4v4

[hows_hk]

Pretty sure many of you have thought of this one, but since I don't see a post about this...

 

Having 4v4 will greatly improve queue time in times when pops are usually dead, and since there are no reliable 8m/12m queue (sync queue/pop are not that reliable) using ops group anyway, 4v4 makes sense. Sure there is the coding and stuff, but I think the gsf community will accept the maps being the same, of course if the timer/score target are lowered for 4v4 that'd be great , but I don't think anyone would mind them staying the same if that means 8 people queuing in total will result in certain pop . I mean it can't be extremely difficult for it to happen right? If you can have 8v8 and 12v12, I don't see a huge barrier for implementing 4v4 . Hopefully this can also help the gsf communities in "dead" servers.

 

By the way, gsf duel would be great as well, perhaps just use the tutorial map, remove the sat, and we can all have fun/do 1 to 1 training while waiting for queue to pop

Edited January 20, 2016 by hows_hk

[tommmsunb]

Pretty sure many of you have thought of this one, but since I don't see a post about this...

 

Having 4v4 will greatly improve queue time in times when pops are usually dead, and since there are no reliable 8m/12m queue (sync queue/pop are not that reliable) using ops group anyway, 4v4 makes sense. Sure there is the coding and stuff, but I think the gsf community will accept the maps being the same, of course if the timer/score target are lowered for 4v4 that'd be great , but I don't think anyone would mind them staying the same if that means 8 people queuing in total will result in certain pop . I mean it can't be extremely difficult for it to happen right? If you can have 8v8 and 12v12, I don't see a huge barrier for implementing 4v4 . Hopefully this can also help the gsf communities in "dead" servers.

 

By the way, gsf duel would be great as well, perhaps just use the tutorial map, remove the sat, and we can all have fun/do 1 to 1 training while waiting for queue to pop

 

I would be super down to have ranked 4 v 4 deathmatch in an asteroid field. Could have a solo/duals queue and a full 4s queue feature too

Edited January 20, 2016 by tommmsunb

[NeverEvar]

Excellent idea. I would love to have so 4 vs 4. 1/3 of Denon(C part) would be excellent for that

 

P.S.

 

Good to see you back Tom. I`m still waiting for Quads accuracy vid:P

 

 

E3

[Nemarus]

Hmm, going to do some thinking "aloud" here, but how might the meta be different for a 4v4 TDM?

 

Let's assume, for the moment, that you didn't actually shrink the map too much. You left it quite large, thus allowing field position and mobility to play a large role.

 

I suspect most good teams would try to run as a pack, choosing the same spawn point, and then moving to an area they believe they can fortify.

 

The thing is, if the other team does the same, it's a stalemate. At some point, someone has to devise an attack strategy.

 

But to do that, you need to know where the other team is, what they are flying, and how they are positioned relative to each other and cover.

 

That might actually end up creating real relevance for Blackbolts using Sensor Dampening or Sensor Range boosting, to allow them to actually scout the enemy team while not being detected themselves.

 

Having 4v4 also means that flying a true specialist ship (such as Quarrel or Razorwire) is more risky, while flying a generalist lets one ship play multiple roles. No, I don't think Strikes would be relevant in 4v4. But Jurgoran certainly would be, and maybe Sledgehammer too.

 

Unfortunately, I think the best team makeup would be 4 Scouts--2 BLC's & Clusters Stings for close up melee fighting, and then two MLC/Pods Blackbolts for recon and mineclearing. All with Distortion Field and Targeting Telemetry.

 

The benefit of such a team is that they can hunt for enemies with high visibility and speed. And if one team member starts to get focused, he can go invulnerable long enough for the other three can quickly come to his aid and peel.

 

Gunships and Bombers could make life difficult for a group, but ultimately the Scouts would own the position and attack vectors of every engagement, and as soon as one Gunship or Bomber is focused down, the other three will soon follow.

 

All of this is off the cuff thinking though. I'm curious how others think it would go down.

[Lavaar]

Hmm, going to do some thinking "aloud" here, but how might the meta be different for a 4v4 TDM?

 

Let's assume, for the moment, that you didn't actually shrink the map too much. You left it quite large, thus allowing field position and mobility to play a large role.

 

I suspect most good teams would try to run as a pack, choosing the same spawn point, and then moving to an area they believe they can fortify.

 

The thing is, if the other team does the same, it's a stalemate. At some point, someone has to devise an attack strategy.

 

But to do that, you need to know where the other team is, what they are flying, and how they are positioned relative to each other and cover.

 

That might actually end up creating real relevance for Blackbolts using Sensor Dampening or Sensor Range boosting, to allow them to actually scout the enemy team while not being detected themselves.

 

Having 4v4 also means that flying a true specialist ship (such as Quarrel or Razorwire) is more risky, while flying a generalist lets one ship play multiple roles. No, I don't think Strikes would be relevant in 4v4. But Jurgoran certainly would be, and maybe Sledgehammer too.

 

Unfortunately, I think the best team makeup would be 4 Scouts--2 BLC's & Clusters Stings for close up melee fighting, and then two MLC/Pods Blackbolts for recon and mineclearing. All with Distortion Field and Targeting Telemetry.

 

The benefit of such a team is that they can hunt for enemies with high visibility and speed. And if one team member starts to get focused, he can go invulnerable long enough for the other three can quickly come to his aid and peel.

 

Gunships and Bombers could make life difficult for a group, but ultimately the Scouts would own the position and attack vectors of every engagement, and as soon as one Gunship or Bomber is focused down, the other three will soon follow.

 

All of this is off the cuff thinking though. I'm curious how others think it would go down.

 

I think four scouts would be suicidal in this type of match. If anything, smaller matches like this would require better co-ordination between diverse ship types and components. I don't think a T1 scout in its current state would have any place in a game with a smaller number of players to offset its disadvantages. Sometimes, the way things are now, a T1 scout can hide itself among the crowd, but in a smaller setting it will become much harder to catch enemies off guard.

 

Another one of the scout's strengths is grabbing the DO's, and with four in a match they would all be tripping over one another tying to get them, and the ones without would be hard pressed to compete against heavily armed opponents.

[SWCNT]

If you were to make smaller maps, which would be a must with 4v4, it would impact the GS the most. The range benefit of a GS would significantly diminish, making a scout more effective against GS. It would probably also make strikes easier to use since a smaller map would ease engine usage. Strikes might become viable against bombers in that meta. I would imagine that 4v4 matches would either be straight up dogfights, or stalemates. I don't know what a good ship comp would be because it would depend on so many factors not known. But if someone ran 4 scouts why not just counter with 2 bombers and a mop up crew of scouts/GS or even strikes? LOS the scouts and drop seeker mines with railguns. Also a T1 bomber or GS isn't a specialist ship, a T3 scout would be classified as that though.

[ALaggyGrunt]

Mixing up the battlescouts would allow the 4-battlescout team to deal with just about anything, even 4 bombers. Quads/pods/retros would allow range to deal with mines, burst never has a problem with drones. About the only thing the bombers could do in that kind of a fight is tick.

[SWCNT]

Mixing up the battlescouts would allow the 4-battlescout team to deal with just about anything, even 4 bombers. Quads/pods/retros would allow range to deal with mines, burst never has a problem with drones. About the only thing the bombers could do in that kind of a fight is tick.

 

I'm assuming good bomber pilots. And no 4 scouts won't beat 2 bombers with support from their own scouts. Bombers don't fear scouts, they fear not having any engines, which usually happens because of Ion railgun or interdiction mines.

Edited January 21, 2016 by SWCNT

[Nemarus]

I think four scouts would be suicidal in this type of match. If anything, smaller matches like this would require better co-ordination between diverse ship types and components. I don't think a T1 scout in its current state would have any place in a game with a smaller number of players to offset its disadvantages. Sometimes, the way things are now, a T1 scout can hide itself among the crowd, but in a smaller setting it will become much harder to catch enemies off guard.

 

Another one of the scout's strengths is grabbing the DO's, and with four in a match they would all be tripping over one another tying to get them, and the ones without would be hard pressed to compete against heavily armed opponents.

 

More thinking aloud...

 

The thing about GSF is that it is very hard for many ships to survive being focused. There is no burst healing, and there are only two defensive cooldowns that work against multiple attackers trying to focus you--Distortion Field and Power Dive. And only the Scouts and Jurgoran can have both.

 

I think that any Quarrel in play will automatically be the #1 kill target. It cannot be allowed to use its Ion Railgun, and it only has one defensive cooldown (DF) to stave off death. Once it's used that, all it can do is hug cover until DF comes back up or its allies save it. Ideally, it flees to a Bomber ally--I think it would have to be a Razorwire. Otherwise the Scouts could just DF-tunnel through Seeker Mines and destroy Drones.

 

So yeah, I think if you bring a Quarrel, you'd have to bring a Razorwire to protect it.

 

Still, even with a Razorwire, the non-BLC Scouts can still clear the mines from 5750m out, opening up the Quarrel and Razorwire to continued BLC assault. Or the Scouts could just pull back and grab the DO.

 

Personally, if I were going to bring a Gunship, I'd bring a Jurgoran. it can still have DF, but it can use Power Dive or Retro to stay alive longer. And it's also not *quite* as high a priority target due to lack of Ion Railgun. Even if it gets crowded, it has a decent chance of taking a Scout with it in melee.

 

BTW, to be clear, when I mention Blackbolts, I'm not talking about S2E ones. I'm not that big a fanboy So I'm not sure how they have plural "disadvantages". An MLC/Pod Blackbolt has only two differences compared to a Quad/Pod Sting:

 

MLC's instead of Quads

Sensor component instead of Reactor

 

With regard to MLC's vs. Quads, I don't think either is better than the other. Against foes with lots of Evasion, or when carrying a Damage Overcharge, I'd actually prefer MLC's for their superior Accuracy, more forgiving Tracking Penalty, and cheaper energy usage. MLC's let you maximize number of Damage Overcharged hits on enemies.

 

With regard to Sensor vs. Reactor, we're talking about 260 extra shields on each arc (not insignificant, but also not huge) vs. potentially outranging your enemy's sensor radius. Being able to see the enemy team without them being able to see you is a big advantage, especially at the start of a battle.

[lwiggles]

Stealth ships would help

[SWCNT]

Stealth ships would help

You hit the nail on the head .

[Drakkolich]

I love the idea of theory crafting for a pure 4v4 Death match.

 

However I think you guys are overlooking a huge element to what that style of GSF would bring.

 

You guys are discussing optimal starting comps. What you really should be discussing is 4 man teams with 5 ship loadouts. Because in that kind of game you wouldn't stick to just one ship you would want to keep your setup fluid to be able to counter what the other team is doing.

 

For example maybe you have one person have a Mangler/Quarrel setup purely for fighting other Gunships, for when you fight a team using a Bomber/Gunship strategy. While another player could use a Gunship setup for playing defensively vs a few Scouts like Nemarus was talking about.

 

Then you could have different Scout loadouts for each player to be able to deal with multiple situations.

 

What I think would really happen in a 4v4 setting like this is we would see a constant change of ships throughout the match. People wouldn't stay on single ships for the entire duration. When we do Super serious nights or just fight other really good premades we often experience this where the team that is the most fluid and able to very quickly change gears to counter their opponents often wins.

 

 

Now if you want to theory craft how to beat 4 Scouts with 4 of anything. My personal opinion is you take 2 Feed back shield / Power Dive Jurgorans/Condors and 2 Railgun sentry drone Legions/Warcarriers. With Optimal positioning those ships would decimate 4 Scouts. I'd bring Wingman on the Jurgorans/Condors and Suppression on the Legions/Warcarriers.

[hows_hk]

Some nice discussions about 4v4 deathmatch, but how about domination? Personally 1node and 3nodes are both fine for me, there is fun in each of them when it's 4v4. If it's 1node, all the fighting will be there, there will be no ninja capping the off node and such, it will be a true test of node defending and seige. If it's 3nodes, there will be lots of running around, 3capping will be harder. What do you guys think?

[SWCNT]

Some nice discussions about 4v4 deathmatch, but how about domination? Personally 1node and 3nodes are both fine for me, there is fun in each of them when it's 4v4. If it's 1node, all the fighting will be there, there will be no ninja capping the off node and such, it will be a true test of node defending and seige. If it's 3nodes, there will be lots of running around, 3capping will be harder. What do you guys think?

 

I don't think you could do domination 4v4 in its current configuration. One node, which would basically be king of the hill would be interesting. I think if they set it up like the king of hill style warzone they are planning on releasing it could make for some interesting gameplay. A random node appears, a team has to capture it and control for X seconds and then the node disappears and another spawns elsewhere.

[Nemarus]

I don't think you could do domination 4v4 in its current configuration. One node, which would basically be king of the hill would be interesting. I think if they set it up like the king of hill style warzone they are planning on releasing it could make for some interesting gameplay. A random node appears, a team has to capture it and control for X seconds and then the node disappears and another spawns elsewhere.

 

Yeah. More than anything, I wish GSF had more moving objectives. I think that would open up ship and component selection considerably. The Bloodmark would remain useful the full duration of a match. Beacon hopping might get obscene

 

Chasing powerups in TDM isn't quite enough.

[Krixarcs]

since when is barrel roll not a defensive cooldown but powerdive is??

 

I would likely take a team of any gunship type except maybe not the T2 here, a blc scout to get damage overcharge, a legion with railguns and seeker mines, and a clarion with healing to provide instant relief so no one dies.

 

4v4 domination with 3 nodes would be stupid.

Edited January 23, 2016 by Krixarcs