An overview of, and why people leave, GSF

[Vaedryn]

Greetings, Starfighter. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Xur and the Ko-dan Armada..... wait... wrong game.

 

I spent nearly a year of my subscription time exploring almost exclusive GSF content in order to truly get a feel for the game and to discover both why so many people love it and why so many people swear they will not ever touch the interface again. What follows is a breakdown of my own views on some of the most debated subjects I have witnessed in GSF and this article concludes with my overall summation of the primary reasons that GSF participation lags behind so many other aspects of the game.

 

First... The great ship debate.

 

I have read, watched, and listened in VOIP to so many debated, heated and otherwise, over which ship is OP and how "broken" the game is. Either someone is complaining about the invincibility of the battle scout or the indestructability of the bomber guarding satellites. Here are the things I have learned about ships and their basic roles.

 

Every ship you start with has a mostly shot build. Beginning pilots have a two-fold problem. First they have no idea how the game moves and will be annihilated often before they realize they are being targeted. The constant beep of missile lock can set many nerves on edge and leave the novices hands shaking. Most ace pilots will tell you "Stay with it, it will get better!" but that is small comfort to the average player and just starting out so far behind the curve is often enough to send many players back to other game content. I will go into that, however, more in my final thoughts. For now let us look at the ship breakdowns and my personal experiences in the various arguments.

 

What Bombers Do: They are "area denial specialists" I almost NEVER have seen a bomber successfully storm a position and hold it. I have seen MANY bombers do exactly what they are designed to do, which is to drop in and, as long as they pilot smartly, hold a position against traditional odds (traditional being strike fighters or most generic to mid-grade scouts). I have also seen fully upgraded bombers with the best meta taken down by clever two man teams. The combination of a gunship and a passable dogfighter is usually all it takes to rip a bomber off of a satellite with extreme prejudice.

 

Note: Bomber was my ship of choice for a long time and I had two fully mastered ships. (I mean I had, out of curiosity, mastered nearly every system available to explore multiple builds). Often when I took a satellite it would stay taken and scouts, even battle scouts (barring VERY good pilots) would vanish under my network of mines depending which bomber and build I was using. My experience is that on the occasions I was dislodged it was a TEAM effort where a GS would hit me with whatever combination they had worked out and was backed up by a close quarter fighter to either get me to withdraw or outright destroy me.

 

Verdict on the Bomber: Not truly over powered, just very specialized. I initially started playing a bomber because I read in several places on the forums that they were "unbeatable" and "indestructible". I can now, with a certain degree of expertise, firmly declare that, even with a fully mastered build, the bomber is VERY far from invincible.

 

What Scouts Do: Honestly I have little direct experience with the scout classes. I unlocked and almost fully mastered every non-cartel scout in the game but I never got the hang of it. That being said... scouts are very fast, they can get to a satellite swiftly and ensure it falls to their force before the enemy's... in domination games every tick helps so that is a major advantage. Those with the bloodmark are also a bombers best friend because tensoring will assist the bomber in getting to the node early and start the lockdown process (notice the emphasis on teamwork built into that strategy). I have also noticed that, for those who have superior piloting skills, a battle scout can and DOES out perform a strike fighter in independent dogfighter tactics. The added extra speed boost conferred to the scout allows it to use "hit and fade" tactics on virtually any target they choose.... essentially becoming some of the most hated targets on any board. Many is the time I was in a GS or bomber, got strafed to red armor (if not outright vaped) and sat there cursing the pilot of said ship. Often times scouts will fly in "wolfpacks" which are dangerous to both themselves and their enemies. A wolfpack has the advantage of being able to essentially speed-kill whole enemy teams... however if an enemy GS has splash damage on their ion cannons it can, and often does, become a turkey shoot in favor of the anti-scout team.

 

Verdict on the Scout: Although the scout builds are very powerful in the right hands it take a special breed of pilot to make them perform properly. I was never one of those pilots. I played them for a long time, upgraded them through multiple engagements... did two separate master builds on my sting/flashfire alone and was never able to hit anywhere CLOSE to the kill scores of some of the aces. That being said... I have seen MANY of those same aces caught in ion webs and vaped by lucky/clever GS pilots and more than a few either vanished in fireballs to bombers or limped away trailing fire. So, although they are a bit of a pain in the arse, I cannot say that the scout is over powered because the right strategy and coordination in a TEAM can, at least, reduce their effectiveness. The only issue I have with the scout is that while most of us end up getting a higher death count they can zip away on high burners and repair to come back in with no ill effects to their overall score card... however if you really think about it that is EXACTLY what we expect from a scout.

 

What Gunships Do: The gunship is the sniper of the stars. The mobile artillery piece of the skies. I have seen the accepted meta (ion and slug) kill countless scores of pilots and turn whole tides of war with a handful of cleverly placed shots. I have also seen metas that many of the aces denigrate perform admirably and add a LOT of spice to a conflict. Several times I saw a plasma cannon ruin a scouts day. The down-shot is that, even with a fully charged slug rail, a beginning GS is not going to single shot many of the pilots they can get a bead on. More on that later... The GS, in my experience, is integral to dislodging bombers from satellites unless you want to send in an entire task force of smaller fighters. In pairs, or larger TEAMS, GSs can do massive damage. A GS with splash ions teamed with another that has upgraded slug rail can "tag team" targets efficiently and become a very hated group in any match very fast. I have even seen the infamous "gunship wall" in TDM. While the wall tactic gets a reputation for being over powered I have seen it overcome more than once by clever team tactics and a variety of ships.

 

Note: The GS was my second ship of choice. I fell in love with the interface of the quarrel/mangler and took it all the way to full mastery. When working in tandem with another GS or a passable pilot of any other ship build I was almost always able to clear satellites and hold my ground in TDM. Even in very challenging matches I found that a little TEAMwork made me infinitely harder to kill... although once a GS starts racking up kills they become a target very swiftly and you should be ready to die more often as your reputation grows.

 

Verdict on the Gunship: I used to despise the GShippers. It seemed that every time I spawned or flew into combat I was suddenly exploding without so much as the courtesy of a missile lock beep. After having flown a GS and seeing first hand how many times they, and my fellow GShippers at the time, die I can say without preamble that they are far from over powered. Like any other ship in GSF they have their roles and if they are played to the hilt and coordinated into their overall TEAM strategy they perform at an extremely high level... without support the GS is a slow moving turkey with a giant target painted on its wings even if it does have dampening maxxed out. In my experience it is not OP.

 

What Strikes Do: This is a more complicated question and one that is hotly debated both on the forums and in the game itself. Strikes are supposed to be the average overall ship for the pilot who wants to do ok in a lot but not specialize in the ways that other ships do. I researched this heavily and have seen strike TEAMS perform amazingly when used in creative ways. For those players who are familiar with the old Magic the Gathering card game I can only liken the strike, very loosely, to the sliver creature. Alone a strike will always be outpaced in some way or other, more specialized, ships. However... with so many abilities which can be passed and shared with fellow ships a team of strikes can, and have, been forces to be reckoned with. The clarion/imperium has a few abilities which, when triggered, are shared with any ship in proximity. This would not seem like a very huge benefit to the novice player but when you consider the advantages of buffs and the fact that instead of having to fly back to a bombers drone for repairs/reload a clarion/imperium can provide all that on-site... well that really ups their usefulness a great deal. In a coordinated TEAM the strike fighter, while not as fast or heavily armed (or even armored) as other ships can do some serious damage to enemy teams and positions.

 

Verdict on the Strike: Definitely not OP but certainly not useless. It takes awhile to loadout a strike where it will be anything but a flying liability for your team but if it is specced right for specific roles it can and will be a benefit but only, in my experience, when used as a TEAM component... but it can be a devastating component.

 

Overall assessment of the GSF system: The mini-game itself is remarkably well put together. Although most ships are at a serious disadvantage until they get both experience and upgrades it can be quite a nice ride as long as you aren't unlucky and constantly being thrown into matches with top-aces (which tends to slant matches rather swiftly). The ships designs are, overall, fair and impartial. I would advise, if you are going to play GSF, that you think of what you enjoy playing most and focus on a ship that plays to those strengths.

 

Note: If all you want is dogfighting then GSF is not for you. Dogfighting is a major component to GSF but it is not the only role. The best way I can describe it is to imagine what it would be like playing the ground game with no companions, zero healing abilities, and only a gun. Might be fun for awhile dancing around blasting things and dodging shots but it would get very old very fast. The reason roles exist in this, or any other, game is to provide players with the ability to build TEAMS which experiment with different strategies and styles in a nearly endless stream of fun ideas. I took great pride in being an area denial specialist just as I had friends who enjoyed being known as great dogfighters, pilots (using terrain to kill), snipers, and healers.

 

A brief look at my history n GSF: I have played SWTOR steadily since release day. I have almost never let my subscription lapse for more than a single month in all of that time. Granted I would take breaks from the game for various periods of time but I have maintained a presence ever since that first night. To say that I like SWTOR in general is not doing the statement justice. When GSF was released I was ecstatic. I was a major fan of the old x-wing and tie-fighter games and, despite complaints to the contrary, I feel like bioware did an admirable job of making a similar system. My initial enthusiasm with GSF was SQUASHED during early release when I ran up against pilots who took advantage of the PTS to hone their skills. (I do not use the PTS because I like exploring the play only when it is released, I'll read about expansions extensively but will not play them until they drop). I quickly became frustrated and, although I had almost mastered my first ship back then, I quit GSF before it moved from early access to standard. It was over a year before I returned to GSF and only because I noticed it was a conquest objective.

 

My first match back I had a similar experience to my last match back in early access and was about to walk away again just out of hand when I was invited to /cjoin GSF. As soon as I joined the channel I was taken aback. While I had just left a match where I had been vaped before taking a single shot (repeatedly) and our team had been 3-capped on the nodes from the start.... here were the players of THE OTHER TEAM debating and discussing the ethics of 3-capping new pilots as well as spawn-camping them. I was stunned. PvPers actually discussing, in a gentlemanly fashion, reasons why they should not be essentially crushing their opponents mercilessly. It was a rare pleasure and I was entrances. It was like watching Socrates and Thrasymachus. I decided right then and there I was coming back to GSF, my reason was that if these were the caliber of people, who were willing to vigorously debate limiting their own power to encourage new players, I would be playing with then this was definitely a place I needed to be.

 

That began my nearly year long hardcore GSF grind/research/build binge. I copied the Stasiepedia and a number of other guides, and pieces of guides, from various sites. I merged them together into a comprehensive word document that was sectioned and easy to read... on my server I began taking to the pilots who would share their wisdom and I streamlined my guide further... I then printed and bound the thing, put it on a stand next to me and set about reassigning my build to the established server meta... from there I flew almost every day and turned away from all other SWTOR content to pursue my renewed love of GSF. Over time I adjusted my builds and flight style to emphasize my own individual playstyle. It was VERY rocky for awhile. I got frustrated because I did not think I was doing well, thought I was without natural talent or skill, and I quit for a few weeks here and there. I always came back tho and I now know why. The problem was not in the game itself, from my perspective, it was in myself and I was determined to figure it out. Gradually, with enough upgrades and experience in how to use them, my performance got better and I began to take a sense of pride in my abilities. I helf supreme gratitude to the few aces who took time to talk t me personally and to the publishers of the guilds that helped me het a grip on the game.

 

My enthusiasm spread to many members of my guild and for awhile the Q was popping like popcorn! Many of my guildies got discouraged and quit, some stayed, but overall I noticed it was livening up a lot.

 

Throughout this whole experience I was watching the GSF channel. That first debate that drew me back in was repeated a couple more times but overall I noticed that the channel was silent except for the occasional snarky comments or mutual self-love statements. Many of the steady top-aces on my server, not all but enough, were very vocal about some, as far as I am concerned, elitist views. Among the views that I found distasteful were as follows.

 

1. 3-capping in domination from the start, when we outclass our opponents massively, is ok because it will inspire them to be better players and fight harder.

 

2. Spawn camping on any map is totally fine because they should learn to change spawn locations anyway, it teaches them strategy through hard knocks. (if we camp to of the locations that's ok too because it will MAKE them improve their playstyle.)

 

3. If you are not using the accepted builds you are useless and I will abandon you. You should just accept that we know what works best and learn to adjust, if you don't then I will drop any group I see you in.

 

These are the overall viewpoints I saw repeated in conversation over time. The problem with many of these aforementioned views is that while for some, a precious few, it will work and inspire them to become better it will crush the interest of most players and they will go back to the many many other content offerings in the game. Many GSF players forget that GSF is only a small fragment of a much larger game. Either that or they do not care. In spite of that myself and many of my friends continued to play and enforce our own code of conduct... if we were in a match where we were 3-capping early we would abandon whatever node we were on in an attempt to give the other players something to shoot for... when we saw spawn camping on a large scale we would quietly drop the group or put all power to engines and do fly-bys to allow the enemy to have a chance to shoot at non-armed targets themselves. It wasn't much but it made us feel like gentlemen/women.

 

Gradually I became aware of other elements in the community tat shocked me. I watched arguments erupt from very innocent questions/comments. Saw a couple genuine mistakes of oversight get two players, who I knew personally, get ostracized by people in the community. One friend of mine, while doing his dailies, accidentally backfilled into a match on the opposing side and the pilots on during that day were convinced that it was his plan all along because his original side was losing. I interviewed him later and learned he had deleted all of his other pilot characters and was going back to focusing on other game content. He has told me that he just cannot play with people who are so cynical and paranoid that they will treat a person like that. I kept flying without him (we used to make a great bomber duo).

 

Another of my friends who flew regularly finally gave up GSF. He had been guarding one of the only 2 nodes his team had been holding onto in the game and they began to use all sorts of 4 letter words on him because he would not move his bomber into an attempt at a 3 cap. He told me later that day that he could no longer stand being around such foul mouthed and unsportsmanlike players. As of the date of this posting he has officially been gone from GSF for over a month. Of the 8-10 friends and guildies who followed me back into GSF almost a year ago there are now none left... of those who followed them in only a couple are still there and from the ones I talked to they do not even fly much anymore at all.

 

I finally gave up the ghost myself. I was not the last to quit GSF, as others continued to leave after I stopped Qing, but I just could not take the way the community treated people after the initial honeymoon phase anymore. After my two best friends in GSF were publicly browbeat on the channel, for making some simple mistakes that the community was convinced were intentional and/or malicious, I started paying a lot more attention to what was going on. The polite and gentlemanly/womanly community I thought I had entered had, in my opinion, revealed itself to be just another general MMO elitist environment. Unlike most elitist environments it has little to keep people interested outside of the game itself (which is amazingly fun) but a fun mini-game can only do so much.

 

Unlike the other times I left the game I have no yen to return. Before I felt like the fault was in me... it was my lack of skill that needed to be honed and sharpened... so I'd keep coming back. This time is different... its... I am disappointed in the community. I am shocked by the paranoia. I am sad that my friends were hurt. I just do not want to fly with people in a community that can behave so callously or brazenly.

 

I repeat that this entire post is based solely on my own experience and the interviews with others who have left the game after a shorter or longer period of time. Most leave quietly and do not visit forums. They don't care to. They join the game to play and have fun not to read endless debates on how to maximize this or that. I am putting this out because I kept hearing people in GSF complain about long Qs any why players would not stay for the long haul. Well here is the best answer that I can give to the question. "If you want to know why people don't want to Q up you have only to look in the mirror. It is not a flaw in the game, rather it is a flaw in the community."

[RickDagles]

What Bombers Do: They are "area denial specialists" I almost NEVER have seen a bomber successfully storm a position and hold it.

 

Try the charged plating Rampart/Razorwire with HLC armor piercing. It's the best ship in the game for solo capping a bunkered node.

 

 

What's your character's name and what server do you play on?

[Vaedryn]

Try the charged plating Rampart/Razorwire with HLC armor piercing. It's the best ship in the game for solo capping a bunkered node.

 

 

What's your character's name and what server do you play on?

 

Hi Rick!

 

You have a great point there. I meant the critique as a simple basic overview more than an end-all-be-all.

 

As for my character name and server. I can often be found on Rannek (I have around 20 characters) on TEH impside but its not really pertinent. I permanently quit GSF some time back. Happy flying pilot!

[caederon]

I permanently quit GSF some time back.

The reasons you cite for leaving (and the recounting of why your friends left) are certainly valid reasons.

 

3-capping has always been a contentious issue, and the cultural tolerance for it / routine practice of it has varied a lot from server to server, and from time to time. My view has always been that I hate 3-caps (for or against) for two reasons: sportsmanship (and wanting new players to get some req so they can improve their ships), and that short matches don't give me any time to land decent performance stats. The latter reason is selfish but it is one of the reasons I continue to play, and my selfish reason indirectly helps new pilots so take it as you will.

 

The reason 3-caps occur is imbalanced matchmaking. The reason imbalanced matchmaking occurs is a shallow player pool. The reason a shallow player pool exists is...

 

1. Lack Of Cross Server Queuing (or some similar alternative)

GSF desperately needs this. Embiggening the player pool would help everything.

 

2. People Get Bored And Leave

No new content for over a year will do that. Hardcore players stay, new people try it out, but the middle class loses interest because it's the same thing again and again and it gets old. Abandoned games tend to wither.

 

3. Natural Selection

Some people do not like games to be hard. Some people do not like a highly competitive environment. The needs of the Casual Player are different from the needs of the Competitive Player. Neither is better or worse, but they are different. Some sports establish different kinds of leagues to meet the needs of differing levels of player. GSF has just one league, essentially the Pro Circuit, which can be pretty unforgiving. People will discover if it suits them and stay or leave. The devs could address this in a number of ways, if they ever deem GSF worthy of additional development.

 

4. Toxic Community Hazards

This can come in the form of overzealous hardcore players, whiny anti-learning new players, AFK'ers sucking up a queue spot to get conquest points but not playing in the game, and temporary bursts of insanity from otherwise reasonable people. It's the internet, it''s like the weather. You can't stop it, you just have to seek shelter during storms and wait for sunny days.

 

The vast majority of veterans I have played with/around routinely go out of their way to help new players. Many veterans have contributed significant amounts of teaching resources to give new players the tools to compete. New players need to display some self-motivation like you did to build their skills.

 

There are lots of reasons to leave GSF, and strong reasons to continue playing as well.

 

As a 'community' with zero official dev support, there is only so much we can do to nurture any growth in the game. We hold events despite having no way to directly queue teams against each other. We teach without having any way to reach the people most in need of it.

 

Even if we (meaning the veterans that read this forum) decided, say, that TEH would be the 'New Player Server,' where veterans would leave or voluntarily play non-competitively, there are veterans tied there (and to any server) by non-GSF related guilds and they want to play the game to the best of their ability and not just fly around wasting their likely limited gaming time letting new players shoot at them. It would also be very difficult to get the message out to new players on other servers that there was a Teaching Server or safe haven they could learn the game in, or whatever. It'd be great if we could create an environment like that, but there are significant technical hurdles that prevent it.

 

With no official dev support, options to foster growth are limited.

 

Despon

[Vaedryn]

Despon

 

Despon,

 

First I want to thank you for the very well thought out response. I should note that I agree with just about all of your points on how to improve the system and I should clarify that in my experience the helpful and fair veterans usually do outnumber the toxic ones, however I do contend (again based on my own experience) that the loudest and most vocal are the toxic ones.

 

Players with a rigid "I do not want to learn anything but my own way" mentality are unfortunate. I had a few friends who quit the game because they did not like that the game was not focused on just dogfighting to the exclusion of everything else. Even me trying to explain how unrealistic that concept was never really got through. Loss of such players is inevitable.

 

The tragedy is that with such a small player base there is little room for GSF to grow. Most people who join SWTOR do so for the "ground" game and only become aware of GSF as an afterthought. It is am AMAZINGLY well put together game in its own right and I enjoyed it quite a lot. What led me to make my post is that I would often hear the questions about why more people didn't play or why players were leaving so, once I was firmly back in the cockpit, I started logging names and tracking down players and friends who had quit and the result of my findings I posted.

 

You are very correct that there is low, if any, dev support for GSF. The sad fact of the matter is a simple economic math bomb. The GSF community only makes up a tiny fraction of paying accounts. Like any business Bioware has to focus the bulk of its attention where the majority of their paying clients are parked. The vast majority of SWTOR accounts are paid by people who are more focused on lightsabers and blaster content than with starship content. There is enough of a GSF base to warrant occasional tweaking but the bulk of their funds will be spent where they are getting their subs from. I can name no less than a dozen accounts, I won't for privacy reasons, that have reactivated with the announcement of new story content coming in October.

 

The best way to get Dev support for GSF? Get more active players and accounts to engage in it. With active engagement comes a craving for more content/work to be done. Best way to get new players into a part of the game with low content, in my opinion of course, have a community that focuses on many of the elements we have discussed before. Players will engage, enjoy, grow, and begin demanding. If the community keeps allowing toxic outlooks and practices to happen just because they have "learned to tolerate it" or because they just want to keep flying, no matter if they are flying with the toxic ones, then there will continue to be a very small population.... likely too small to warrant any serious work from the devs. That's, once more, just my personal opinion on that and I am VERY open to other views I may not have considered.

 

I would honestly suggest that a partial fix, in addition to the wonderful points you made, is that they release a PvE aspect for GSF. I know that they argued early on that the AI was just not up to par for that task but I would challenge that even if the AI flys with a "derp" level intelligence it would allow many players a less aggressive environment to practice in and would trickle more players, as they became comfortable with the controls, into the PvP game.

 

Anyway, I did not mean to write another long post. Thanks again for the extra time spent reading my post, I know it was exhaustive, and happy flying!

[Vaedryn]

Even if we (meaning the veterans that read this forum) decided, say, that TEH would be the 'New Player Server,' where veterans would leave or voluntarily play non-competitively, there are veterans tied there (and to any server) by non-GSF related guilds and they want to play the game to the best of their ability and not just fly around wasting their likely limited gaming time letting new players shoot at them. It would also be very difficult to get the message out to new players on other servers that there was a Teaching Server or safe haven they could learn the game in, or whatever. It'd be great if we could create an environment like that, but there are significant technical hurdles that prevent it.

 

With no official dev support, options to foster growth are limited.

 

Despon

 

I also felt I should clarify,

 

I in no way am saying that veterans should "throw" fights or be anything but what they are, the best pilots they can be. I have never expected the master pilots I flew with, or against, to ever throw a match or give up a game. As a father of three and a small business owner myself I know the value of that limited block of time we gamers squeeze our time into. I only contend that there should be more focus on a basic level of etiquette that should be encouraged more.

 

I've seen a lot of good things in GSF channel. I've seen solid debates and offers to group and mentor new players but I have also seen a lot more elitist comments and practices. I am stunned by how easy it seems to be for so many people to automatically assume the worst about another gamer based on one or two mistakes without ever talking to said player. I've seen players experimenting with an off-meta build verbally flayed for just wanting to explore a theoretical loadout.

 

So, to summarize my thought, its not about veterans flying weaker craft or limiting their wins, nor is it about coddling the whiners, but rather its about the veteran community being able to stand back, accept their win graciously without tearing the guts out of struggling players, and not automatically assuming that every player should know every detail about the mechanics and thus warrant browbeating. The aces can still win all of their games without spawn camping or 3 capping from the start of a match. Similarly it is not that hard, before flying off the handle at someone in chat, to simply whisper them, or openly ask them, if they knew the error or mistake they had made.

 

Maybe I'm too much of an idealist, in fact I know I am, but I think that those two tiny tweaks would inspire a lot of borderline players to stay with GSF and grow the community as a whole.

 

The irony is that all of this talk about GSF makes me really miss it, something about taking a ship to full afterburner and banking left into cover, but as much as I may want to click that icon sometimes its the fear that I might stumble and get verbally assaulted that keeps me from clicking. I know I could close the chat box, I could keep a thicker skin, but I play the game to have fun and enjoy the company other players.

[caederon]

If the community keeps allowing toxic outlooks and practices to happen just because they have "learned to tolerate it" or because they just want to keep flying, no matter if they are flying with the toxic ones, then there will continue to be a very small population

The problems are:

 

1. There is no way to police toxic behavior across multiple servers without official moderator/customer support.

 

2. There is no way to enforce any deterrent to toxic behavior without official moderator/customer support.

 

3. It's hard to even get a consensus on what constitutes toxic behavior (eg 3-capping)

 

We can encourage constructive behavior, but that only goes so far. Some people are determined to troll at all costs. Many people are indifferent and can't be bothered. Those who can be bothered to be constructive and who want to grow the game and make the experience better for people lack the tools to do so in any far-reaching or efficient manner.

 

Regarding PvE GSF, yeah we'd love it. Some dev guy at a cantina event made a very very vague intimation towards the potential maybe thought that just possibly something might happen with PvE GSF and cross-server, but the zero-substance informational content of the remarks makes them as credible as someone hearing the same news from an invisible sky faerie. PvE GSF has long been considered something that would be prohibitively expensive. That's just guesswork but it seems like a reasonable conclusion.

 

Regarding Bioware tossing some budget and resources at GSF, the only thing I have left to say at this point is... when you plant a seed, it needs sunlight, air, and water to grow and eventually bear fruit or flower. Cutting off its nutrients before it has fully grown will certainly lead to its death. If the current curator of the SWTOR garden considers GSF a weed and its adherents pests, they should pull it up and dispose of it. Otherwise they should tend to it as they would any other thing in their care.

 

Despon

[Vaedryn]

The problems are:

 

1. There is no way to police toxic behavior across multiple servers without official moderator/customer support.

 

2. There is no way to enforce any deterrent to toxic behavior without official moderator/customer support.

 

3. It's hard to even get a consensus on what constitutes toxic behavior (eg 3-capping)

 

I very much agree with your points. As far as building a system to police/enforce things like that would be about as likely as finding an honest RL politician. Meaning about as likely as finding a RL unicorn.

 

That being said I do not believe I said I knew the solution, only that I was pointing out the reasons why I, and several others, pulled up our stakes and left. What I have put here is my own experience and some of my thoughts, its up to the remaining community to make of them what they can. Thanks again for all of the thought and time you have taken in reviewing my post!

 

P.S. Invisible sky fairy. (lol)

[Nemarus]

I created and evangelized the [Gsf] channels on TEH, and while they were originally a place of instruction and LFGing, they have since turned into a general chat channel for GSF fans. That's fine, but it means they are not always a welcoming environment for new pilots.

 

And yes, there are a few individuals who, despite having general good intentions, totally lose control on channels, coming off as arrogant and vindictive. If I could ban them from those channels, I would.

 

But I think what I'm going to do is create a new pair of channels, one on each side, called [Gsf-help]. That is the one I will advertise to new pilots in [Ops]. And I have high hopes that other TEH veterans (many from my guilds) will only speak in that channel in a positive and instructive way, being mindful and gently tolerant of the total ignorance and prejudice that most players start out with when they play GSF.

 

We all may know Gunships are balanced and essential to the game's texture, but we also know that a great majority of players complain about them and make many false assumptions about them. Our response should not be "You're wrong". It should be "We know it feels that way now, but you just need more experience and practice.". The same is true of any new player complaint about GSF.

 

Meanwhile, the main [Gsf] channels can remain for general chatting and, for those who cannot stop themselves, toxic bile. I highly recommend we standardize this pattern of channels on all servers. One "general" [Gsf] channel, but also [Gsf-help]. And if someone purposefully trolls a help channel, report them for harassment.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Nemarus

[Laiov]

Our response should not be "You're wrong". It should be "We know it feels that way now, but you just need more experience and practice.". The same is true of any new player complaint about GSF.

I think this narrative can serve as an excuse for players to make the old MMO mistake of confusing casuals with scrubs. It sounds to me like something to use sparingly if at all.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Laiov

[Linuxizer]

OP, I think you are reading too much into this.

 

20 months is a long time. People play the game, they have fun, and eventually they go do something else.

 

I've played on a few servers and seen a few bad words in my chat window. It's not a big deal. If you like the game enough, you can leave the GSF channel or close your chat window, and keep playing.

[AlrikFassbauer]

Very well written.

 

The remarks about the "toxic community" ( ajka "trash talk" in ground PvP forums ) reminds me of what happened to me here in the forum when I expressed why I didn't like GSF and quit it.

 

The reactions I got were of exactly this style :

 

1. 3-capping in domination from the start, when we outclass our opponents massively, is ok because it will inspire them to be better players and fight harder.

 

2. Spawn camping on any map is totally fine because they should learn to change spawn locations anyway, it teaches them strategy through hard knocks. (if we camp to of the locations that's ok too because it will MAKE them improve their playstyle.)

 

3. If you are not using the accepted builds you are useless and I will abandon you. You should just accept that we know what works best and learn to adjust, if you don't then I will drop any group I see you in.

 

I shudder at this belief. Because it is not humanist in *any* way.

 

It also shows an " I know better what is good for you than you " kind of belief. That teaching me this way me is good for me, because it inspires me to become better, so to say. I have read this argument in ground PvP as well.

 

Does it really inspire me ? The "teachers" wouldn't know, because they can't look into my head. They ASSUME something - and aren't able to detect that people are different and what might work with some people, might not work with others.

 

In recent times, there has been a book showing a similar belief : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Hymn_of_the_Tiger_Mother

 

In one extreme example, Chua mentioned that she had called one of her children “garbage”, a translation of a term her own father called her on occasion in her family’s native Hokkien dialect. Particularly controversial was the ‘Little White Donkey’ anecdote, where Chua described how she got her unwilling younger daughter to learn a very difficult piano piece. In Chua’s words, “I hauled Lulu’s dollhouse to the car and told her I’d donate it to the Salvation Army piece by piece if she didn’t have ‘The Little White Donkey’ perfect by the next day. When Lulu said, ‘I thought you were going to the Salvation Army, why are you still here?’ I threatened her with no lunch, no dinner, no Christmas or Hanukkah presents, no birthday parties for two, three, four years. When she still kept playing it wrong, I told her she was purposely working herself into a frenzy because she was secretly afraid she couldn’t do it. I told her to stop being lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic.” They then “work[ed] right through dinner” without letting her daughter “get up, not for water, not even for bathroom breaks”.

 

This is exactly the same way of teaching I see here :

 

1. 3-capping in domination from the start, when we outclass our opponents massively, is ok because it will inspire them to be better players and fight harder.

 

2. Spawn camping on any map is totally fine because they should learn to change spawn locations anyway, it teaches them strategy through hard knocks. (if we camp to of the locations that's ok too because it will MAKE them improve their playstyle.)

 

3. If you are not using the accepted builds you are useless and I will abandon you. You should just accept that we know what works best and learn to adjust, if you don't then I will drop any group I see you in.

 

When I expressed that I didn't believe in this way of teaching others working, I was told to be sick and ill and whatnot.

 

I do have a problem, I admit, with my weaknesses being perceived by me to 400 % stronger & bigger than my strengthes (leading to have a loss having an 400 % bigger impact on me that a win), but I still doubt that breaking people makes them better players - because breaking people doesn't make them believe that they are worth living.

 

 

There was this discussion which I remember : This is how everybody's attitudes should be. Props to this guy

 

The initial text says :

 

"I do not normally do this, but I just started playing GSF today I have had a total of 4 games and in all 4 games you killed me about 5 or 6 times each game. My Empire name is . I doubt you will remember me (as I was such an easy kill) but I wanted to say I thought you were awesome and it makes me want to be even one third that good !

Anyway I'm jumping back to to do some more GSF and get exploded by you because I think I will learn more facing you than riding on your coat tails."

 

The interesting point is, that this mail exactly fits into the teaching style seen here :

 

1. 3-capping in domination from the start, when we outclass our opponents massively, is ok because it will inspire them to be better players and fight harder.

 

2. Spawn camping on any map is totally fine because they should learn to change spawn locations anyway, it teaches them strategy through hard knocks. (if we camp to of the locations that's ok too because it will MAKE them improve their playstyle.)

 

After I had expressed my distaste on this teaching style (more elaborate, but that's the way I do it in all forums I'm in), I got several replies, among them this, shortened :

 

 

That last line really bothers me and makes me think you're really just a whiny ignorant child.

 

What you're doing here is disparaging people who give their all and saying that your quick to temper personality is superior and you should be downright ashamed of yourself.

 

Also, this is supposed to be a positive thread celebrating somebody's give-it-your-all attitude. Why would you hi-jack our positivism with your negativity and implying that in order to get good at this game you have to be weak-of-mind?

 

Furthermore, I've seen your other posts and I think you need an attitude adjustment. Stop trying to make excuses for yourself and your inability to improve. It's one thing to not have time to work on your skills and that making you fall behind, but having read your other posts it feels like you just want to explain your horrible play in as elaborate and pseudo-scientific way

 

TL;DR your post and other posts gave me cancer and I'm in the hospital now. Don't talk about things you don't understand using pseudo-science that you also don't understand on the internet or else you'll have more victims.

 

This made me quit GSF. Thank you for speeding up my decision, I really had a better time this way.

[Danalon]

[...]After I had expressed my distaste on this teaching style (more elaborate, but that's the way I do it in all forums I'm in), I got several replies, among them this, shortened :[...]

 

Your "expressed your distaste" with this:

 

If I get shot down 10 times in a row and that in 4 games, then I get depressions. Seriously.

My frustration tolerance is really low - and those will remain in GSF which are so much hardened / hard-spirited that they just don't mind getting destroyed over and over and over and over and over and over and over again ...

 

Both ground PvP and GSF becomes a pool of a certain kind of personalities in the end. Warrior personalities. Everything else dies out. Like humanity has driven so many RL animals into extinction as well ( " dead as a Dodo" ).

And at the same time these warrior personalities regard things like Poetry, Art and Writing as "weak".

 

The reason you got such replies were the last two sentences in that quote. You attacked players who like PvP by comparing them to poachers who don't have a sense for beautiful things.

You didn't just "express your distaste", you attacked others by implying things about their personalities - and that backfired.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Danalon

[Archonitek]

This made me quit GSF. Thank you for speeding up my decision, I really had a better time this way.

 

I'm confused. That post was from nine months ago. Have you or haven't you quit? Because nine months is A LOT of time to improve so if you stuck with the game for 9 months and still hold the same attitude towards it...

 

P.S I do enjoy your allegories on their own, they make interesting reads and there are many that I have never heard about. However putting them in every argument you have with someone diffuses the impact and ends up making you sound disingenuous and self righteous.

 

BACK ON TOPIC...

 

Personally, I hate 3 capping and spawn camping to 'help' the new pilots 'improve'. Players need to learn in order to improve their skills, but they have to WANT to improve and be happy to put in the time to learn and practice. You can't just whack a guy with a stick over and over again and expect him to say 'Now it makes so much more sense! thank you!' While it may work for some people, mainly those who really really want to fly (like me) and are willing to take the knocks to get better, others who only joined a few matches to see what it was about will just bail.

[ALaggyGrunt]

The attitude of "just grind their faces into the ground over and over again, they'll learn" is incredibly short-sighted.

 

Sure, they'll learn if they stick with it a while. Most people won't-they don't know how to 3-space when "up" is relative. The mechanics of the game are totally foreign to them, and kind of counter-intuitive. Part of what makes this game unique is what makes it so frustrating to newbies. Most flying games don't have snipers and mines, so they're totally foreign to a lot of newbies (see also: our favorite rage thread topics).

 

If you throw merciless players in who will just wipe them out over and over and over again, you have a recipe for a lot of "People do this on purpose?" and the community will eventually eat itself:

Right now, SWTOR's PvP games (both ground and space) cater to hardcore types, who are by definition few and far between. There is no matchmaking, so you will get chainqueued in against the very strongest the server has to offer-though I wouldn't call them the best if they spawncamp and 1000/0 over and over, because that's not how you get the numbers of people playing to make it worth it to make your corner of the game better. A game doesn't survive on hardcore types-it needs casuals or it just doesn't make money. But the game doesn't cater to casuals right now because it keeps throwing the casuals against the hardcore with predictable results, so it's doomed to be this minigame "nobody" cares about. Especially in this game-you might get better luck if you tried recruiting from, say, EVE.

[Lavaar]

I have seen many differing opinions on the "three cap debate", and after some reflection and many games played on both sides of this situation, I realize that there is no right or wrong way to go about this. If you decide not to three cap and your team agrees, it may be the right decision in that circumstance. Inversely, if you decide that three capping is the best choice, for a variety of reasons, it could also be the correct choice. It really depends on who you are facing, and the attitudes and competence of the opposing team, as well as the reasons behind making that decision. I do not, however, believe that people should force their opinions on this issue down other players throats, or expect to be given a free satellite in a lopsided match.

 

As far as my own take on this issue goes, I personally will not suggest giving away a satellite, since I believe that stacking two satellites with heavily skilled players does not allow for the opposing team to mount any kind of effective attack. Stacking on two satellites is a tactic for advanced games when facing strong opposition, and I do not believe it is sporting to deploy advanced tactics against newer players. When three capping, you spread yourselves thin, and this allows for opportunities for the opposing team to rally and capture, which is what they should be learning to do in these matches. I also see many folks that avoid three capping in order to artificially prolong the game to rack up higher statistics. I believe this is not only an unsportsmanlike way of gaming the statistics system and coming up with dishonest numbers, but it also wastes everyone's time who is in the game, friend and foe alike. We all have lives outside of this game, and when I am in a lopsided Dom match I personally would prefer for it to be over as soon as possible, rather than being extended another 1/3 of match time so one of the dominating players can pad his own numbers. Sometimes the matchmaker produces bad matches, we all know that, but to abuse this is not something I believe we should encourage.

 

On the flip side, sometimes players on the opposing team can be just dreadful, and can find issue with even staying within the match boundaries. In these cases I believe that it can be useful to let them learn to pilot and at least let them find a satellite so they know where to go. However, in these situations I will often seek out those players and give them a few pointers after the match, which seems to go a lot further than handing them a pity sat. That being said, I do not often disagree in this situation when my team feels this is the route to follow, the only time I disagree is when I believe the opposition is strong enough to be insulted by our pity.

[RickDagles]

As far as my own take on this issue goes, I personally will not suggest giving away a satellite, since I believe that stacking two satellites with heavily skilled players does not allow for the opposing team to mount any kind of effective attack. Stacking on two satellites is a tactic for advanced games when facing strong opposition, and I do not believe it is sporting to deploy advanced tactics against newer players. When three capping, you spread yourselves thin, and this allows for opportunities for the opposing team to rally and capture, which is what they should be learning to do in these matches.

 

That being said, I do not often disagree in this situation when my team feels this is the route to follow, the only time I disagree is when I believe the opposition is strong enough to be insulted by our pity.

 

 

Bingo.

 

If I'm solo queing against a good premade, I would prefer if they try to three cap. That means I can find the node that's least defended and take it. Oftentimes I can then suicide and take the node on the opposite side of the map.

 

If the premade is putting 4 ships on each of the two satellites and giving us a free satellite, there is no way in hell I can take a 2nd node. Even fighting against a group of average players defending a node with 1 bomber, 1 GS, and 1 scout, and 1 anything else...it's nearly impossible to kill them before reinforcements arrive.

Edited August 18, 2015 by RickDagles

[Lendul]

I have seen many differing opinions on the "three cap debate", and after some reflection and many games played on both sides of this situation, I realize that there is no right or wrong way to go about this. If you decide not to three cap and your team agrees, it may be the right decision in that circumstance. Inversely, if you decide that three capping is the best choice, for a variety of reasons, it could also be the correct choice. It really depends on who you are facing, and the attitudes and competence of the opposing team, as well as the reasons behind making that decision. I do not, however, believe that people should force their opinions on this issue down other players throats, or expect to be given a free satellite in a lopsided match.

 

As far as my own take on this issue goes, I personally will not suggest giving away a satellite, since I believe that stacking two satellites with heavily skilled players does not allow for the opposing team to mount any kind of effective attack. Stacking on two satellites is a tactic for advanced games when facing strong opposition, and I do not believe it is sporting to deploy advanced tactics against newer players. When three capping, you spread yourselves thin, and this allows for opportunities for the opposing team to rally and capture, which is what they should be learning to do in these matches. I also see many folks that avoid three capping in order to artificially prolong the game to rack up higher statistics. I believe this is not only an unsportsmanlike way of gaming the statistics system and coming up with dishonest numbers, but it also wastes everyone's time who is in the game, friend and foe alike. We all have lives outside of this game, and when I am in a lopsided Dom match I personally would prefer for it to be over as soon as possible, rather than being extended another 1/3 of match time so one of the dominating players can pad his own numbers. Sometimes the matchmaker produces bad matches, we all know that, but to abuse this is not something I believe we should encourage.

 

On the flip side, sometimes players on the opposing team can be just dreadful, and can find issue with even staying within the match boundaries. In these cases I believe that it can be useful to let them learn to pilot and at least let them find a satellite so they know where to go. However, in these situations I will often seek out those players and give them a few pointers after the match, which seems to go a lot further than handing them a pity sat. That being said, I do not often disagree in this situation when my team feels this is the route to follow, the only time I disagree is when I believe the opposition is strong enough to be insulted by our pity.

This is a very short sighted view of the 3 cap debate. Very seldom are the anti 3 cappers basing their decision on the individual game at hand at all. Usually it is those being mindful about the overall health of the GSF population on that server. Yes sometime 3 capping is a tactically unsound choice vs an opposing team that can capitalize on it . How ever there should really be no debate when it comes to 3 capping a completely out matched opponent. Which is where most of the 3 caps debates happen. Also contrary to your assertion most of the time when I speak up about 3 capping is when I am in the position of deciding if I should 3 cap the opposing team or not. I also do not do it for stat padding. Anyone that has ever flown with me on The Harbinger knows that once I realize the opposing team has no chance I park my ship on a Sat and there it stays. And I do mean park. As in press the X key and remove hands form the keyboard and mouse.

 

The choice to 3 cap/spawn camp an outmatched team is a self serving ego padding choice. No amount of philosophizing can put lip stick on that pig. If anyone makes this choice do not turn around and whine about queue times. You did it to yourself.

[RickDagles]

This is a very short sighted view of the 3 cap debate. Very seldom are the anti 3 cappers basing their decision on the individual game at hand at all. Usually it is those being mindful about the overall health of the GSF population on that server. Yes sometime 3 capping is a tactically unsound choice vs an opposing team that can capitalize on it . How ever there should really be no debate when it comes to 3 capping a completely out matched opponent. Which is where most of the 3 caps debates happen. Also contrary to your assertion most of the time when I speak up about 3 capping is when I am in the position of deciding if I should 3 cap the opposing team or not. I also do not do it for stat padding. Anyone that has ever flown with me on The Harbinger knows that once I realize the opposing team has no chance I park my ship on a Sat and there it stays. And I do mean park. As in press the X key and remove hands form the keyboard and mouse.

 

The choice to 3 cap/spawn camp an outmatched team is a self serving ego padding choice. No amount of philosophizing can put lip stick on that pig. If anyone makes this choice do not turn around and whine about queue times. You did it to yourself.

 

 

I don't think you're getting it. When the enemy team tries to 3 cap me it is a very very good thing for the game because it means we can actually capture nodes and have some real battles. I've almost won a few domination games just hopping between capping A and C. If they 2 cap us then it means we sit there in a lame stalemate for the rest of the game because no one can do anything.

 

If the enemy team has all 2 shippers and bads then yes, let them have a satellite. That's all he's saying.

Edited August 18, 2015 by RickDagles

[Lendul]

If they 2 cap us then it means we sit there in a lame stalemate for the rest of the game because no one can do anything.

 

If the enemy team has all 2 shippers and bads then yes, let them have a satellite. That's all he's saying.

Like I said a self centered choice. What about the other people on your team that are newer pilots? And no that is not "all" he was saying. Which is why I felt inclined to post. He said the main reason people to do not want to 3 cap is to pad stats. Which is just as absurd as the people that get on here and try to say that upgrades are more important than skill. Edited August 18, 2015 by Lendul

[RickDagles]

Like I said a self centered choice. What about the other people on your team that are newer pilots? And no that is not "all" he was saying. Which is why I felt inclined to post. He said the main reason people to do not want to 3 cap is to pad stats. Which is just as absurd as the people that get on here and try to say that upgrades are more important than skill.

 

The people on my team that are newer pilots get to gain some experience actually defending and attacking a node.

 

Here's a great strategy in Lost Shipyards that has won me some games even with 7 two shippers on my team. After being 3 capped, hop into a Rampart/Razorwire, and head to C. Announce to your teammates that you will drop a beacon near C and they should respawn there. Then when you are close to the sat and you've seen a few players spawn at your beacon, turbo in to the sat, pop charged plating to eat/shoot seismic/conc/seeker mines, then proceed to kill all 3 turrets. Once that's done, drop an interdiction mine on the bomber and kill him with HLC. Once you cap the node, suicide and respawn in a Flashfire/Sting. Instruct your team to keep respawning at C and hold the node. Meanwhile you jet over to A and solo cap it. Oftentimes that node will only have 1 or 0 pilots defending it and it's an easy grab. Suddenly your team now has 2 nodes and the enemy is scrambling. I certainly think that teaches your team more about the game than sitting their a55 on a satellite doing nothing all game. All 7 of them combined may not be able to hold C for very long, but you can suicide and respawn as necessary. This doesn't work so well in Mesas or Denon.

Edited August 18, 2015 by RickDagles

[Lendul]

The people on my team that are newer pilots get to gain some experience actually defending and attacking a node.

 

Here's a great strategy in Lost Shipyards that has won me some games even with 7 two shippers on my team. After being 3 capped, hop into a Rampart/Razorwire, and head to C. Announce to your teammates that you will drop a beacon near C and they should respawn there. Then when you are close to the sat and you've seen a few players spawn at your beacon, turbo in to the sat, pop charged plating to eat seismic/conc/seeker mines, then proceed to kill all 3 turrets. Once that's done, drop an interdiction mine on the bomber and kill him with HLC. Once you cap the node, suicide and respawn in a Flashfire/Sting. Instruct your team to keep respawning at C and hold the node. Meanwhile you jet over to A and solo cap it. Oftentimes that node will only have 1 or 0 pilots defending it and it's an easy grab. Suddenly your team now has 2 nodes and the enemy is scrambling. I certainly think that teaches your team more about the game than sitting their a55 on a satellite doing nothing all game. All 7 of them combined may not be able to hold C for very long, but you can suicide and respawn as necessary. This doesn't work so well in Mesas or Denon.

Sorry man I can't keep up with your ADD. I was talking about the choice to 3 cap when you are on the winning side. And you are talking about a situation where you are 1 capped on the losing side.

[RickDagles]

Sorry man I can't keep up with your ADD. I was talking about the choice to 3 cap when you are on the winning side. And you are talking about a situation where you are 1 capped on the losing side.

 

Guess how I learned this "ADD" strategy? I was in a premade against soloq Drakolich and he did this to us all game while we scrambled to keep up. Then we decided to pull out an advanced strategy and bunker down on B and C. The result? His team lost much harder, everyone was a lot more bored, and no one learned anything.

 

The take home point? Issuing a blanket statement that 3 capping is always bad and evil and killing the queue is completely erroneous. While there are certainly times that 3 capping is a nasty thing to do, there are also times when it isn't. To claim that three capping is ALWAYS bad basically just advertises a lack of knowledge of the game.

 

Also, here's a protip: capturing satellites earns you way more ship requisition than anything else in the game. I've heard countless cries of so called "do gooders" calling for our team to "let them have A so they can get some requisition". Giving them a free satellite is nothing more than a cheap placebo that may give them 100-200 requisition. They aren't going to learn anything. It's not going to be the deciding factor between someone abandoning the game or staying. In my ADD scenario, players can easily earn those 100 extra requisition points in a matter of seconds.

 

If you're in the position where you're able to 3 cap the enemy team but don't because you want to "help them out", then you should be immediately logging off and rolling a toon on their side to actually help them out with advice and wingman support. I do this very often, and I have no problem getting my a55 handed to me over and over again. There's a reason I have never posted anything on the records thread -- my win/loss is not great. Ask yourself who is helping new players more?

Edited August 18, 2015 by RickDagles

[Lendul]

 

The take home point? Issuing a blanket statement that 3 capping is always bad and evil and killing the queue is completely erroneous. While there are certainly times that 3 capping is a nasty thing to do, there are also times when it isn't. To claim that three capping is ALWAYS bad basically just advertises a lack of knowledge of the game.

 

 

If you're in the position where you're able to 3 cap the enemy team but don't because you want to "help them out", then you should be immediately logging off and rolling a toon on their side to actually help them out with advice and wingman support.

1. I did not issue a blanket statement. I issued a specific statement that 3 capping an obviously outmatched team is a bad choice.

2. You are making the false assumption that they will be queing again after the 3 cap stomp. Which is contrary to the reports in this thread.

[Bolo_Yeung]

3-capping isn't nad by itself. However, common practice of 3-capping then going spawncamping is.

3-cap, then leave (or leave a defender that will fight at half-throttle and a little away from sat - to allow enemy cap). It is much better than static game with 2 sats hed vs 1 sat held... and actually allow newbs to learn a little.

But if a clearly better team goes close to enemy spawn then just hunts freshly spawned players, then it is pretty certain to scare them away from queuing...

 

Also, if you see enemies close to capping (and the game is heavily in your favor, there are no aces capable of turning tides in enemy team) ALLOW THEM TO CAP. You can retake it later, but they will get heavy comms reward from capping (equal to 3 minutes of defending friendly sat).

Edited August 18, 2015 by Bolo_Yeung