Which of these "aid new players strats" would you rather be on the receiving end of?

[Drakkolich]

Lately there has been a discussion on how a superior team should "help" the new players in their games.

This discussion has revolved mostly around the Domination game type and how you should not 3 cap the opposing team, that you should give them a satellite so they gain extra requisition.

 

This week my team has been testing a new approach instead, as many others have mentioned on the forums there are many reasons why I think simply giving the enemy team a satellite is the wrong approach.

 

Before I detail both strategies and what I think they both accomplish I would like to break down exactly how requisition is gained in the Domination game type, so you can see for yourself how little requisition is actually gained from simply defending the entire game. (I would like to point out that winning the game is always optimal in terms of requisition and that defending is an essential part of winning domination so I'm not telling everyone to never defend again)

 

Requisition earned in Domination by Objective:

 

The two numbers that follow are Free to play requisition / Subscriber requisition

Completing the Battle: 100 / 150

Victory Bonus: 100 / 150

Battle length: for every 5 seconds = 1 / 1.5

Kill/Assists: Per kill/assist = 5 / 7.5

Objective Captures: Per Objective Capture = 90 / 135

Objective Defense: per 3.5 Objective points = 1 / 1.5

Turret Kills: Per Turret killed = 10 / 15

 

 

The Strategies being discussed below are for extremely one sided games in which the superior team wants to help the newer players on the opposing team out instead of spawn camping them.

 

I'd also like to point out that in no way should anyone think they have to do these ever. This is just a discussion for players that do want to opt into strategies to help new players out.

 

 

Now onto the different strategies.

 

Giving the enemy team a free satellite for the whole game (Not 3 capping) :

 

So the point most people keep making is that this strategy gives newer players a safe place to just wait it out and gain requisition for the duration of the game.

 

Pros of this strategy:

- Players learn how to stop in a single spot for an entire game and wait. Maybe they have time to experiment with their abilities and key binds to see what feels right.

- Players gain requisition for just waiting.

- Players can attack other satellites if they wish to test themselves against the enemy team but can always retreat to their satellite to recharge and try again.

 

Cons of this strategy:

- It's very boring for everyone involved.

- The requisition gain isn't very high as demonstrated by the breakdown above. To give you an idea the current record for highest Objective defense is 735 which in earnings equals only 210 / 315 requisition.

- Players don't learn how to attack or defend satellties.

- Players might feel like they are being pitied if they don't know whats going on.

 

 

3 Caping all satellites, then backing off to let the enemy turn one red. Then retaking it. Rinse and repeat. (Swaping control of Satellties)

 

The point of this strategy is to teach new players how to take satellites while also giving them huge bonuses to requisition.

 

Pros of this Strategy:

- Players on the enemy team get huge bonuses to requisition even though they are losing the match. To give you an idea of the amount in one game it's very feasible to swap a satellite 5+ times and even at 5 times that gives you 450 / 675 requisition.

- Players learn how to capture satellites.

- No ones bored because the superior team has to keep retaking the satellites every time, so there is a lot more fighting.

 

Cons of this Strategy:

- The score at the end of the game looks more one sided because they didn't just get to hold one satellite for free all game.

- Players will die more because the superior team will be killing them to retake the satellite.

- The team that's losing might feel like they are being toyed with and could get very frustrated.

 

 

My question for everyone on the forums is if you were on the inferior team in a Domination game which strategy would you rather the superior team you are fighting adopt?

- Not 3 capping and just handing you a satellite

- Constantly allowing you to Cap a satellite and then retaking it

- Or you would rather everyone always play as hard as possible even if it means spawn camping

 

 

Thanks in advance for everyones help!

[caederon]

After seeing the math of this situation in action, I'm a convert. I used to advocate 'let them take one and have it all match' but the req gains for that are far worse than I thought. So you changed my mind on that.

 

I think that in very lopsided matches, the veteran team should 3-cap, and then pull everyone back to B. Let the other team take A and C, then 3-cap them again, and repeat. That'd yield the maximum benefits for everyone wouldn't it? And it would keep people in motion offensively, and give them practice attacking and defending.

 

The trick is for the other team to realize it's going on and take advantage of their chance. The trouble with even 3-capping and abandoning one sat to allow them to retake it is that really inexperienced teams, when 3-capped, often scatter to the wind and cease to function at all. But if the veterans abandon A and C, someone's eventually going to hit one of them and take it back.

 

The real question is can you get your whole team to go along with such a strategy? I hope most of the veterans would be ok with that.

 

In a wargame scenario, you could directly alert the rookie side that this strategy was happening.

 

When on the receiving end of a veterans-vs-rookies match, I'd prefer to have the chance to keep moving on offense and be active.

 

Despon

[AlrikFassbauer]

The trick is for the other team to realize it's going on and take advantage of their chance.

 

In this strategy, this is important.

 

But : It heavily depends on the type of personality. In ground PvP, I've seen whole teams (that is, 8 people) in objective PvP getting so much demoralized that they gave completely up and assemnbled all around 1 node.

 

Due to the wide span of the ground PvP field - I'm mostly thinking of Alderaan now - people just cannot see what's going on on the other side of the field. In Alderaan, there is a full cannon in the middle, barring every try to look out what's going on on the other side.

Hence, people have to rely oin "inc" calls.

 

Denova isn't that difficult, but still a bit. You can still see the name plates in Denover over some distance, which you can't in Alderaan.

 

Depoending on how many bigger objects are there in space maps, there might be a similar problem : People just not realizing what's going on on the other side of the map. But at least there are the dots on the map.

 

One point hasn't been mentioned, though :

 

I think that in very lopsided matches, the veteran team should 3-cap, and then pull everyone back to B.

 

In tactics like these, it might look to some people as if this was a trap : Taking all satellites, then withdrawing to lure naive players to them - and then mass killing them ! With the combined force of everything that's at B , in this quote.

 

If people do it this way, it will do 2 things :

 

- give those who have created the trap LOTS of points for destroying enemy ships

- demoralize those who got into the trap even firther, if the game was one-.sided from the beginning.

 

Of course, hardcore pilots won't get demoralized by that. But - they should keep in mind that even they might contribute to the other teams' Requisition Points by getting killed when battling them. Because only very few pilots might stand the combined force of *several* ships at the same time.

 

Of course, people won't believe me and call this psychology thing hogwash. I don't care.

[Danalon]

I tried to do that "repeat capturing" whenever I had the chance and if it works, then it's extremely boosting requisition. But most of the time it just horribly failed. In almost every game there are 2-3 pilots on the winning team who will not hold back but instead will boost their ego by farming the other team. Even if that's not the case then you'd still have the losing team to play along. I've seen a lot of games where the losing team doesn't even attempt to attack undefended satellites but instead prefers to attack the one satellite where most of the winning team's pilots hang around. Sometimes I've seen satellites being attacked and the turrets managed to kill whatever was attacking without anyone defending the satellite. When I attacked satellites (killed 3 turrets, then the 2-3 defenders there, wait until it's green, retreat) it happened frequently that the enemy team never even tried to recapture their satellite.

 

 

If I were on the receiving end I'd prefer being able to capture a satellite, but that is unlikely to happen.

 

For newer players it's easier to have a point to retreat to, in other words, let them have a satellite for as long as they want. But attack it sometimes, kill turrets, kill some of them but never let it turn white.

 

Spawncamping in DOM is not "playing as hard as possible", it's just statpadding.

 

How about another option:

If you think you could clearly overpower the enemy team, then give them a headstart. Let them take 2 or even 3 satellites until they have a clear advantage in points and then try to turn the game and win. This way, the bad team gains some requisition and the good team actually has to fight for their win (They need to strike with their full force because otherwise they risk losing the game). The downsides are, the losing team (especially if they're inexperienced) will not know why it turned and the game will overall take longer. The upsides are the good players can play "as hard as possible" for the second half of the match and the worse team will actually have a chance at winning the game if the good team underestimated them.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Danalon

[Bolo_Yeung]

1. What would I like? Of course dynamic battle. Personally, I hate "pizza and popcorn" matches with 2-1 cap, where most of the team is flying near sat and eating mentioned pizza/popcorn/whatever. Also, it makes them earn requisitions faster (always got a little infuriated when I heard 'let them keep a sat and earn comms")

However, I am maybe not an 'ace' but certainly a veteran with about 6k matches flied. I know pretty good, how the game is working and that capping for a moment gives me a really nice boost in comms.

 

2. What a new pilot would like? Depends. Some look at the scores - 1000:500 looks pretty nice for them. Some look if they manage to do something, some look at the comms reward. at the end (and with each upgrade they think "Now I will show you all!"

 

Personally, I think that keeping B, retaking A and C is a better solution...

Also, a request - if you see enemy pilot capping, and youtr team is clearly superior, ALLOW THEM TO CAP. Flying close and preventing capping in last moment maybe makes you feel better but for new player it can be really discouraging.

 

The worst thing you can do is to 3-cap and then go spawncamp.

 

PS. In ground PvP guarding an objective makes much sense comms-wise. You can get 3-4 medals easily by defending, then and the amount of comms you get at the end of the match is heavily influenced by amount of medals (up to 8). In GSF, medals are good only for achievemens, and - VERY rarely for Conquest.

[Lavaar]

I, personally, would prefer that the opposing team attempt a 3 cap in order for opportunities to present themselves naturally and realistically, as opposed to constantly bashing my head against the wall against half the team stacked at one of the sats, or having a co-ordinated wave of opposition come and wipe my efforts clean after a capture.

 

The point is, in games like this, the co-ordination on the other side, be it benevolent or malicious, creates an unrealistic scenario that players are unlikely to take much away from, other than that the other team has some supernatural ability to overwhelm them at the blink of an eye.

 

That being said, I still advocate giving opportunities for TRULY new players to improve, and the second suggestion drakolich has made is a better option for many reasons, as it does not only provide more requisition, but also brings fighting other players into the mix as well, which makes it a vast improvement over the "tutorial style" mind frame of the "give one sat" approach. I do not believe that we should be doing this for anyone other than the newest players though, as this is not the kind of experience that they should get used to when playing, as well as it being frustrating and insulting to vets and semi-vets.

 

In regards to premades, I am of the opinion that more efforts should be made as a community to spread out our talent, as opposed to concentrating it in (sometimes ops) groups. We no longer have the luxury of a diverse player base to regularly face off against, and if you're playing in a group all night and are at no point at risk of losing a game, then it may be time to re-evaluate the balance and think about how demoralizing loss after loss can be.

[Monumenta]

Micro managing the other players or teams requisitions and believing you can control their moral by your teams actions are both patently ridiculous.

 

The methods you are referring to as 'aiding new players' is called cheating, and is a version of what's called win trading (loss trading? how pathetic...) these 'strats' wouldn't be tolerated in ground pvp and shouldn't be put up with in GSF, stop it. Having mastered ships and experience flying is essentially no different than having full ranked gear in unranked ground pvp, I dare you to post something similar to this thread in the regular pvp forum and see what kind of reactions you get. Player versus player content is designed to be competitive, weather on the ground or in the skys, there is no excuse for the kind of behavior you describe, you are not being honorable or kind to the new player or yourself or the community.

 

If you choose to not kill certain players who seem to be struggling or personally fly away from a satellite for any of the reasons you detailed above that is your prerogative, but when you develop these methods as a team and suggest the community at large follow suit you become cheaters, nothing more, you debase the games integrity by doing so.

 

I would like to suggest a quick way to report GSF abusers and cheaters who call for (or demand) these strategies in matches, possibly a right click on players names on the exit screen, this problem is rampant on my server and seems to be pervasive and made its way to the rest as well and needs to be stopped.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Monumenta

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Of the two options in the OP I'd prefer the traditional one of let them have at least one sat. In my experience the more competent pilots will make token efforts at the very least to cap a 2nd sat and things can get interesting if they manage to turn a 2nd sat grey (even if we can't hold it for long). And of course there's always someone on the other team who wants to 3 cap and will attack the weaker teams one sat (so they still get practice on defense even if it's only against a few lone pilots instead of an organized wave).

 

I've been in matches that played out like the second option. I'm one of the few vets on my team and almost as soon as we cap a sat the enemy team has rushed to recap it. Normally it's very frustrating because the team sends in their bombers which 1) the newbs don't have the knowledge or kit to take out 2) even though the bomber doesn't always become a tick it's still demoralizing to see the sat recapped by a ship class you know your team isn't equipped to handle. Also in my experience the sat has barely changed colors before the other team begins arriving to take the sat back which gives newbs little change to really learn how to defend (unless the goal is to make them learn how to defend with all their CDs in cooldown against an enemy with CDs ready) and if any of the newbs died they won't have respawned and gotten back to the sat before it's already being turned.

 

Overall I've found it far more demoralizing than fun or helpful because all your effort feels wasted. In those matches I generally wish they'd just 3 cap and spawn camp us to end the match sooner rather than trade a sat back and forth where it becomes apparent that it's totally futile.

 

If you think you could clearly overpower the enemy team, then give them a headstart. Let them take 2 or even 3 satellites until they have a clear advantage in points and then try to turn the game and win. This way, the bad team gains some requisition and the good team actually has to fight for their win (They need to strike with their full force because otherwise they risk losing the game). The downsides are, the losing team (especially if they're inexperienced) will not know why it turned and the game will overall take longer. The upsides are the good players can play "as hard as possible" for the second half of the match and the worse team will actually have a chance at winning the game if the good team underestimated them.

 

I think this however would be the best option. It would require either premades and/or a number of solo que vets who recognize each other enough be on the same page with that strategy. But I think even if you only have a flight hold back until the weaker team has 2-3 capped it could still work.

[Archonitek]

Micro managing the other players or teams requisitions and believing you can control their moral by your teams actions are both patently ridiculous.

 

The methods you are referring to as 'aiding new players' is called cheating, and is a version of what's called win trading (loss trading? how pathetic...) these 'strats' wouldn't be tolerated in ground pvp and shouldn't be put up with in GSF, stop it. Having mastered ships and experience flying is essentially no different than having full ranked gear in unranked ground pvp, I dare you to post something similar to this thread in the regular pvp forum and see what kind of reactions you get. Player versus player content is designed to be competitive, weather on the ground or in the skys, there is no excuse for the kind of behavior you describe, you are not being honorable or kind to the new player or yourself or the community.

 

If you choose to not kill certain players who seem to be struggling or personally fly away from a satellite for any of the reasons you detailed above that is your prerogative, but when you develop these methods as a team and suggest the community at large follow suit you become cheaters, nothing more, you debase the games integrity by doing so.

 

I would like to suggest a quick way to report GSF abusers and cheaters who call for (or demand) these strategies in matches, possibly a right click on players names on the exit screen, this problem is rampant on my server and seems to be pervasive and made its way to the rest as well and needs to be stopped.

 

If GSF had a healthy population with a proper matchmaking system that did not stick rookies against veterans then we wouldn't be having this conversation, let alone suggesting different ways of keeping new pilots from throwing up their hands in disgust and walking away from the game forever after a 1000-3 stomp. And note how NOBODY suggested that this is something that ALL veteran pilots must comply to, rather than something for people to consider. Stop comparing ground pvp to GSF. The ground game has a much larger player pool where people are able to practice their abilities through pve, the average TTK is much higher and the separation of ranked and unranked queues makes match making fairer. GSF has none of this, so the only way to generate a positive environment is down to the individual players and how they decide to treat rookies.

 

I also don't understand how you think 'giving them a chance to learn how to fly' constitutes as cheating. The veteran group is not breaking any rules to gain an unfair advantage over the other team. And stat padding is a complete non issue in the current system. There are no rewards gained from having a higher number than anyone else. So your objectives captured stat is 2 higher than norm? Whoopdee****ingdoo.

[RatPoison]

No strategy is better in the sense that it takes two to play the game.

 

If the opposing team is not willing to strike out and attempt to take a satellite, then the second strategy is DOA. This automatically defaults things towards the first. Should the opposing team in question show the aptitude to move and swarm an enemy satellite on their own, then the second strategy is most certainly the preferred route. But if the ill-experienced team is satisfied with sitting around then there is nothing to discuss.

 

In the event that a team has opted to simply sit at their one satellite and wait out the match, the preferred strategy is to proceed to harass and engage them at their one satellite. The ultimate goal is not necessarily to take the satellite, though it is often a byproduct. The purpose of this is to push them out of the safety zone. They'll either return to the satellite to defend it, or push towards capturing a different satellite, or give up entirely.

 

In situations where they give up entirely, there was never any chance for anything productive regardless.

 

In all honesty, it's a mute point because the newbies have to be willing to try and all the veterans can do is be mindful of their competitions experience level and if they feel so kind, pull their punches. I absolutely advocate going easy on newbies and staying away from the current meta ships. I also advocate letting the newbies have a satellite, and I absolutely on a personal level won't bother defending a satellite if they're swarming and trying to take a second node when I know my side is easily able to control the flow of the match.

 

If vets want to help newbies, pulling their punches and slowing their pace is an individual way of contributing to the cause.

[Ardaneb]

Scenarios for Shipyards B, hold A and B, allow other team to hold C:

 

1. All 8 players of other team sit under C doing nothing. This scenario never happens, or at least I have never seen it. It is unusual to have more than 3 players do this. I think that this is a false assumption in the original post (I realize that the pro-2cap forces often make this assumption too).

2. 3 players hold C. 5 players attack B. This is much more common. Plus, if there is a single good player on the other team, the match can really be fun. If that player is able to flip B, you can always just attack B and C to save the win.

3. Random pilot or two (often a beginner/intermediate) attacks C leading to action at C that is more balanced.

4. Turret harvester. This one can really be fun if the harvester embraces the challenge of taking out the turrets without killing anyone. While the other team does not learn defensive flying, they really get to practice the offensive side of things.

 

The problem with flipping 3 satellites is that turrets are hard for stock ships to destroy, especially in the hands of beginners. Those teams often are unable to flip the satellite back. That is a queue killer.

 

I have seen a lot of 3 caps and a lot of 2 caps. The queue clearly dies faster with a 3 cap. In fact, the only thing that experienced players gain by not 3 capping is a healthier queue and sometimes a demolisher achievement.

[Lavaar]

Micro managing the other players or teams requisitions and believing you can control their moral by your teams actions are both patently ridiculous.

 

The methods you are referring to as 'aiding new players' is called cheating, and is a version of what's called win trading (loss trading? how pathetic...) these 'strats' wouldn't be tolerated in ground pvp and shouldn't be put up with in GSF, stop it. Having mastered ships and experience flying is essentially no different than having full ranked gear in unranked ground pvp, I dare you to post something similar to this thread in the regular pvp forum and see what kind of reactions you get. Player versus player content is designed to be competitive, weather on the ground or in the skys, there is no excuse for the kind of behavior you describe, you are not being honorable or kind to the new player or yourself or the community.

 

If you choose to not kill certain players who seem to be struggling or personally fly away from a satellite for any of the reasons you detailed above that is your prerogative, but when you develop these methods as a team and suggest the community at large follow suit you become cheaters, nothing more, you debase the games integrity by doing so.

 

I would like to suggest a quick way to report GSF abusers and cheaters who call for (or demand) these strategies in matches, possibly a right click on players names on the exit screen, this problem is rampant on my server and seems to be pervasive and made its way to the rest as well and needs to be stopped.

 

This is Bergeren Colony isn't it? It must be. The attitude there surrounding 3 capping is downright toxic, and the drama surrounding this on BC makes TEH look downright reasonable.

 

On another note, I have played some ground pvp. I never got to be very good at it, but I found it was much harder to gauge how well you were really doing in a a ground pvp match, since help from your teammates is much more critical in that gametype than it is in GSF. I played on the shadowlands, pub side, and most games were dominated by imperial premades. I was familiar with holding one node for medals to finish a lopsided game, and in that situation, it made a lot of sense to do so. I don't believe the same is true for GSF, and I think a lot of the attitudes that are brought into the game regarding 2 capping may have in fact come from this practice occurring in ground pvp fairly regularly. GSF is not ground pvp, ground pvp teams rarely "gave" away a free node, instead they were truly worried about facing a concentration of a full team on one node, and thus tended to keep their distance in most situations.

[caederon]

Micro managing the other players or teams requisitions and believing you can control their moral by your teams actions are both patently ridiculous.

[...additional garbage]

I would like to suggest a quick way to report GSF abusers and cheaters who call for (or demand) these strategies in matches, possibly a right click on players names on the exit screen, this problem is rampant on my server and seems to be pervasive and made its way to the rest as well and needs to be stopped.

I think you should get to a doctor, there is so much bile in your post that you might have a liver problem.

 

Relentlessly pounding hapless, helpless new players into space dust very well does control their morale, by removing it entirely. GSF lacks a structure to allow players to select their desired level of competition. It has only one official mode, in essence 'unlimited class' fights. Boxing does not match flyweights against heavyweights. Little league baseball does not send their teams to play against the Cardinals. The Packers don't play against Pop Warner level teams. It is reasonable to think that if those sports embraced your brand of 'logic' that they would not have many new players because few people willingly put themselves into situations where they are certain to lose to time and again.

 

Healthy games have structures that allow people to compete at a level suited to them. GSF doesn't, so we have to manufacture opportunities and motivate people to give new players a chance so the player base can grow. 1000-0 dominaton shutouts don't give new players any reason to stick around or try again.

 

Calling attempts to foster new player development 'cheating' is ridiculous. There are no awards at stake, no win-loss records being weighed, we're not competing for the Stanley Cup or a World Series berth. We're trying to keep the player base from dwindling to nothing.

 

(I can see why you don't sign your posts with your character name, I wouldn't want to attach my name to opinions like yours, either)

 

Despon

Edited August 28, 2015 by caederon

[Ardaneb]

Calling attempts to foster new player development 'cheating' is ridiculous. There are no awards at stake, no win-loss records being weighed, we're not competing for the Stanley Cup or a World Series berth. We're trying to keep the player base from dwindling to nothing.

 

Despon, I think you need to pretend that you are an NFL coach to really understand how this is cheating. You are leading the superbowl by 20 points. It is first down on the opponent's 4 yard line. There are 40 seconds left in the game and the opponent has no timeouts. Do you take a knee and let the clock run out? Of course not, that would be cheating. You use all of your timeouts to win by 27 points. Well done coach. Well done.

[Monumenta]

Stop comparing ground pvp to GSF. The ground game has a much larger player pool where people are able to practice their abilities through pve, the average TTK is much higher and the separation of ranked and unranked queues makes match making fairer. GSF has none of this, so the only way to generate a positive environment is down to the individual players and how they decide to treat rookies.

 

Because people don't do regs in ranked gear and repeatedly farm people who are new and have no pvp gear at all? Ya right.

 

This is Bergeren Colony isn't it? It must be. The attitude there surrounding 3 capping is downright toxic, and the drama surrounding this on BC makes TEH look downright reasonable.

 

you are correct

 

Relentlessly pounding hapless, helpless new players into space dust very well does control their morale, by removing it entirely.

 

No one said you have to do that all I said is 'aiding new players' in the manners suggested are cheating, I'm sorry if you think the game is made wrong but cheating isn't going to help it get any dev love.

 

(I can see why you don't sign your posts with your character name, I wouldn't want to attach my name to opinions like yours, either)

 

My forum name and my character name are the same genius, have anymore hyperbolic statements to try to justify your cheating?

Edited August 28, 2015 by Monumenta

[caederon]

you are correct

 

No one said you have to do that all I said is 'aiding new players' in the manners suggested are cheating, I'm sorry if you think the game is made wrong but cheating isn't going to help it get any dev love.

 

My forum name and my character name are the same genius, have anymore hyperbolic statements to try to justify your cheating?

That's an impressive display of petulance and general ill-will. I'll be sure to look for you next time I'm around. If GSF does eventually go dark for lack of players, it'll be attitudes like yours that brought it down. But, at least you'll have maintained the integrity of the game by creating a hostile and unforgiving environment to play in.

 

Despon

[AlrikFassbauer]

Player versus player content is designed to be competitive, weather on the ground or in the skys, there is no excuse for the kind of behavior you describe, you are not being honorable or kind to the new player or yourself or the community.

 

You won't believe this,

but there just is no "competition" whatsoever

if you are regularly steamrolling for example teenagers who are playing Basketball meanwhile being in the same team as let's say Michael Jordan.

 

Yes, you will still perceive it as "competition", I guess, but there is none. It's like an adult doing so much more scores compared to a kid. At one point, the kid will just run away, crying.

 

Doing ONLY scores is NOT = "teaching".

Actual "teaching" involves certain techniques taught to Teachers for hundereds of years now ...

 

Relentlessly pounding hapless, helpless new players into space dust very well does control their morale, by removing it entirely. GSF lacks a structure to allow players to select their desired level of competition. It has only one official mode, in essence 'unlimited class' fights. Boxing does not match flyweights against heavyweights. Little league baseball does not send their teams to play against the Cardinals. The Packers don't play against Pop Warner level teams. It is reasonable to think that if those sports embraced your brand of 'logic' that they would not have many new players because few people willingly put themselves into situations where they are certain to lose to time and again.

 

I agree very much to this.

 

People who ... almost "demand" ... that tactics or whatever wouldn't have any psychological effect on people ... must - at least in my opinion - be people without feelings, emotions, without ANY kind of Empathy themselves ...

 

I just cannot understand how a person can hold the opinion that crushing, destroying, humiliating etcx. makes that person want to become better.

 

Some of these in RL crushed, destroyed, humiliated persons just commit suicide in RL.

 

And people firmly believing that in RL crushing, destroying, humiliating people makes them want to become better - they take the RL probability of psychological traumata, of suicide into account.

 

Or, they are SO naive that they don't even believe that this could happen. At. All.

 

It's not a case of "i teach them to become better". No. It's a case of " I crush, destroy humiliate them SO HARD that they EITHER GET UP OR NEVER AT ALL !"

 

And to me, this is the most inhuman form of teaching people knowledge I could think of.

 

And now - who thinks that teaching knowledge has to be "human" at all ... Those who believe that any other method of teaching knowledge "makes them too soft" - has never understood why there is a FULL BLOWN SCIENCE called Pedagogy at all ...

Edited August 28, 2015 by AlrikFassbauer

[Monumenta]

That's an impressive display of petulance and general ill-will. I'll be sure to look for you next time I'm around. If GSF does eventually go dark for lack of players, it'll be attitudes like yours that brought it down. But, at least you'll have maintained the integrity of the game by creating a hostile and unforgiving environment to play in.

 

You don't seem to understand that there is a whole bunch of grey area between 'crushing new players into oblivion' and outright cheating to 'promote a healthy game environment.' and threatening to try and farm me proves you don't even have the integrity you are trying to somehow uphold by cheating.

 

GSF isn't popular because it has no bearing on the main game a mistake that was repeated from the original space missions, not because people are getting their feelings hurt getting beat down by bullys their first time trying it, if that were the case ground pvp would be empty.

 

I mastered my ships just fine in an environment where others already had theirs, I still play the game, I was not demoralized. I'm not even that good at GSF sometimes I get top 5, Ive never got more than 10 kills that I recall.

 

If you were to start a post that said 'hey guys lets not pound newbs into oblivion every time you see one, you know there's a learning curve here lets give them a little space and encouragement' I could get behind that I guess I probably would have no comment on the subject because honestly I can say I've never farmed anyone or been demoralized because if someone was farming me or trying to I didn't notice so it has nothing to do with me.

 

I'm just not convinced that there is a problem and even if there is I just don't feel organized cheating is the answer here and you guys do. It's my opinion, you will have to live with many that differ from yours throughout life.

 

Good luck with your satellite tradings.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Monumenta

[Ardaneb]

It's my opinion, you will have to live with many that differ from yours throughout life.

 

... and if you don't agree with someone be sure to report them to to the developers for cheating, like Monumenta.

[Monumenta]

... and if you don't agree with someone be sure to report them to to the developers for cheating, like Monumenta.

 

Sorry, I don't start or post in threads to organize cheating I just play the game as it is...

Edited August 28, 2015 by Monumenta

[caederon]

If you were to start a post that said 'hey guys lets not pound newbs into oblivion every time you see one, you know there's a learning curve here lets give them a little space and encouragement'

...

I'm just not convinced that there is a problem and even if there is I just don't feel organized cheating is the answer here and you guys do. It's my opinion, you will have to live with many that differ from yours throughout life.

That's the precise essence of what's being discussed here, though. And your insistence that it is cheating is ridiculous. Correcting for a very imbalanced, unfair situation is not cheating. Who is even being cheated in this scenario?

 

The whole point of this idea is to both make lopsided games more fun for everyone and to maximize what the new players get out of the match. If there were cross-server queuing (leading to a larger player base and more matchmaking success) or leagues of varying skill levels, or any mechanism in place to enable new players to get their bearings before being repeatedly smashed, this sort of talk would not be necessary. But, there aren't, so it is.

 

Maybe you don't fly as many games as some of us do, and so the problem is less apparent to you. I fly a lot. I see this happen again and again, even when solo queuing, when one faction happens to have all the good pilots on and continually rolls the other side until the queue dies.

 

People in large part do not participate in activities where there is no reward (and from my perspective, I find no reward in stomping a team of new pilots relentlessly, just as much as they likely find no reward in being stomped). The fewer people participating, the harder it is to get a match. A few servers have consistent queue pops, but that number seems to be on a steady downward trend. Do you really want to take a stand against efforts to reverse that?

 

Despon

Edited August 28, 2015 by caederon

[Monumenta]

That's the precise essence of what's being discussed here, though. And your insistence that it is cheating is ridiculous.

 

This is a false equivalency, and I feel that what you are asking is ridiculous, so we agree that we find each other ridiculous- there, we have some common ground.

 

Correcting for a very imbalanced, unfair situation is not cheating.

 

Again, I'm sorry you feel the game was made incorrectly but I don't feel organized satellite trading is the solution as it is wantonly gaming the system that was given to us regardless of how you feel about its flaws.

 

Who is even being cheated in this scenario?

 

Besides the game rules themselves, if you fly on BC you will see that others demand these strategies be followed by all and are berated during the match and in the GSF chat afterwords if you don't, so I guess the answer, at least on my server, is people that want to play GSF with their freedom of choice intact and not catch flack.

 

A few servers have consistent queue pops, but that number seems to be on a steady downward trend. Do you really want to take a stand against efforts to reverse that?

 

I don't believe the reasons you seems sure of for this, if I were to guess, as I said before, I believe it's the disconnect between the ground game and GSF. People play GSF until they buy the decos they like then quit, maybe the solution to these fading queues would be to add more items to the vendor that pertain to the actual game and not just items for the mini-game bought with comms from the mini-game, I don't know but there's an idea.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Monumenta

[MaximilianPower]

You don't seem to understand that there is a whole bunch of grey area between 'crushing new players into oblivion' and outright cheating to 'promote a healthy game environment.' and threatening to try and farm me proves you don't even have the integrity you are trying to somehow uphold by cheating.

 

GSF isn't popular because it has no bearing on the main game a mistake that was repeated from the original space missions, not because people are getting their feelings hurt getting beat down by bullys their first time trying it, if that were the case ground pvp would be empty.

 

I mastered my ships just fine in an environment where others already had theirs, I still play the game, I was not demoralized. I'm not even that good at GSF sometimes I get top 5, Ive never got more than 10 kills that I recall.

 

If you were to start a post that said 'hey guys lets not pound newbs into oblivion every time you see one, you know there's a learning curve here lets give them a little space and encouragement' I could get behind that I guess I probably would have no comment on the subject because honestly I can say I've never farmed anyone or been demoralized because if someone was farming me or trying to I didn't notice so it has nothing to do with me.

 

I'm just not convinced that there is a problem and even if there is I just don't feel organized cheating is the answer here and you guys do. It's my opinion, you will have to live with many that differ from yours throughout life.

 

Good luck with your satellite tradings.

 

I get the sense that your initial experience was atypical. I mean, if you mastered your ships and got past the learning curve without throwing your hands up in despair...job well done, I'd say. Unfortunately a lot of other people do simply give up in the face of what can seem like an insurmountable obstacle.

 

I'm not sure how much you've GSFed, but a lot of us forum folk have played...well, quite a bit...we've seen the same sorts of patterns over and over, witnessed the same gripes and misconceptions told and retold. We've seen new people stroll into this forum ranting about OP gunships or getting 1-shot by cheating battlescouts, lamenting the hopelessly broken game that is GSF and threatening to hang up the flightsuit. Some of those same folks ended up doing a 180 because we were able to explain what they'd seen, give them tips, sometimes join up with them in game. In the end, they saw GSF for what it is: a different yet engrossing minigame, endlessly entertaining, well balanced (mostly) and addictive.

 

Ultimately the issue isn't:

 

GSF isn't popular because it has no bearing on the main game

 

...that may be true, but it isn't the problem at all. The obstacle is accessibility...the learning curve, nothing more. Aside from stalwarts like yourself (and most of us here, I suppose) who stuck it out, the vast majority of SWTOR players I know who've tried GSF just gave up because it was too hard (and this difficulty wasn't balanced by any notable rewards). Too hard to pick up, too hard to stay alive, too hard to even fathom the sometimes inscrutable objectives. The tutorial is garbage, everyone knows that. You can't really correlate this with ground pvp. At least there, you (probably) understand your abilities and how to use them. In GSF, you're playing a completely different game.

 

The result is the low and still-declining GSF population. The diehards will probably remain until the lights go out, but the player pool continues to shrink, which saddens those of us who enjoy GSF so much.

 

So try to see Drak's initiative as an attempt to keep the game alive. I kinda get what you're saying about a blurred line between "aiding" and "cheating" - but here again, you can't make an apt comparison to ground pvp: we have no ranked mode, no rewards, no reason to trade wins. We play because we enjoy GSF, and we want others to enjoy GSF too. So in the apparent absence of any help from the devs, this is all we have. It's on us to try to keep GSF going. That's the goal of the thread: there is no sinister ulterior motive.

 

On topic: out of the two options, the "sat flipping" choice seems superior. I think I prefer option 3, that is, giving the underdogs a bit of a head start. At least that would make for more of an entertaining game on both sides (I think).

[ALaggyGrunt]

One of these matches isn't usually too bad.

 

Lots of these matches in a row is going to be bad no matter how you slice it. If you see the same team against the same team, you are going to get very similar results. If you see the obviously better team "playing nice", well... it's the difference between giving up after 2-3 games and giving up after 10. After a few games, the losing team figures out it doesn't matter at all what they do-they don't have the skill or the gear or sometimes the feel for the very basics of how to use this gun. In deathmatches where the losing team isn't getting sniped on their spawn, I guess 10km of space to fly in without getting instakilled is better than 0.

 

Ground PvP makes me wonder why anybody bothers to queue for it. Maybe the guy has a point when he says there needs to be a tie-in.

 

Edit: I think the list needs to include going to another server because there's nothing worth shooting at on this one.

Edited August 28, 2015 by ALaggyGrunt

[Ardaneb]

if you fly on BC you will see that others demand these strategies be followed by all and are berated during the match and in the GSF chat afterwords if you don't, so I guess the answer, at least on my server, is people that want to play GSF with their freedom of choice intact and not catch flack.

 

This is a fair statement. I think there are some completely over the top accusations going on. I had to defend taking Kuat Mesas B the other night instead of trying to defend A and C against a decent team.

 

However, Monumenta, what you said was that people should be reported for "please do not 3 cap." That is clearly what you said and you characterized it as cheating. This is of course completely crazy (see superbowl cheating reference). If you want to report people for chat bullying, that is another issue entirely and depends on what they said. However, reporting people for "please do not 3 cap" is forcing your own will on others. To most of us, it is a clear abuse of the report system.