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

[caederon]

Talking to new players individually after being in a match with them is a practice I have had some success with. Often, if a player makes a comment in ops chat during a match (especially a loss) that indicates they are paying attention and recognizing the problems our team is having, I'll try to approach them after and get them talking GSF. I've been able to offer advice on components and answer questions about the often inscrutuble-to-new-players mechanics of the game. Cold-calling all the new pilots on the team, though, would seem to be a dicier proposition.

 

At the end of a recent match, a guy on my team made a comment about his getting shot down a lot. I messaged him afterwards and the conversation went like this:

 

Me: "Hey, that was a rough match. If you have any questions about GSF tactics or ship builds I'd be glad to offer some help"

Him: "R U on drogs?"

Me: "no."

Him: "lol"

 

I didn't pursue it beyond that... then there was a guy on my team in a dom match where my side was being pretty effectively 2-capped, without them pushing for the third, which they could easily have taken. The guy on my team spent the whole match swearing viciously about premades (which we were not even fighting against) over and over. If only his offensive language had translated into any actual offense.

 

So, it's a mixed bag.

 

It'd be amazing if there was a way to address new players en-masse that was more effective than just a note in ops chat pre-game suggesting that they join the GSF channel. Reaching out to the ones who look like they're making an effort in matches can make a world of difference, though.

 

Despon

[ThutmoseV]

The first option is easier to do. I've seen the losing side of a bad mismatch get a few kills defending their one sat. Once they figure out that they aren't having any success attacking defended enemy sats, they often settle for defending the one they do have. Sometimes when I'm on the losing side,, I will try to attack without expecting to succeed, but just trying to make enough of a nuisance of myself to prevent the other side from storming our satellite.

[Sorrai]

Hey gang,

 

As a conscientious player who wishes to see GSF's popularity (and accessibility) expand I think the established practice of enabling a rookie team to control a satellite works just fine. The alternative suggestion of capping, relinquishing and retaking a satellite may be more beneficial but it requires too many steps. Only a team that is experienced and savvy enough to fly with that level of discretion and coordination would be capable of pulling it off with any consistency. Parameters like that make it far more specific to just a handful of players working in concert as opposed to some kind of universally accepted custom that spans multiple servers.

 

Here's a radical idea: If veteran players truly wish to improve the quality of GSF all they need to do is stop queuing and allow a new generation of players to enter the arena on a clean slate!

 

I hope most of you can find the humor and irony in that statement. While I may be joking, sometimes I wonder if our fanatical passion and dedication to GSF might very well be stunting new players from experiencing the joy and independence of discovering what this game has to offer on their own terms. My hunch is that 1 out of every 15 or 20 people who try GSF might actually like it enough to stick around.

 

Based off of what I've read so far it sounds like the majority of people here care about the morale of the community and the future of GSF, which is encouraging. I think it is a testament to the brilliant design of this mini game that it has such a strong and loyal cult following despite this prolonged period of neglect from the developers. My hope is that GSF will eventually move its way back up their list of priorities again sometime after the next expansion.

 

In the meantime, I would like to add one more suggestion for those seeking a new outlet to up their game. If you are in a blowout match and are looking for an effective way to close the gap between you and some hapless rookie, try flying without your combat HUD by pressing “ALT Z”. No radar, no access to secondary weapons, engine or co-pilot abilities, no convenient target reticles to assist you. All you have is a basic target cursor for your ship blasters and an unobstructed view of your ship with only visual scanning as your means of finding other ships. I challenge everyone to give it a try at least once.

 

 

Elaeis,

 

Begeren Colony

 

 

P.S. For the record I am dispelling Monumenta's insinuation that the GSF environment on Begeren Colony is “toxic”. Like most servers it has its share of bad apples but there happen to be plenty of talented and fair-minded people who fly there that make the majority. The only thing I've been finding toxic so far is Monumenta's warped rationale.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Sorrai

[Lavaar]

Here's a radical idea: If veteran players truly wish to improve the quality of GSF all they need to do is stop queuing and allow a new generation of players to enter the arena on a clean slate!

 

I know that you are joking, but due to the recent sale on server transfers, I have noticed that many of the top tier pilots who are not married to their servers have been congregating on the shadowlands, harbinger and the red eclipse. The other servers that these players moved on from will either be left to be the playground of a premade that decides not to leave, a que-free dead zone, or, my hope, which is that they will be a clean slate to foster a new "generation" so to speak.

 

I think it is a testament to the brilliant design of this mini game that it has such a strong and loyal cult following despite this prolonged period of neglect from the developers. My hope is that GSF will eventually move its way back up their list of priorities again sometime after the next expansion.

 

I agree with you, and it is for this reason that I strongly urge caution when discussing sweeping class changes and nerfs based on a few bad experiences. That many of us are still around after all of this time, and no clearly dominant single strategy or build has emerged shows the stability of the game design, be it intentional or otherwise.

 

P.S. For the record I am dispelling Monumenta's insinuation that the GSF environment on Begeren Colony is “toxic”. Like most servers it has its share of bad apples but there happen to be plenty of talented and fair-minded people who fly there that make the majority. The only thing I've been finding toxic so far is Monumenta's warped rationale.

 

Right now I am on Bergeren colony waiting for a match. The discussion in the gsf chat RIGHT NOW is about people being "*****les" and how the community should shame them "into submission". While they didn't specifically mention 3 capping, my experience there tells me that it doesn't even need to be said. While I am sure there are many level headed pilots on the server, their voices tend to get drowned out by the vigilante mob in the chat box.

[Monumenta]

P.S. For the record I am dispelling Monumenta's insinuation that the GSF environment on Begeren Colony is “toxic”. Like most servers it has its share of bad apples but there happen to be plenty of talented and fair-minded people who fly there that make the majority. The only thing I've been finding toxic so far is Monumenta's warped rationale.

 

Well reread my posts because i never said BC was toxic, that was someone else that correctly guessed what server it was before I reported anything but my experiences there, I said the gsf chat crowd are all belligerent when it comes to others not following your tactics and letting people fly as they please, are you trying to say if I queue right now and get a domination match if I don't follow the calls of 'take B and C' and 'leave A alone' there wont be multiple voices in chat repeatedly telling me to stop what I'm doing,'don't 3 cap,' and worse?

 

And for the record your word against mind dispels nothing, especially when you are obviously so firmly on one side of the situation, and O look there's already people agreeing with my assessment of the state of the game on our server.

 

No reason to lie about this, you obviously think you are right and everyone that doesn't follow along is wrong, stand by your convictions and state your case honestly.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Monumenta

[JediBoadicea]

Well reread my posts because i never said BC was toxic, that was someone else that correctly guessed what server it was before I reported anything but my experiences there, I said the gsf chat crowd are all belligerent when it comes to others not following your tactics and letting people fly as they please, are you trying to say if I queue right now and get a domination match if I don't follow the calls of 'take B and C' and 'leave A alone' there wont be multiple voices in chat repeatedly telling me to stop what I'm doing,'don't 3 cap,' and worse?

 

And for the record your word against mind dispels nothing, especially when you are obviously so firmly on one side of the situation, and O look there's already people agreeing with my assessment of the state of the game on our server.

 

It's very true that anyone who spends a fair amount of time flying on Begeren Colony is quite familiar with the debate around three-capping. But I think it's pretty important to both keep things in perspective, and to consider the context of the server.

 

Setting aside the interesting psychological phenomenon of server "cultures" (which is as real a thing as any other group or society's culture, in my opinion), there is a specific context around Begeren Colony's GSF population. Namely, that it is small compared to other servers (which says a lot), and that the population of the server in general has decreased dramatically since the sale on character transfers and the mass exodus to Harbinger.

 

As I believe you know very well Monumenta (if I am guessing your in-game alts correctly), sometime last month a large percentage of the Begeren Colony guilds held a guild summit to discuss ways to increase server activity and improve the morale and gaming experience of all players on our dwindling server. Whether or not you agree with the goal, it still forms a very significant context in which to consider this discussion, because out of this summit came a lot of initiatives to try to improve the GSF player experience specifically - which is no different than the goal being discussed here on these forums.

 

For better or worse, depending on your opinion, the consensus of the guild representatives in attendance was that GSF would benefit from efforts to not demolish the morale of new GSF players in blowout matches. Perhaps for lack of other more imaginative solutions, one of the few "strategies" thought of to achieve this was to try to avoid three capping - again, the very question being debated on these forums by GSF players from other servers as well. What seems to differentiate Begeren Colony is that a server summit cemented this idea much more firmly than it appears to have done in other places. This may not make it more palatable to those who don't agree, but it does perhaps cast the situation in a different light - rather than a gaggle of bullies wantonly striking out willy-nilly, you have a server population who in its majority decided to adopt a certain approach to "rules of engagement." There is always a risk in the "tyranny of the majority," but it's an intrinsic step in how consensus and culture forms.

 

Now, this doesn't mean that some people may not be being rude or aggressive about airing their opinion. That's unfortunate, and not to be commended - but that is individual player behavior, and as all of us who engage in online interactions know, you cannot control that except by trying to present a better example with your own behavior.

 

No reason to lie about this, you obviously think you are right and everyone that doesn't follow along is wrong, stand by your convictions and state your case honestly.

 

I believe you just came very close to a pretty pure definition of an opinion, which it sounds to me like he was expressing. Just as you are expressing yours. Disagreeing with an opposing opinion does not somehow make a lie out of the opinion you yourself are expressing. He is under no obligation to word his opinion only in a matter that satisfies you.

 

I would ask you to please consider that much of the behavior you are seeing, which you find questionable, may be the product of one or two particular guilds. Guilds tend to suffer - probably very naturally - from being cliquish. When a clique becomes large enough, you are only a skip and jump away from a mob mentality; a guild can quickly become an echo chamber, wherein a shared opinion becomes magnified within the safe confines of the group to the point where it may indeed be projected outward as pretty aggressive. With a GSF population as relatively small as we have on Begeren Colony, the politics of a single active group can have a strong impact, for better or for worse.

 

That is something we should all be aware of, and should always do our best to do unto others as we would have them do unto us as regards the way we behave. We are all perfectly entitled to our own opinions, and to play the game as we want to play it - something for which you advocate very strongly, Monumenta. Other players have just as much right to ask you not to three cap in a match as you do to tell them that you do not wish to be bothered by their request; both of those are statements of personal desire directed at another person.

 

How belligerent someone chooses to be in expressing their opinion or disagreement is a matter of personal behavior, not intrinsically tied to what they are requesting. For example: I totally understand and can respect your opinion that the healthiest thing for GSF would be to let all players fly as they want to fly; I can actually understand the rationale there, even if I don't agree about it being the "healthiest thing" to foster morale and encourage new players. The fact that I personally find your manner of discourse on these forums to be pretty aggressive and belligerent isn't tied to the point you were making, although it will certainly contribute to how influenced I feel by your argument.

Edited September 1, 2015 by JediBoadicea

[JediBoadicea]

Right now I am on Bergeren colony waiting for a match. The discussion in the gsf chat RIGHT NOW is about people being "*****les" and how the community should shame them "into submission".

 

That latter, about shaming people into submission, is pretty depressing. I hadn't previously seen it taken to that degree. Maybe (thankfully) I'm flying at the right times to avoid this crowd.

 

I think people are perfectly entitled to express their opinion and preference as regards "rules of engagement." You're even entitled to state that you find a particular person's behavior to be distasteful to you. But there's a fine line between civil disagreement and antagonism, and the idea of shaming anyone as a means to effect change certainly crosses the line. That unfortunately sounds to me like it's very much a product of the mob mentality I was talking about in my reply above to Monumenta, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that all those expressing an uber-negative opinion like that come from the same guild(s); a product of the guild echo chamber effect.

 

I can only hope that those who are escalating their expression of opinion to such a negative degree can take stock and reassess both the civility and efficacy of what they're doing. Devolving into little GSF lynch mobs to hound out people we don't like certainly isn't going to improve server morale or the experience of new GSF players who stumble into our chats!

Edited September 1, 2015 by JediBoadicea

[JediBoadicea]

As is usually the case, this thread appears to have been seriously derailed. Since I just contributed a bit to that derailing, I figure I can also contribute to trying to get it back on track.

 

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'm actually about to go on to agree with the rest of what you said, but I thought I'd pause here to throw in another consideration: perception. I honestly don't think there's a whole lot of risk of rookies feeling like they're being pitied, as Drakko suggests might happen in his initial post. Because frankly, rookie GSF players are usually so overwhelmed they don't have the perspective to recognize any strategy a more veteran team might be employing. At the end of the match, what they principally take away is how they felt. Did they feel like they never had a chance at all? Those sats never turned green, they never scored a kill, they only died a million times and they don't really understand what happened except it wasn't fun and it seemed like there was absolutely no hope for their side at all. "Is that how it's always going to be? **** that!!"

 

The rookie team can't read our minds. They only know what they perceived. It's chiefly for this specific reason that I personally don't advocate three capping. And it's for this reason that I think the question of how much requisition they might gain is actually secondary. Veterans recognize how requisition gain works and have a better idea of what it's even good for, whereas a truly green rookie is only really considering how much fun they had. If we can't overcome that barrier to get them to queue up again, the math doesn't matter.

 

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.

 

I feel kind of slow for not having actually thought of this as a firm strategy before, but I think you make excellent points and I'm feeling pretty converted myself. Because I too have frequently seen exactly what you describe: a rookie team scattering to the wind after a three cap and never recovering enough to coordinate an attack on any single satellite. But leaving them the chance to retake one of two is much more likely to succeed.

 

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.

 

Aye, there's the rub. As we can see from this discussion, there's a lot of disagreement among veteran pilots. But after this, I think I might try to suggest this strategy at least to the friends I may personally be flying with, when we comprise a veteran presence that could influence how it unfolds.

Edited September 1, 2015 by JediBoadicea

[Lavaar]

I'm actually about to go on to agree with the rest of what you said, but I thought I'd pause here to throw in another consideration: perception. I honestly don't think there's a whole lot of risk of rookies feeling like they're being pitied, as Drakko suggests might happen in his initial post. Because frankly, rookie GSF players are usually so overwhelmed they don't have the perspective to recognize any strategy a more veteran team might be employing. At the end of the match, what they principally take away is how they felt. Did they feel like they never had a chance at all? Those sats never turned green, they never scored a kill, they only died a million times and they don't really understand what happened except it wasn't fun and it seemed like there was absolutely no hope for their side at all. "Is that how it's always going to be? **** that!!"

 

The rookie team can't read our minds. They only know what they perceived. It's chiefly for this specific reason that I personally don't advocate three capping. And it's for this reason that I think the question of how much requisition they might gain is actually secondary. Veterans recognize how requisition gain works and have a better idea of what it's even good for, whereas a truly green rookie is only really considering how much fun they had. If we can't overcome that barrier to get them to queue up again, the math doesn't matter.

 

While I agree for the most part with a lot of the things you have said in your previous 3 posts in this thread, I would like to challenge the notion that giving them a free satellite suddenly makes the game fun, as if the new players are a bunch of children. While their actions in game can sometimes baffle and confuse us beyond reason, most players of this game are fully grown adults (according to the ToS anyway) and many of them may be achievement hunters or those seeking conquest points, or simply a new avenue to try out in swtor. They have managed to play much of the ground game, and maybe even some ground pvp, and they know when they are being pitied. I would like to re-post my three cap argument from a previous thread, because I think it applies even more so in this thread.

 

(edited for your reading pleasure)

 

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.

 

There is a bit of a fallacy in this game that somehow feelings are hurt and people wont re-que when they are three capped because they feel helpless. I tend to agree that sometimes that can happen, but usually that takes place not so much due to the three cap, but more so because of the spawn camping, which can often accompany an aggressively mismatched game. More often though, people get upset that they LOSE. Having one satellite does not matter when the end of the match is still a defeat, it is akin to a participation ribbon for losing, which is quickly thrown in the trash. Unless you suggest we should begin a campaign of deliberately throwing the game, I doubt giving one satellite will do anything other than foster frustration due to the extended play time.

 

What you are essentially doing when you decide to hand the opposing team a free, undefended satellite is forcing them to run the tutorial again and "park" their ship on one satellite while slowly awaiting defeat. It really is the exact same thing, and I don't know about you, but after running the tutorial I certainly do not think to myself "what a blast! lets do that again!". There is a reason that the current tutorial is universally despised on this forum, and it is because it's unrepresentative of the majority of the game, it doesn't teach you anything, and it is really, really boring. The only time it makes sense to do this is when the opposing team has clearly never even run the tutorial, and instead of ending the match quickly and humanely like putting down a sick, deformed animal the matchmaker **** out, you instead try to fashion it into an improvised tutorial session.

 

I've been in both situations plenty of times, believe me, and I've talked to scores of new players about this specific issue, and not one of them has ever appreciated being given a free satellite. The whole concept of giving a free satellite reeks of arrogance and misunderstanding in most of the cases I have seen, and are simply a way of making the winning pilots feel better about themselves, rather than actually helping the losers.

 

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.

[Monumenta]

JediBoadicea, as far as the BC guild summits go with regards to the GSF community possibly you should take into account their role in fostering the exact mob mentality that has been detailed here, I know you all mean well but maybe next time spend more time on how players should act in chat and less time reaching consensus on how all players should play, just a thought since you brought it up.

 

Lavaar, I 100% agree with your opinion of the giving away a satellite issue.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Monumenta

[Lendul]

I see the merit of option B. It would better train people for the real game. For nomenclature purposes we could call option B "Flex". If the opposing team is unresponsive then the fall back position could be option A which we could call "Order 66". Get it? Hold 2/3rds of the Sats.

 

Then we could also have option C which I call the "Ninja Turtle" everyone fly to either A or C. Wait until the enemy has accrued 400 points (usually by capping 2 Sats) then go all out.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Lendul

[sartt]

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:

 

 

 

...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).

 

You are slow if you think GSF is balanced.

[Toraak]

You are slow if you think GSF is balanced.

 

No actually it is balanced every ship has a weakness to it. Bombers weakness is GS's, GS weakness is Scouts, scout weakness is Bombers. GSF is balanced. Strike Fighters are the only one that really isn't as balanced as the rest.

[MaximilianPower]

You are slow if you think GSF is balanced.

 

lolwut? read this again, because it's accurate:

 

No actually it is balanced every ship has a weakness to it. Bombers weakness is GS's, GS weakness is Scouts, scout weakness is Bombers. GSF is balanced. Strike Fighters are the only one that really isn't as balanced as the rest.

 

I mean, sure, there are the meta ships and there are the sub-optimal ones, but overall, it's really quite well-balanced. Surprisingly so, I think, given the lack of dev attention GSF has received. Can you please explain why you believe otherwise?

[Monumenta]

lolwut? read this again, because it's accurate:

 

 

 

I mean, sure, there are the meta ships and there are the sub-optimal ones, but overall, it's really quite well-balanced. Surprisingly so, I think, given the lack of dev attention GSF has received. Can you please explain why you believe otherwise?

 

this thread wouldn't exist if gsf were balanced

[MaximilianPower]

this thread wouldn't exist if gsf were balanced

 

To be clear: I'm saying the inherent gameplay mechanics are pretty well balanced.

 

If you mean "balance" in terms of equal skill levels across a broad player pool...then, no, I guess it isn't balanced. Neither is any other game; you'll always have experienced players, noobs, and a spectrum in between. This is why the thread exists.

[Danalon]

this thread wouldn't exist if gsf were balanced

 

Helping new players has nothing to do with balance; matchmaking, maybe, but not balance. Of course veterans are better than new players, that's what it is like in every good PvP game.

 

From a certain point of view, GSF is perfectly balanced, because everyone has acces to the exact same ships, components and upgrades.

[Lavaar]

To be clear: I'm saying the inherent gameplay mechanics are pretty well balanced.

 

If you mean "balance" in terms of equal skill levels across a broad player pool...then, no, I guess it isn't balanced. Neither is any other game; you'll always have experienced players, noobs, and a spectrum in between. This is why the thread exists.

 

Very well put

 

The question isn't, "how can we make the best players worse" rather it is "how can we make the worst players better"

 

If the game wasn't balanced then you would only ever see one tactic being deployed under all circumstances, a tactic that would trump the rest every time. I remember in command & conquer red alert 2 it was the prism tanks, in generals it was the humvee, and I halo 2 it was the "Hitler combo" of plasma pistol and the battle rifle. This game doesn't have anything comparable to those games that is capable of causing balance issues other than a small player pool.

 

The whining we are seeing on these forums lately is born of frustration and stubbornness rather than a genuine and well thought out critique of the balance of GSF.

[Toraak]

lolwut? read this again, because it's accurate:

 

 

 

I mean, sure, there are the meta ships and there are the sub-optimal ones, but overall, it's really quite well-balanced. Surprisingly so, I think, given the lack of dev attention GSF has received. Can you please explain why you believe otherwise?

 

ah, not sure if you misread my post or not, but what you quoted said I agree it is balanced.

[MaximilianPower]

ah, not sure if you misread my post or not, but what you quoted said I agree it is balanced.

 

No, I don't think I misread it. I was just quoting your response to sartt as an explanation of why GSF is indeed balanced. My comments were directed to him (apologies if that wasn't clear). So, yes, we are in complete agreement.

Edited September 11, 2015 by MaximilianPower

[Maulkat]

Wow somehow I missed this topic when it was posted. Now several months later, I'll revisit it. The original question was basically what would I rather have happen to me.

 

It honestly depends because I'm not a "noob", but I remember some of my learning moments and how things felt for me. When I was a noob, I very much couldn't comprehend why I was getting "one shot" (tag team, DO, no upgrades), why can't I kill the turrets (the targeting reticle being grey not red), why can't I take the node (somebody else under it), why can't my side keep a node (not knowing the objective, not staying to guard, getting killed by the stronger team). I think these questions are what are going through the mind of a new player.

 

Ok, now I'm veteran, known by MANY people on different servers and my usual viewpoint on this. I condone the "pity" node as it is now called, but have my team keep pressure on it. It teaches the opposition how to defend. If my team takes the node and we 3 cap them, I request they leave it so the other team can take it back. This doesn't always work, but most of the time it does.

 

To answer the question as veteran pilot on mastered ships- 3 cap me and get the match done with! I hate being 3 capped as much as the nooblings (thanks Ramalina for that lovely new word), but I at least understand why it's happening.

 

I had one match in the last two week against mostly nooblings. My team 3 capped and we left C shortly after the start of the match. The opposing team picked up C, stuck a tick on it and we couldn't get it back (fine). With the tick on C, they kept attacking A and eventually took it from us. By this point, we only needed one node to win and we let them it as a reward.

 

People mention splitting teams and going to the opposite faction. My groups do that. We didn't in the past, but recently we have started doing this. Generally speaking, my group will do 3-4 matches one side or the other and go from there.

 

Lastnight and the night before this happened. I had a group of 4 and 2 of us went to the opposite faction after 3 roflestomps. The other two kept queuing against us for a few matches, then we called it a night.

 

An epic match happened against Rose. My team ended up winning (due to somebody dropping and us getting a better pilot) 1000/994. It started off with my team being 3 capped and I told Rose, just get this over with, but I kept assaulting one of the nodes and took it.

 

There was no pity node or going easy on each other. We both play to win.

 

Back to the topic though, I'm really on the fence. Personally, I want the match over with ASAP, so just 3 cap me. I also remember what it was like to be noob though and take it easy on them and allow the pity node.

[Kraagien]

In the spirit of reviving this rather interesting topic, I'll share my vision too.

Back when Unrelenting used to roam the skies of The Red Eclipse every night, I would've gladly taken a node as a Rookie. Having a point to fall back to when really being slaughtered would have been nice, though only if the enemy team doesn't follow. So if you allow the opposing team a satellite, it should be out of bounds, no matter what. No turret kills, no EMP-ing (which I must admit I sometimes did, but this discussion made me rethink it), no chasing them there. That would be the only effective way of giving them a satellite, IMHO. Then the Rookies of the opposing team could instead focus on fighting A or B (B in most cases), which they wouldn't be able to capture. However, they are still earning points, they can fall back to a safe haven, they are not being truly stomped. The only problem would be getting everyone to comply with this, though usually this argument makes everyone turn around:

Even if you're not feeling like being nice, then you should consider that when we stomp them, they quit, and you won't get another match.

So when everyone complies, this could really help for the true two- or three-shippers to keep flying. For the bit stronger pilots though, when most of the enemy pilots have three or four ships, the second strategy of swapping satellites might be interesting. The real newbies could practice general flying by attacking B during the first strategy, while the three- and four-shippers should get something more challenging on their plates. When the sat-swapping-strat is used, the three- and four-shippers can get the chance to do some real thinking and work on strategy by defending and attacking. This way, whatever number of ships the pilots in the opposing team have (mostly), they can learn something new. And that's what makes this game unique if you ask me: even pilots with over 8K matches played are learning new things.

Sidenote: that makes me realize that I still have a long way to go 0_0