[Guide] Tips for Newer GSF Players

[SnakeSNMF]

sometimes i look up to the sky and think donut

[SnakeSNMF]

Thank you for this wonderful roleplay guide, Dakhath. Now I know how to properly handle the beast. And the beast within myself.

 

Sometimes, when I'm drinking I smoke a cigarette. And my drink lights a cigarette. Then it talks about how much it wants to bang me. Good on you, cigarette. Thanks, cigarette.

 

wait this isn't where i parked my car

[CommanderKiko]

quoted for back link

 

Where did I contradict myself again? I think you completely missed what I said, and my so-called contradictions you called out are not contradictions.

 

1. Me saying its viable and me saying its viable is me saying the same exact thing.
   
2. Me saying its a bad component and me saying its a bad component is me saying exactly the same thing.
   

 

These two points are not mutually exclusive. Something can be bad and viable at the same time.

An old computer can be bad at running a game, but can still be a Viable option to run a game even though a new computer would be better - and the old computer is likely far cheaper or even free.

A bus may drop you off a block away from your works parking lot. but is still a Viable way to get to work even though a car would get you closer - and the bus might be cheaper.

A fortress sheild might be bad at keeping you alive, but is still Viable to keep you alive even though DF is better - and might help you stay alive in niche situations DF wouldn't (especially for newbies who need to learn certain tactics)

 

All of these are bad, but still

 

vi·a·ble

ˈvīəb(ə)l/

adjective

capable of working successfully; feasible.

"the proposed investment was economically viable"

synonyms: feasible, workable, practicable, practical, usable, possible, realistic, achievable, attainable, realizable; informaldoable

"it doesn't sound like a viable solution"

 

 

As in not

 

 

i·de·al

īˈdē(ə)l/Submit

adjective

1.

satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable.

"the swimming pool is ideal for a quick dip"

synonyms: perfect, best possible, consummate, supreme, excellent, flawless, faultless, exemplary, classic, model, ultimate, quintessential, picture-perfect

"ideal flying weather"

 

 

Edited for emphasis

Edited July 9, 2015 by CommanderKiko

[Danalon]

This is literally Spike telling Johnny why Johnny is bad and spike is good.

 

Re-read the article. It's been a while (and I'm not re-reading it myself tonight, because I'm a nerd and I've already read it 2-3 times), but I distinctly remember MaRo saying somewhere in there that Timmy and Johnny don't care about how they win. Certainly on his blog, he's explicitly said that they're in it for the experience, not the win. And again, it's the Spike in you adding the caveat of "against anyone good" (Spike is the only of the three that cares about that kind of thing, or, arguably, anything about their opponent).

 

As far as I've understand it Timmy and Johnny both extremely care HOW they win; they don't care how often they win.

 

Interesting text, helps understand other players behaviour.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Danalon

[Armonddd]

As far as I've understand it Timmy and Johnny both extremely care HOW they win; they don't care how often they win.

 

Interesting text, helps understand other players behaviour.

 

My bad. Should have said "how MUCH they win".

[Magira]

Yes of course. Fortress does not work well against players like Ghostwatch and not against an organized team. Only that's not the problem. I have 5 Ships in the hangar, and of course an answer for VOIP Premades also. Against Ghostwatch anyway does not help, no matter what I take.

 

My Fortress GS still very often is used because the "meta" has changed to GSF and VOIP groups have become extremely rare.

 

What most forget that GSF is not a game of individual ships. It's about the whole hangar. The 5 ships in the hangar have to cover a large range of possible situations. From this realization arises that rather general "meta" builds for precisely this purpose are not suitable and it comes to drive 5 more special builds.

 

And for newcomers: Master all 12 ships and try all sorts of builds. And learn from the beginning to play your entire hangar and not just a ship.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Magira

[Armonddd]

It amazes me that people are still making arguments for new players to seriously use the worst component in the game. This is the new player help thread, not the thread where you give new players bad advice so you can farm them for your personal stats.

 

And for newcomers: Master all 12 ships and try all sorts of builds. And learn from the beginning to play your entire hangar and not just a ship.

 

This isn't necessarily bad advice (certainly unlocking all ships early so your daily and weekly tokens carry more weight is a good thing and can save you problems down the line, as OP can attest), but it's also possible to get good by only flying one ship. I went from middling pilot to ace by only flying a single build of Flashfire, for instance -- I didn't touch the bomber, gunship, or strike for more than maybe 30 games out of numbers 100-1000. I found a build I had a lot of fun with and I stuck with it until I was the best on my server and beyond.

[Quentori]

I was reading this thread to see if I wanna try starfighter again...

 

...what i get out of it is everyones opinion is golden and any contradiction to that is blasphemy.

 

Lets look at traditional non gsf warzones for a moment, what doesn;t work well for others works great for soemone else, its how they use it and when.

 

So you're all right, whilst all wrong.

 

All ignoring the circumstantials of "at the time and place" ...

 

 

So overrall....learned little and recent nit picking has taken faith from the posters words, and ops.

 

Bad as eachother...and lessens weight of their words.

 

Be approachable in your arguments, or more likely than not, people will not bother listening. (thats to the OP as well)

[Magira]

It amazes me that people are still making arguments for new players to seriously use the worst component in the game. This is the new player help thread, not the thread where you give new players bad advice so you can farm them for your personal stats.

 

Nice conspiracy theory. But I'd rather have Disto GS as an opponent. For me it would be bad if all go to Fortress.

 

This isn't necessarily bad advice (certainly unlocking all ships early so your daily and weekly tokens carry more weight is a good thing and can save you problems down the line, as OP can attest), but it's also possible to get good by only flying one ship. I went from middling pilot to ace by only flying a single build of Flashfire, for instance -- I didn't touch the bomber, gunship, or strike for more than maybe 30 games out of numbers 100-1000. I found a build I had a lot of fun with and I stuck with it until I was the best on my server and beyond.

 

You hit nails with a screwdriver in the wall? Or screw with a hammer?

Edited July 9, 2015 by Magira

[CommanderKiko]

It amazes me that people are still making arguments for new players to seriously use the worst component in the game. This is the new player help thread, not the thread where you give new players bad advice so you can farm them for your personal stats.

 

First: Fortress isn't even the worst shield, let alone the worst component. That honor goes to RFL - which still has a use.

 

Also, those of us saying that fortress is viable are actually talking to new players instead of farming them for stats, we have seen first hand how a fortress shield can be more useful for a new player in teaching them team based tactics - as it is, after all, a team based game - AND further stacking the deck against ships that their ship has a natural advantage against. A new player in a quarrel won't normally be able to handle a mid-ranged player in a condor, giving them a thin glass window pane to use as a shield will only serve them to get rekt before they learn how to aim. Even if that thin glass happens to be the single best shield in the game. Give them a decaying brick wall instead and they may still die, but at least it will serve them a bit better. For long enough for them to get a feel for charging and firing a rail gun at the very least.

 

Fortress does suck, it's true, but that doesn't make it useless. Some new players even find it more useful than DF for learning the game - even though I still encourage them to use DF.

[Armonddd]

Fortress does suck, it's true, but that doesn't make it useless.

 

Fortress is the only component in the game that actively kills you. The only one, because even S2E will trade life for life. No one has even attempted to counter this argument the several times it's been mentioned, because you can't.

 

Both of you can feel free to troll elsewhere now. I wash my hands of the discussion.

[Scrabs]

Fortress is the only component in the game that actively kills you. The only one, because even S2E will trade life for life. No one has even attempted to counter this argument the several times it's been mentioned, because you can't.

 

Both of you can feel free to troll elsewhere now. I wash my hands of the discussion.

 

I'm bored of reading all your posts, please stop.

 

Thanks.

 

[CommanderKiko]

Fortress is the only component in the game that actively kills you. The only one, because even S2E will trade life for life. No one has even attempted to counter this argument the several times it's been mentioned, because you can't.

 

Both of you can feel free to troll elsewhere now. I wash my hands of the discussion.

 

Fortress doesn't actively kill anyone. It forces you to not be a lemming which, if anything, keeps you alive as a new player. I'm also not trolling, I actively train new players in game and have a guild based in part around that and I'm telling you that fortress is bad, but not useless. You refuse to acknowledge a component as useful because you can't see how it could be. That's fine, but when people tell you how it is useful, you can't just belittle them then run away from the converstion saying "I'm right by default so you must be wrong."

 

Look at it this way, Would you rather have:

A: A new lemming who feeds the enemy team and gives them stats to farm while using a meta build while thinking they can han yolo it due to their "gear."

Or

B: A newb who uses a non-meta build that forces them to stick with their team in a team based game. Who learns quickly that skill and teamwork is what wins them matches and gear only helps.

 

Useless is as useless does. Fortress is bad, but not useless. I would never ever advise someone to use rotationals, especially not with fortress, but if it works for people then who am I to judge? The worst part of this is that I'm 90% on your side, It's like a vegan hating all vegetarians or athiests hating agnostics. The only thing I'm debating is if fortress is or is not useless. You say it's useless for endgame players and thus useless for newbs. I say it's useless for endgame players but can be useful for newbs. You say I'm not talking about for newbs. I say newbs are all I ever really talk about.

 

The disconnect is over a choice of one of two words. Useful, and useless. I say everything has a use and a place, you say "lol nope, and since you think that way you are automatically a troll and a moron so good day."

[tunewalker]

Its useless AGAINST any player that isnt a noob.

 

Whether you are a new player or not Fortress is good for 1 thing and 1 thing only. Farming trash players faster. Trash players will sit there in your front guns trying to kill you through fortress allowing oyu to kill them. Trash players will ignore you as you charge railgun shot after railgun shot into their faces over and over and over again and thanks to the extra regen you can actually do that more often with Fortress. Whether you are a good player or a bad player, Fortress ONLY works 'better' against bad players.

 

This is why its a Timmy component. Timmy likes winning big. So when you DO win (and not get your teeth kicked in by half decent pilots) this component allows you to win "bigger" it allows you to do more damage, shoot more railguns and laugh harder at the amount of noobs you are able to farm. in a serious match, be you new or old, or in between, it wont save you, it wont make you play better and you will have been better suited with literally anything else.

 

If you are a new player and pick this... do not wonder "how did they kill me my shields are huge" the answer is they shot you, and you couldnt get the hell out of dodge before they tore you to pieces. This is why the GENERAL tip for Gunships is "if you get shot MOVE! RUN!" I dont care if it was a plink from a Rapid fire, if you are trying to get good as a gunship you get the hell out of dodge when you get shot, fortress shields does the opposite of this, and teaches bad play to new pilots which is why people are telling noobs not to do it. Since it teaches them "sit and fight" in a gunship when they SHOULD be learning to Run their little behinds off, because that is effective in every ship, and very effective in actual meta gunships. A new player using Fortress CAN NOT make the transition from "new player" to "decent player" to "good player" they are fundementally missing a primary component of what they need to be learning, and that is defensive flying and maneuvering, sure they might farm other new players, but they will learn nothing from those experiences and still be stuck and frustrated against half decent pilots. This component does not allow them to learn what they need to transition.

Edited July 9, 2015 by tunewalker

[CommanderKiko]

You are in no way wrong except, again, over that one word choice. Useful, useless. There are 3 general things you need to know as a gunship player, how to run is a big part. The other two are how to shoot, and how to be situationally aware.

 

DF helps with the how to run part. Fortress helps with the how to shoot part, both help with the situational awareness part.

 

Fortress indeed doesn't make the transition, hence why I advise people away from it. I don't like it, I don't think its a good component. I *do* however recognize that it has its uses. Telling people that "if it isn't meta, it is useless" only reinforces the idea that GSF is a gear based game - which is a major issue with getting people into the game type and a falsehood that many of us try very hard to dispell. Be it by posting videos of us rekting people while we are in stock ships, or by simply telling people in game.

 

I mean, we can't have it both ways. We can't tell newbs "hey, this is a skill based game not gear based. Use only this gear and get geared or get rekt." I mean, come on.

[Fractalsponge]

I *do* however recognize that it has its uses. Telling people that "if it isn't meta, it is useless" only reinforces the idea that GSF is a gear based game - which is a major issue with getting people into the game type and a falsehood that many of us try very hard to dispell. Be it by posting videos of us rekting people while we are in stock ships, or by simply telling people in game.

 

I mean, we can't have it both ways. We can't tell newbs "hey, this is a skill based game not gear based. Use only this gear and get geared or get rekt." I mean, come on.

 

Problem is you are highlighting a component that is useless (and I do mean that word) against anyone of higher skill or experience, in a thread for newbies. For a newbie, higher skill and experience is likely to be the rest of the queuing playerbase.

 

Few things (except perhaps T1 strike CP) are actively bad to take, but there is absolutely non-useful gear in the game in the sense that they come with such a high opportunity cost that taking it is a really bad idea.

 

Fortress is not a stock component, not useful against players of reasonable skill or experience, and should not be advocated or even mentioned in any way in a thread for newbies except for them to avoid it. Stop nitpicking around semantics.

[CommanderKiko]

I can go back to my example of it helping specific players with issues they had using gunships. IE "I die before I can charge my weapon or run." Meaning fortress will help them fix one of the biggest problems new gunship pilots have.

 

So I'm sorry, I don't see how a component that helps new players practice a skill is useless. It's like people forgot what it's like to be new or something. Everyone almost expects people to hop into the game instantly knowing how to charge their weapons and take on intermediate players in gunship duels. In reality, new GS pilots are more like Shaq - they just can't shoot. How many times have you seen t1 gunships try to melee because they couldn't figure out their railguns? I suspect it's about as often as I do - pretty damn often. Fortress gives them just that extra bit of time to practice and teaches them how to cover their team. Suddenly with that bit of practice, they are playing their role. Practice is key. How did you get good? Practice. How did I get good? Practice. How does everyone get good? Practice. Fortress, again, is bad not useless.

 

And I'm going to nit-pick here, because I see this poop first hand erry day and help shovel it. We're basically on the same side and arguing over one choice of one word. I said my part as clearly as I possibly could. Everything has it's use, I hold this viewpoint and will continue to until something changes.

 

I will however shut up from here on in this topic unless addressed directly in a way that warrents a response.

Edited July 9, 2015 by CommanderKiko

[Fractalsponge]

I can go back to my example of it helping specific players with issues they had using gunships. IE "I die before I can charge my weapon or run." Meaning fortress will help them fix one of the biggest problems new gunship pilots have.

 

So I'm sorry, I don't see how a component that helps new players practice a skill is useless. It's like people forgot what it's like to be new or something. Everyone almost expects people to hop into the game instantly knowing how to charge their weapons and take on intermediate players in gunship duels. In reality, new GS pilots are more like Shaq - they just can't shoot. How many times have you seen t1 gunships try to melee because they couldn't figure out their railguns? I suspect it's about as often as I do - pretty damn often. Fortress gives them just that extra bit of time to practice and teaches them how to cover their team. Suddenly with that bit of practice, they are playing their role. Practice is key. How did you get good? Practice. How did I get good? Practice. How does everyone get good? Practice. Fortress, again, is bad not useless.

 

And I'm going to nit-pick here, because I see this poop first hand erry day and help shovel it. We're basically on the same side and arguing over one choice of one word. I said my part as clearly as I possibly could. Everything has it's use, I hold this viewpoint and will continue to until something changes.

 

I will however shut up from here on in this topic unless addressed directly in a way that warrents a response.

 

You can practice in so many better ways. Shoot turrets, shoot bombers, slink around the edge of combat. If it's just aim you are trying improve, you don't need your shield component to improve that, you need to just play and learn the flow of games. You do not improve people's skills by teaching them to ignore the cardinal rule of the game: facetanking damage earns you nothing but a trip to respawn.

 

But IF you are trying to tank damage to give you a extra shot at a target, DField is actually better. Why? Because it can allow you to ignore damage from many sources that might otherwise kill you. You think a DO railgun will seriously care if a target has fortress shield? No. A Dfield active might actually give a player a chance to shoot back.

 

Fortress, again, is bad not useless

 

If your goal is to help players get better, give them the best advice you can, not send them towards deathtraps. If you want to argue endlessly about this one word, there's nothing anyone is going to be able to help you with at this point.

 

So, for new players:

DO NOT TAKE FORTRESS SHIELD.

 

And, with that, I'm done.

[RickDagles]

A lot of people don't realize that you can strafe with Fortress Shield active. Because of this it's arguably the best option for the Vomitbreaker in a Deathmatch that's Gunship heavy. It lets you take as many hits as directional would but with the bonus of weapon regen. You should still be using either the Quarrel or Condor though.

 

So yea aside from using advanced tactics on a troll ship, it is useless. And I agree with Xi'ao that it's not a good build to recommend to new players. Forces bad habits.

Edited July 9, 2015 by RickDagles

[Archonitek]

If your goal is to help players get better, give them the best advice you can, not send them towards deathtraps.

^

Its better to teach the new players good habits first, get the basics down pat and become solid pilots, then let them experiment with different components to suit their own play style.

[SnakeSNMF]

You see, my irrelevant commentary is actually a message.

 

A message that can be used to describe Kiko. What I am saying is completely nonsensical. You get where I'm going with this.

 

 

Man, it sure feels good to be a gangster.

[CommanderKiko]

I'm pretty sure a personal attack highlighting how people misunderstood what I said is a good enough reason for me to post. I will clarify what I said even further so that people might finally understand what I am saying.

 

That personal attack only makes it clear that my entire point was completely missed and people were assuming I was saying something I really wasn't. I was stating that fortress shield had a use, not that it was better. IDK what's nonsensical about saying everything has a use.

 

1. I never recommended newbs use fortress shield. (Go check, I recommended the opposite. I only stated how it could be useful to them.)
   
2. I do not recommend newbs use off/obsolete components - unless they specifically request a how-to on use of said component, in which case the first words typed by myself or another elder pilot in party are "you shouldn't, _____ is a better option. " <paraphrased>
   
3. I always tell everyone that, due to the fact that GSF is skill based not gear based, every component has a use. (Want to argue that some more? Because stating that any component is utterly useless is not only closed minded, but a flat out lie.)
   
4. I spoke up to contest someone calling fortress shield the most useless and the worst component in the game, not to advocate its use. (It isn't even the worst shield in the game, let alone the worst component.)
   

 

In short, it seems that people were/are completely missing what I said and think I'm encouraging newbs to use a bad component (being fortress shield) when it's the opposite that is, was, and historically has been true with me. As in I outright tell people to avoid it.

 

Sources with further clarification:

Source 1

 

I would debate this.

-snip-

In short:

DF gunships are very superior in a generalized self sufficient way.

Fortress GS are more specialized to kill other gunships, but are in dire need of good team support.

Seeing as GSF is a team based game either is viable.

 

Note: I said fortress is more specialized, and viable --> I did not in any way say it was at all better, in fact I said the opposite. Since when does calling something generalized and self sufficient equal calling it a bad choice? How does it equal calling it worse than the specialized co-dependent component that does exactly the same job in a different way? I actually do want to know the answer to that question.

 

 

Source 2

 

You realize im not defending the validity of the component or saying "it is greatest thing since sliced bread and is far superior to DF in every way," no, I'm saying it is viable and has its place.

 

-snipped citing in game knowledge of tactics as an example of said viability, not superiority-

 

I'm not debating that it is still "bad," "niche," or "not meta." All of those are true, meta is meta for a reason and niche components are niche for a reason. That being said, discarding all niche components as trash or not viable is equally as wrong. For in real play, everything has a use to some degree.

 

Note: I outright called it a bad, niche, non-meta component, and said again that everything has a use.

 

 

Source 3

 

 

In short, fortresses only real advantage is that it forces you to adopt an unconventional tactic.

 

That doesn't make the component good, it's still bad, very bad, but it at least makes it viable as the tactic it is forced to adopt will put it in the position to always land the first hit.

 

Note: I called it not just bad, but very bad, and highlighted how. but said it is still viable, and cited how

 

 

 

Source 4

 

It belongs here and I only spoke up because people on both sides of the debate were glossing over a point. Which is that DF is the better choice hands down, but fortress can be better for newer players in helping them learn how to use their ship

 

Example:

1 newb in a type 1 gunship rolling fortress against intermediate players rolling type 2/type 3's.

Newb takes more damage, doesn't feel as useless, practices aim, has a higher survival chance.

 

Stacking the deck in favor of a newer player against non-aces. In training Lace'dwith, I explained the sheild options to him and encouraged him to go DF, he opted for Fortress sheild as he only really used his quarrel to fight type 2 and type 3 gunships. It worked for him. Although in my mind - and many others - it would have been wasted req, for him it served to advance his training and help him learn the class.

 

It worked for him, it works for others, it shouldn't be discarded.

 

Note: I did not call it a good component. I simply highlighted a use it would have for a newer player. I did ***not*** state that new players should use it. In fact, in the example I cited, I outright told someone to avoid fortress shield and use the superior DF, only to be ignored. (because newer players like ignoring stuff older pilots say, #truestory) I even stated that in my opinion it was wasted req. Then I simply stated a fact: The bad choice somehow worked out for him and others. Then added that it shouldn't be discarded.

 

 

 

This could go on and on, but, ya know what? I don't have all night to go back and even further clarify everything I already attempted to clarify several times over. If you want to know exactly what I said, how about actually reading it without making assumptions based on how stupid you clearly think me to be. Yes, I roll off builds. No, that does not mean I think off builds are better and that I think newbs should use them. Hope that clears things up.

 

With that, I will go back to shutting up unless again being pulled into this.

[Armonddd]

I'm pretty sure a personal attack highlighting how people misunderstood what I said is a good enough reason for me to post. I will clarify what I said even further so that people might finally understand what I am saying.

 

A personal attack against you just means that someone is trolling you. The appropriate response is not to respond.

 

Also, if no one understands your point after several pages of explanation, maybe they're not going to.

[GalacticStarfigh]

Excellent guide and layout. Stacie's thing and this new creation compliment/complete one another extremely well. Thanks a lot for going through all the trouble to create this.

[MaximilianPower]

I'm pretty sure a personal attack highlighting how people misunderstood what I said is a good enough reason for me to post. I will clarify what I said even further so that people might finally understand what I am saying.

 

That personal attack only makes it clear that my entire point was completely missed and people were assuming I was saying something I really wasn't. I was stating that fortress shield had a use, not that it was better. IDK what's nonsensical about saying everything has a use.

 

[snipped for brevity]

 

With that, I will go back to shutting up unless again being pulled into this.

 

FWIW, Kiko, I do get your point, and I agree with it*. I'll state the obvious: you're getting piled on here not necessarily because of the message itself, but largely because of the venue...the fact that you've posted these opinions in this particular thread makes your comments sound like ill-conceived advice for noobs. Folks are reading your posts through that filter. But I get that you are in no way advocating for fortress; you have made that very clear. If you'd posted exactly the same statements in a thread titled "fortress shield" or "GS shield options" I don't think you would have received this kind of response.

 

* by this I mean: fortress shield is generally a bad component, but theoretically has a niche use - though it is not something a noob should ever choose. So while fortress is kind of an oddball choice, personally I'd like to see even more wacky options like this...I feel like they add flavor and variety to the game, which isn't a bad thing. When you run out of things to do in GSF, it's entertaining to screw around with weird builds, try to figure out how to make RFLs legitimately useful, whatever. The only real downside is if a noob wastes req/time/effort on these suboptimal components. Which sucks, of course. But it's not as bad as, say, blowing that first major fleet req grant on a Comet Breaker. Noobs who take the time to research/ask questions will avoid these traps, and for those that won't...well, figuring out what works and what doesn't is part of the fun of GSF, imo.

Edited July 11, 2015 by MaximilianPower