhere.

 

They why did you bother responding? Or do you like to contradict yourself? Oh and BTW, if you're using Latin, use it properly every time or maybe use plain old English?

[WiseStranger]

I think most people talk about the fact that they enjoy losing close matches more then winning by a landslide because they actually finally had a challenging game. You are right though if a player is constantly losing close games that would get very frustrating, I just don't think that this is where this whole I prefer losing close games mentality is coming from. I don't think anyone is going to argue that winning that close game is way more fun then losing it.

 

With the matchmaker having so much trouble lining up decent games with the low populations on most servers, I personally know a lot of players that only get good matches every 15-20 games. While losing still sucks these "good" or "close" games are what have become the most fun part of the game, since the rest of the games have just become mindless slaughters.

 

While I agree with you as I'm very competitive winning is what matters most, I can see how some people would be happy with just getting to fly vs opponents of their skill level.

 

 

 

Briefly I'm going to go over the counter play vs gunship, as it definitely is there.

 

-Evasion is the best natural defense to railguns

-You can always see a gunship via targeting if it is in range to fire on you

-You can always check your map to know exactly how many and what players are playing gunship

-Other then the absolute highest evasion build (which already counters gunships) you cannot be one shot by one unless they have Damage Overcharge, which is broadcasted on your screen

-It's very obvious when you have taken damage from a gunship this is that you know to immediately be evasive to avoid the next shot

-When a gunship is charging its railgun it gives off a giant color aura of the railgun its firing so you know that its charging and even what rail its charging (Red = Plasma Yellow = Slug Blue = Ion)

-If you target a gunship you can see who he is targeting and if he is facing in your direction in case he's trying to be sneaky and shoot you without targeting you

 

 

 

Now looking at the part where if having the ability used on you is fun or not, no one ever wants to die however these things I've put up above are actually very fun to do to help in not getting killed vs a gunship. Constantly making sure you arn't in range of a gunship, watching for the huge glowing balls, getting evasive if one does happen to shoot at you, instantly popping your evasion cooldowns to help evade that next shot, keeping track of not only who on the enemy team got the Damage Overcharge buff but what ship class he's playing. Don't get me wrong these are all very difficult to do all at the same time, but that is what counter play is.

 

If we take a league of legends reference blocking skill shots by using the minions while still killing the creeps and keeping good positioning so you don't get ganked is very difficult, but that's what counter play is. If anything missile counter play is way more boring then gunship counter play all you do is manage your missile break cooldown and once its down hide until its back up, that's very easy counter play.

 

All I'm trying to say is there are plenty of things you as the player can do to avoid railgun damage and yes they are difficult. Is it fun to actually get hit by the railgun no, but avoiding getting hit by that shot and then killing the gunship is so much more rewarding then pressing "3" and avoiding a strike fighters missile and then killing him.

 

So yes there is gunship/railgun counter play at work in GSF, could it be improved probably. I really liked the idea of different ship classes having different targeting icons to be able to pick out the ones you want to target first.

 

This is pretty much what I said earlier. Gunships provide enough counterplay and claims that they do not are baseless.

 

Since were talking about Extra Credits a show I really really like I figured we could also talk about this video.

 

In GSF I really think the FOOS (First Order Optimal Strategy) is the Railgun. It acts very much like the noobtube in call of duty. It allows lesser skilled players to get kills on the higher skilled ones.

 

Now I know everyone is going to hop on and say but a lot of the good players are still using the Railgun as their primary weapon. However I think the really hard part of playing gunship is staying alive while using it. Doing damage in a gunship while there is no pressure on you is very easy, however the really good pilots are the ones that are able to kill people and stay alive with all that pressure.

 

You could even think of the bombers drones and mines as FOOS, as they don't require a whole lot of skill to use and get a big pay off. This gives newer players a way to do very helpful damage for their team while still learning the rest of it.

 

This might be one of the brand new players biggest problems, the 2 starting ships are actually really rough to learn on. If you have a friend starting up, maybe consider telling them to try a drone bomber as with the slow flying and drones to help him do damage, he can learn to fly and shoot all while still getting that feeling of "I'm helping my team".

 

Let me know what you guys think about this, please watch the video if you want to comment on what I'm talking about though.

 

The idea of this type of balancing isn't new, though it's time consuming. You can probably say that system of sidegrading is very close to what they describe where you specialize in something while sacrificing something else.

Edited November 10, 2014 by WiseStranger

[Verain]

They why did you bother responding?

 

He didn't respond. That was his point- instead of addressing your "points", he called you out for mostly just using direct insults of the sort of "this fellow is obviously of low quality in some manner (a personal attack, justified or not- generally not, here), and even if that is unrelated, you will still think ill of him because of the unsavory reputation I have just put in your mind- lacking substance to argue with, I use sophistry and psychological tricks to win arguments instead of further discussion".

 

 

Good plain old English? Or you could wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

And since this, like MANY Latin words and phrases, are used routinely, they have actually entered the English language:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

 

 

 

And for what it is worth- I definitely agree that gunships offer a lot of counterplay. Gunships, unlike snipers in most games, have a VERY short range, and several counter abilities to go along with their generally fragile and out-of-shape hull parameters. A gunship who is shooting at you encourages you to turn your shields turn him (charging slug or plasma) away from him (charging ion), use quick charge as soon as hit, press disto just before hit, use an engine maneuver to give yourself evasion or line of sight, and provides a solid and vulnerable high value target for teamplay, including deroosting the gunship and immediately swapping to another target. Even a bomber can close the 15k range reasonably fast, and a scout can do it very quickly.

 

There are two first order optimal tricks in the game railgun sentry drone, and the large shield and hull of a strike fighter. While the damage of the drone is not extreme, it can't be avoided, and can often score a kill against an advanced player flying evasively, because he has to see it drop and immediately range or los it- a hard task. Strike Fighters provide MUCH more survival in the hands of a true newb, with understandable and flyable constraints combined with a solid base of hull and shield. While railgun sentry drones maintain usefulness at all levels (and in fact are only one part of flying that particular bomber build correctly) the strike's extra survival quickly reverses itself as the newb becomes a pilot and no longer flies straight, get disoriented, and slams into obstacles as much.

 

Railguns are sort of close- it's much more possible to strike as a new player with the railgun than any of the crap the fighters start with, and it's definitely easier to contribute to some degree. The damage can also be large. But unlike the other tricks above, the railgun involves a decent amount of aiming. Of the main weapons- blasters, missiles, mines, railguns- railguns provide an easy way to modify the battlefield. Also, while railguns end up with a very high skill cap. The advanced player is rolling to pitch to target, zooming out,, pulling his nose past his target while charging and releasing most of his shots at near zero defection, and has a good sense of how much charge is needed in the first place (on top of the defensive flight that Drako brings up). This part alone likely takes it out of first order optimal, and makes it into a powerful weapon with counterplay.

[WiseStranger]

He didn't respond. That was his point- instead of addressing your "points", he called you out for mostly just using direct insults of the sort of "this fellow is obviously of low quality in some manner (a personal attack, justified or not- generally not, here), and even if that is unrelated, you will still think ill of him because of the unsavory reputation I have just put in your mind- lacking substance to argue with, I use sophistry and psychological tricks to win arguments instead of further discussion".

 

 

Good plain old English? Or you could wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

And since this, like MANY Latin words and phrases, are used routinely, they have actually entered the English language:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

 

We can argue about definition of "respond" in the context, but let's say that if one doesn't want to respond - they just won't. They have no need to announce to the world that they "won't bother responding" and then type some stats to ensure that the world knows that they in fact might be very skilled.

 

I question the original post as I don't think that a player of great skill would have a need to tie that particular video to gunships since it's obvious to skilled pilots that gunships offer counterplay and instead of creating a thread for crying about those nasty gunships, a player of great skill should have created a thread about counterplay options when fighting gunships.

 

And about Latin... if one puts "ad homin" and "ad hominems" within one, very short post... (to my knowledge at least one of these must be incorrect. You should understand what I'm referring to considering the links you've posted.)

 

And for what it is worth- I definitely agree that gunships offer a lot of counterplay. Gunships, unlike snipers in most games, have a VERY short range, and several counter abilities to go along with their generally fragile and out-of-shape hull parameters. A gunship who is shooting at you encourages you to turn your shields turn him (charging slug or plasma) away from him (charging ion), use quick charge as soon as hit, press disto just before hit, use an engine maneuver to give yourself evasion or line of sight, and provides a solid and vulnerable high value target for teamplay, including deroosting the gunship and immediately swapping to another target. Even a bomber can close the 15k range reasonably fast, and a scout can do it very quickly.

 

There are two first order optimal tricks in the game railgun sentry drone, and the large shield and hull of a strike fighter. While the damage of the drone is not extreme, it can't be avoided, and can often score a kill against an advanced player flying evasively, because he has to see it drop and immediately range or los it- a hard task. Strike Fighters provide MUCH more survival in the hands of a true newb, with understandable and flyable constraints combined with a solid base of hull and shield. While railgun sentry drones maintain usefulness at all levels (and in fact are only one part of flying that particular bomber build correctly) the strike's extra survival quickly reverses itself as the newb becomes a pilot and no longer flies straight, get disoriented, and slams into obstacles as much.

 

Railguns are sort of close- it's much more possible to strike as a new player with the railgun than any of the crap the fighters start with, and it's definitely easier to contribute to some degree. The damage can also be large. But unlike the other tricks above, the railgun involves a decent amount of aiming. Of the main weapons- blasters, missiles, mines, railguns- railguns provide an easy way to modify the battlefield. Also, while railguns end up with a very high skill cap. The advanced player is rolling to pitch to target, zooming out,, pulling his nose past his target while charging and releasing most of his shots at near zero defection, and has a good sense of how much charge is needed in the first place (on top of the defensive flight that Drako brings up). This part alone likely takes it out of first order optimal, and makes it into a powerful weapon with counterplay.

 

I'm glad that we agree on gunships offering enough counterplay.

[zaskar]

I'm glad that we agree on gunships offering enough counterplay.

umm, in the wise words of Inigo.

"...You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...."

[Aussircaex]

I can't seem to find it among the walls of text, but someone defied us to say that being shot with missiles and dying was fun. Well, I'm here to say it IS fun. No, that doesn't mean I get my jollies from the act of being killed by the missiles, but being shot at by missiles is fun. I feel competent and skilled when I maneuver to break my opponent's lock before he launches. I feel clever when I am not fooled into burning my missile breaks before I have to.

 

Being shot at by missiles is interesting for the person being shot at, not just the shooter. Being shot by a gunboat is, by comparison, not interesting. That's counterplay. It had nothing to do with this debate of game balance we have been dragged into. It is not a question of "can I change equipment to counter gunships". It's not an accusation of gunships being OP. It's just not exciting to be shot by a gunship. That is the point (mine, at least).

[Urglab]

I can't seem to find it among the walls of text, but someone defied us to say that being shot with missiles and dying was fun. Well, I'm here to say it IS fun. No, that doesn't mean I get my jollies from the act of being killed by the missiles, but being shot at by missiles is fun. I feel competent and skilled when I maneuver to break my opponent's lock before he launches. I feel clever when I am not fooled into burning my missile breaks before I have to.

 

Being shot at by missiles is interesting for the person being shot at, not just the shooter. Being shot by a gunboat is, by comparison, not interesting. That's counterplay. It had nothing to do with this debate of game balance we have been dragged into. It is not a question of "can I change equipment to counter gunships". It's not an accusation of gunships being OP. It's just not exciting to be shot by a gunship. That is the point (mine, at least).

 

But being shot at by a railgun is interesting, it lets you know there's a gunship around that needs to be dealt with. Sure, getting hit will hurt, but a missed railgun leaves an obvious trail and when that passes right by you it was most likely not fired by a friendly gunship.

 

Deciding what to do next can be a tough decision. Do I break off my current target or not? Can I kill him quickly while being evasive or losing the gunship? If I break off will he be free to wreck me or my teammates? Do I los the gunship and tactically approach it or do I quickly close the distance? And so on.

 

Having to analyse the situation quickly and making spur of the moment decisions is the interesting bit. Do I always make the right decision? No, but every bad decision is an opportunity to learn and improve. An example would be gunships that use feedback shields, it added something extra to keep track of, can my front shield absorb the hit or do I need to go evasive while my shields regen?

 

PS give strikes access to feedback shield devs!

[Verain]

umm, in the wise words of Inigo.

 

Well, he was talking to me on that point, and he and I absolutely agree there.

 

It's just not exciting to be shot by a gunship. That is the point (mine, at least).

 

Well, is it exciting to be ATTACKED by a gunship? I actually believe it is possible to be shot at by a gunship you can't see, but it is a very thin set of possibilities that allow for that- in practice, it doesn't exist (even the theoretical assertion of this is controversial, but I'm pretty sure a starguard 14,600 away from a gunship with dampening that is shooting him in the butt can't be tabbed to before that shot hits).

 

So what you are left with is a sphere that a mortarman is trying to get close enough to be effective in, plant himself, wind up a properly aimed and reasonably powered shot, and have it not be evaded. That's your gunship encounter- if the first thing you see about a gunship is a red hull or turning into space dust, then obviously you aren't having fun, but that doesn't mean there's no counterplay- it just means you aren't doing it. It means you let him do the other things without you or anyone else noticing him, despite him having no particular trick- his name shows on the other side of rocks, after all.

 

And the fact that gunships have such short range comparatively is very likely due to the point where comparisons with fps classes and concepts end. The gunship is a sturdy frame for mounting guns. They have access to burst lasers and heavy lasers, and if those aren't good enough they also have lights. Every gunship but one is sporting a capacitor- it's obvious that these guys are all about guns, which is why gun is their first name. However, in an FPS, everyone turns at the same rate (infinity!), which often results in TF2 type classes having very sharp restrictions on what they can use as a primary weapon, because weaponry is a lot of the story. But in a game with variable pitch and yaw, that lets you talk about a ship with an array of powerful weapons of varying ranges- a gunship has burst laser, but it won't often win a dogfight with a scout, etc.

[Drakkolich]

I can't seem to find it among the walls of text, but someone defied us to say that being shot with missiles and dying was fun. Well, I'm here to say it IS fun. No, that doesn't mean I get my jollies from the act of being killed by the missiles, but being shot at by missiles is fun. I feel competent and skilled when I maneuver to break my opponent's lock before he launches. I feel clever when I am not fooled into burning my missile breaks before I have to.

 

Being shot at by missiles is interesting for the person being shot at, not just the shooter. Being shot by a gunboat is, by comparison, not interesting. That's counterplay. It had nothing to do with this debate of game balance we have been dragged into. It is not a question of "can I change equipment to counter gunships". It's not an accusation of gunships being OP. It's just not exciting to be shot by a gunship. That is the point (mine, at least).

 

I'm glad you fine the missile counter play really fun, I do as well. I just happen to find the gunship counter play more fun as it's more challenging.

 

The missile counter play is very easy to figure out, when a missile is being locked on you, you have 2 choices either break it with your engine maneuver or distortion field missile break once its fired or use line of sight to break the lock before its fired. That's it there is no other counter play at work here, while this is fun it's also kind of dull after thousands of games.

 

Gunship counter play is very different as it's not nearly as easy to figure out on your own. There are way more things you can do to evade the gunship shots but all of them are more difficult then waiting for the giant beeping sound to let you know you're in trouble.

 

I'm not going to go over everything I talked about before in my other posts but suffice to say for me gunship counter play is way more interesting and fun then missile counter play. I still enjoy missile counter play though don't take that the wrong way.

[WiseStranger]

I can't seem to find it among the walls of text, but someone defied us to say that being shot with missiles and dying was fun. Well, I'm here to say it IS fun. No, that doesn't mean I get my jollies from the act of being killed by the missiles, but being shot at by missiles is fun. I feel competent and skilled when I maneuver to break my opponent's lock before he launches. I feel clever when I am not fooled into burning my missile breaks before I have to.

 

Being shot at by missiles is interesting for the person being shot at, not just the shooter. Being shot by a gunboat is, by comparison, not interesting. That's counterplay. It had nothing to do with this debate of game balance we have been dragged into. It is not a question of "can I change equipment to counter gunships". It's not an accusation of gunships being OP. It's just not exciting to be shot by a gunship. That is the point (mine, at least).

 

One thing you do not grasp (unfortunately)

 

I'll start from afar:

There are only 2 ship types with all engine components choices offering missile break option (Type 1 & Type 2 scouts)

There are only 2 ship types with all engine components choices NOT offering missile break option (Type 1 & Type 2 bombers)

Every other ship has an option to go with an engine component that doesn't have missile break. Some of those 8 ship types have more than one to choose from.

 

Every ship that has an engine with missile break option will choose it over everything else. The important part you missed here is that YOU CHOOSE to use an engine that has missile break option.

 

Similarly all ships that have access to Distortion Field as a shield option will choose it over everything else and what's more important they will chose the T3 option that provides missile break. Not extended duration, but missile break!

 

From this information we can make a conclusion that people deliberately choose components that provide missile break option. No good gunship will choose rotational thrusters (engine component that rotates them to face their current target withing 15 km), even though it helps with pathetic turning rates that gunships have. "Why?" would someone ask? Because as soon as such engine is used, you will die to missiles every single time. (Distortion Field might extend your agony a bit, but you will die to missiles). Why type 3 bomber will choose Power Dive? Same reason! You cure your vulnerability to missiles.

 

There is not a single experienced pilot that can live through a match without a missile break. All that clever piloting is delaying the inevitable use of missile break. For some reason people expect that they will be shot at with missiles, but OMG! nobody anticipates that they will be shot at from a railgun? Are you serious here?

 

"Being shot at by missiles is interesting for the person being shot at, not just the shooter."

Now here is a question: would you dare to come here and say the same if you had not chosen to have a missile break option? I don't think you will be having fun being shot at by missiles after even one game against similarly skilled enemy. Whoever comes to complain after making that choice will be laughed at!

Oh and please if you're going to argue this, try to convince me that you have the time of your life when someone is shooting you with cluster missiles on cooldown or even better when there are 2-3 of them! (I know I don't really enjoy the receiving end of it even on Type 1 scout with 3 missile breaks)

And while you're at it, tell us how you enjoy warning sounds and visuals when you're hit with rocket pods (they are also missiles).

 

"Being shot by a gunboat is, by comparison, not interesting."

It is a common knowledge that railguns have accuracy and tracking penalty, therefore they are affected by evasion. There is an obvious choice to raise your evasion to the highest possible level to increase your defense against railguns (this will sacrifice some Shield and Hull or DR). If you choose not to do it, don't come here saying it's no fun that gunships shoot at you and hit you. It's in the same category as not choosing to have missile break and complaining about being shot and hit by missiles. You made your choice so either "zip it & stick with it" or "change your approach to gearing up". I've been in situations where gunships missed me 3-4 times in a row (you can see the traces railguns leave) and I've missed 5-6 times in a row as a gunship. Most ships can live with that 432 damage (648 on a rare crit) to the hull just fine. Type 3 strike or Type 2 bomber can heal that in no time and laugh at it while in cover. Scouts are different only because their shields can't absorb the rest of the damage from slug, but they have the highest evasion they can bet on.

 

TL;DR: Gunships provide enough options for counterplay that were already discussed and not only by me. If you are choosing not to use them, it's your problem.

Edited November 10, 2014 by WiseStranger

[Aussircaex]

Oh I see now, he doesn't care to treat others as equal participant in this discussion, he just wants to talk down to people and make gigantic assumptions about how they play before insulting them further. Well, thank goodness for ignore functions.

[zaskar]

PS give strikes access to feedback shield devs!

 

This right here is a prime example of either not watching the video in the OP or simply not understanding it. Feedback shield on strikes would be poor counterplay. Hell in general, feedback shield is a poor counterplay

 

1. they offer no protection vs. rail

2. "death to a thousand cuts" scouts would still destroy the target in less than 10 seconds.

3. Other strikes can defeat them simply by choosing a low damage weapon or something that bypasses shields

4. BLC scouts/T3 GS need to watch for the buff/sparkles, they have other systems to keep pressure on until the shield effect is gone

 

This system is a trap. A trap for the user thinking they are going to be protected by the system by reflecting all attacks and a trap for the attacker that does not know what the visual effect means.

 

A game mechanic that is not obvious to new players and very simple to bypass by experienced players offers no counterplay as described in the video. It would need to offer challenge, a FUN challenge throughout then entire game cycle. Traps are not fun nor a challenge once learned.

[ghosterl]

1. they offer no protection vs. rail

2. "death to a thousand cuts" scouts would still destroy the target in less than 10 seconds.

3. Other strikes can defeat them simply by choosing a low damage weapon or something that bypasses shields

4. BLC scouts/T3 GS need to watch for the buff/sparkles, they have other systems to keep pressure on until the shield effect is gone

 

Feedback shield does a fixed amount of damage once if you hit the enemy with your primary weapon during its duration, regardless of how much damage your shot has dealt. Just one blast of damage with a slight chance to crit, no shield or armor piercing.

 

There's literally no point in waiting for the buff to run its course unless you're low on shields and burning like the proverbial christmas tree.

 

Sure, feedback shield is a trap component because it is crap, not because it's poor counterplay. It ain't even that.

Edited November 10, 2014 by ghosterl

[LilSaihah]

I don't think that feedback shield on Rycer/Quell would do much of anything. Doesn't address the problems- Lots of missile breaks in the meta, lots of 100% armor pen in the meta, other ships do its jobs better.

 

Also gets in the way of Quell/Imperium's current job, which is eating mines like pacman.

[MDVZ]

umm, in the wise words of Inigo.

 

Yeah.

 

Few people seem to be getting the point here. It, I suppose, is an unhelpful similarity between 'countering tactic' and the term counter-play, as used here.

 

It was pretty well explained in the video and has been re-explained pretty well here, so I doubt I can help much, but;

 

Countering tactics have been described ad nauseam by many contributors to the thread, and not been contested, because they're all correct.

 

The point is that that rail shots come out of nowhere at the brink of your sensor radius and 3 times your weapons range. Don't say it doesn't happen with all your countering tactics, because it does, to all of us. With a dampening sensors GS, you may not even be able to find them to see what direction it came from. Counterplay is something that affords you the opportunity to know that that is about to happen, right in that moment, and equips you with something to do about it. Otherwise it's out of nowhere. By contrast, missiles, most of which fire from ranges you have immediate agency within, and some of which take longer to fire and all of which do less damage, allow you to do something about the missile hitting you before it hits you. The GS shot only allows its victim agency after it hits. That's the difference.

 

You can take precautions against being hit. That's not counterplay. That's a countering tactic. You can spot a GS first and go and smash it. Countering tactic, not counter-play. You can respond to being hit in a fashion that leads to your short term survival or a possibility of the gunships destruction. That's not counter-play either. Counter-play is something that lets you know that this attack is coming, right now, from a GS that you aren't targeting or looking right at, and affords you the chance to do something to prevent it.

 

It's not unlike a pod-scout, either. They can kill you even faster (faster than you can react, depending on ship and rolls), and you can miss them around you quite easily as well. Not AS easily, as people tab, and tabbing cycles through targets in order of distance, and scouts that happen to be after you will tend to be nearest, while GS targeting you furthest. But that's not counter-play either, so you could apply the same sort of argument, and people make the same sort of complaints about them. it just so happened the OP thought of GSs when he saw the video.

 

The best candidate for 'counter-play' is 'there are lights when they're firing'. That's qualitatively valid, but very weak. You know about every time you're under missile lock, and every individual missile fired at you. You can only see GS charges in your field of view. Do the people making this argument fly doing continuous 720 degree rotation to see if there are any GSs charging around them?

 

We aren't talking about anything sophisticated or game-breaking here. Just something to tell you that a GS is charging a shot at you so you can do something to stop it hitting before it's fired. It'll make it harder for GSs to get kills and easier to go find and kill them, but that's hardly a bad thing, especially for GS players that like a challenge. Far more importantly, it is true that GSs are chief among the banes of new players. It's one of the reason old players like them so much, if we're honest. Some counterplay would go some way to alleviate a common barrier for entry to GSF for new players and help the community grow some more. The noobs some experienced players deride so much can become good in time, y'know. They just have to feel that they can do something other than die all the time.

 

Just a noise in the cockpit. Some ominous rumbling swelling charging sound or something. That's all we're talking about.

 

Also, verain, 'comparatively short range'....by far the longest range weapons in the game have a short range compared to...?

Edited November 11, 2014 by MDVZ

[MiaowZedong]

Feedback shield does a fixed amount of damage once if you hit the enemy with your primary weapon during its duration, regardless of how much damage your shot has dealt. Just one blast of damage with a slight chance to crit, no shield or armor piercing.

 

There's literally no point in waiting for the buff to run its course unless you're low on shields and burning like the proverbial christmas tree.

 

Sure, feedback shield is a trap component because it is crap, not because it's poor counterplay. It ain't even that.

 

This is simply not true. Effective use of Feedback Shield may have a higher skill requirement than Distortion Field and cover a much smaller range of situations, but when used properly within its niche it is arguably at least as effective. As such it is a niche component, and because its niche is actually a situation that causes great concern to gunship pilots (being attacked by a scout ace) it is a viable niche component. That is the reason you'll see a few good and ace-level gunship pilots running Feedback Shield—in addition to the fact it's just plain fun, of course.

 

That said the mind boggles at the idea strikes should have it. Feedback Shield is very specific: it is useful against ships with a low HP pool (or else the damage is just not good enough), that are hard to damage with your weapons (or else it's better to take another shield and use your weapons), who relly on their primary weapons to deal most of their damage (since it only triggers on primary weapon hits), when you aren't being swarmed (because each use of the ability only affects one enemy). Tactics using Feedback Shield are greatly enhanced if your weapons do high single-hit damage (such as BLC or Railguns, both available on gunships). In addition, because it is very useful to anticipate the attack as much in advance as possible, it is recommended for the Feedback Shield user to be keeping tabs on players considered major threats even while engaging other players, and this is easier for the gunships to do since their railguns do not gain anything out of targetting the players being shot at.

 

Basically it's an ability that is completely taylored for the situation of a skilled gunship pilot being attacked by a skilled scout pilot (an unskilled gunship pilot will just waste the ability—I've seen that all too often). Even then it's not clearly the optimal ability, because DF is still very useful there while also being very good in a great many situations where FS is not useful at all, and requiring less planning to use to boot. It is not at all suited to strikes.