Let's Talk About Strike Haters

[Sorrai]

In recent months I have witnessed a lot of escalating animosity toward strike fighters both on the forums (which is nothing new) and during some heated matches on various servers. What I am seeing are many elitist veterans preaching their negative opinions regarding strike fighters with many novice and intermediate players accepting those opinions as if it were gospel. The end result is a prevailing GSF culture that has deemed the Strike Fighter as its bastard stepchild.

 

I happen to love strike fighters and though I may disagree with popular opinion I also accept the majority of players' belief that strike fighters aren't viable in competitive matches. What I don't accept, however, are players who despise strike fighters to such a degree that they actively get angry and upset with others who choose to fly this ship. Over the past few months I have experienced some very odd and demoralizing encounters with players who have expressed their disdain toward me because of the type of ship I choose to fly. I have gotten some weird flak from some very hot-headed players out there. To illustrate my point, here are some examples I pulled from various matches:

 

"Why are you flying crappiest ship in the whole game?"

"Flying that useless ship is the reason we lost that match!"

"Pick something else. You're just gonna feed them."

"Everybody knows that strikes suck!"

"Because of you I now have to work even harder at carrying the team!"

"Just because you got 2nd on the leader board doesn't mean strikes are good ships!"

"You're gonna gimp our team out of a win!"

"Even the devs agree that strikes suck!"

"You're an idiot for flying that ship. Go uninstall the game and kill yourself."

 

This type of behavior is venturing into a realm of human psychology that I find to be--in a word: disturbing.

 

The first time I experienced the Strike Fighter Hate, it took me a little by surprise. Never before did anybody give me grief for choosing the kind of ship I wanted to fly. I couldn't quite tell if the player was joking or not. It just boggles my mind.

 

In my experience, I've found that the strike fighter is capable of contending perfectly well when going head to head with every other ship, with perhaps the exception of those wily T2 BLC scouts. Being the underdog, there are some inherent benefits to piloting a strike fighter. First and foremost, a strike pilot is grossly underestimated. With the vast majority of players who view strike fighters as a joke, a skilled strike pilot can capitalize on its "outsider" status by engaging with "META" ships in ways META pilots are unaccustomed. Like every other ship, the key is learning how to fly a strike within its parameters and play to its strengths and weaknesses. Part of the fun and challenge for me is giving my opponents a good fight in a ship I happen to enjoy flying the most.

 

I don't expect people to change their opinions on this matter but it sure would be nice if some of you would observe the cardinal rule of "Fly and let Fly".

 

 

Elaeis

Begeren Colony

Edited April 18, 2016 by Sorrai

[Ryuku-sama]

Strikes are useful for two kind of pilots....

First, since they are rather slow, have high shield and decent hull and don't have special mechanics, they are the easiest ship type to use for a new player... A ship type they should walk away after their first few hundreds matches. Bomber requieres piloting skills you cannot gain in bombers to be optimal. Gunships requieres accuracy and fast motion you gain better in dogfight. And scouts requieres too much speed for most newer players coming from the 1.5s GCD MMO world. Therefore, I consider strikes as the best starter ships. Unfortunately as soon as you raise into the average skill level, they plummet under the other ships.

Second, the skilled pilots wanting a true challenge. Nothing show more how an hardcore pilot you are than killing aces with a RFL wielding strike Strikes are two slows for the kind of game skilled pilot plays.. Scouts oupace them so much, a strike cannot compete. Gunships can shoot down two scouts and still have time to kill the poor strike trying to get into range. Bombers are the only ones vulnerable to strikes... But gunships are better at countering bombers than strikes... Way better. Strikes lack the kind of burst damage the other ships can bring and they lack the ability to control the fight like the other ships can. Therefore, flying with a strike is, for any skilled pilot, mainly a show of boredom and fun... When I played strikes, which was quite often before my laptop crashed, I was doing it to kill strong opposition in suboptimal way.

[Danalon]

I usually don't care about what people are flying, but when I anticipate a match to be difficult I try to motivate my team to change their ships appropriate to the map. This includes everyone getting out of their strikes because as a rule of thumb "if a strike is good for a certain situation, there is at least one other ship on your bar that's better".

 

Strikes barely pose any threat to any other class.

Gunships have superior range with better weapons and thanks to BLC and DF, they usually can even facetank a strike and kill it.

Bombers are worse than strikes as long as they're in the open, but as soon as a bomber reaches the point he wants to defend, a strike won't remove it.

Scouts can always outrun a strike and they can easily kill it either by surprise, with cooldowns or in a dogfight.

 

As a veteran, the last time I died to a strike in an 1v1 situation was so long ago, I can't even remember it. Sure, sometimes a strike kills me, but usually it's because of me making a mistake or because I was busy fighting others. If I make a mistake or I'm outnumbered, then any other ship than a strike probably would kill me as easy.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Danalon

[FlavivsAetivs]

Strikes barely pose any threat to any other class...

 

Although I've been severely out of practice for quite some time due to the nature of Jedi Cov's usually non-competitive matches, and am only coming back into practice, I will gladly contest that point.

 

...Bombers are worse than strikes as long as they're in the open, but as soon as a bomber reaches the point he wants to defend, a strike won't remove it...

 

Yet I have literally seen a Clarion running a DR build knock 3 bombers off a sat eating mines and using repair probes. In fact this is the one-trick-pony of the Clarion as you can build for roughly 90% DR, have more speed than the bomber, and can wear them down faster than they can catch you on the sat. But as I said, it's a one-trick pony, as soon as a gunship or scout shows up you're ****ed.

 

A DR Rampart I'd argue though is still better at this to some extent, but it doesn't have repairs and has less engine power than a Clarion does. For taking the sat the Rampart is better, for holding it I'd say the Clarion is because it can outlast the bombers.

 

But again, one-trick pony.

 

~ Eudoxia

Edited April 18, 2016 by FlavivsAetivs

[Danalon]

Yet I have literally seen ...

I have played a stock T1 strike and defended a satellite with only one other person (who died 2 or 3 times) against 4-5 attackers, for minutes, and I even killed 2 bombers and some other stuff inbetween. That doesn't make Strikes good, that shows how awfully bad the other pilots were.

 

I also want to add, I tried the Clarion as an anti-bomber (and node support) ship. It worked awesome. Until I ran into someone with interdiction mines. As soon as the interdiction effect hits, the Clarion has massive problems to defend itself and it can't attack anymore because it's too slow.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Danalon

[FlavivsAetivs]

These were decent bomber pilots, the strike pilot was a better player though (no it wasn't me, this was before I got really good at GSF).

 

Skill is an obvious factor, yeah. My shields build Clarion can knock bombers of a sat irrelevant of their skill. (And yes scream at me for being a horrible person because I fight off the sat. It works, we cap it, and we win.)

 

~ Eudoxia

Edited April 18, 2016 by FlavivsAetivs

[Danalon]

I'm not saying you can't do well in a Strike even if you're a good pilot.

I'm saying other ships clearly outperform strikes.

[Maulkat]

I've never been a SF fan, but not once have I said to anybody any of those remarks you quoted. I fly what I want to fly and allow others to do the same. Maybe I'll shake my head or think something to myself, but I'll never say anything negative to a SF pilot. There's an old timer on Harb (doesn't fly much anymore) but was one of the best pilots on her server. All he did was fly SF. On the rare occasion I can convince him to fly again, he picks a SF.

I do agree SF are great "starter" ships. If I didn't start with a GS on a new toon, I would certainly fly SF over scout.

[FlavivsAetivs]

I've never been a SF fan, but not once have I said to anybody any of those remarks you quoted.

 

Yeah this is what bugs me. I mean yeah I get people telling me I'm inferior in a Strike and I shouldn't fly it (whom I then proceed to shutup by shaming their BLC scout or META Gunship with a proton torpedo), but I've never gotten death threats for flying a Strike...

 

"You're an idiot for flying that ship. Go uninstall the game and kill yourself."

 

For private reasons, this one bugs me. A lot.

 

~ Eudoxia

Edited April 18, 2016 by FlavivsAetivs

[Kintosi]

Strike fighters have been my go to ship since I played them as a Regulator in the GSF beta. Are they meta? No. Are they sub-optimal? That's debatable. But are they effective when flown well? Absolutely.

 

I know I'm an accomplished pilot, with probably 1000+ matches played, but in my hands any of the three strikes becomes as deadly, or deadlier than the meta ships. In my experience, dogfighting in a strike actually gives a phycological advantage v.s. Meta ships like a t2 scout or t1 GS. The pilots of those ships tend to overestimate their abilities and underestimate a strike. Smart use of strike builds can make them both adequately bursty and very tanky. Going head to head with a scout, which yes has superior burst, is till usually a win for me because they can't eat through my heavy shields before I blast them to pieces. If they went evasive, I'd probably be screwed. However, their confidence at "oh look, free strike kill." Ends up making them overconfident and they make the mistake.

 

Those kinds of things don't happen when I'm flying a scout or GS. You don't get overlooked. Everyone focuses you because they think you are a credible threat. I die way more frequently in those ships. Even in a bomber. I rarely die in a strike, usually no more then once in a match, and usually to an accidental self-destruct while going wildly evasive through a tight area or skimming an asteroid. Anyway, I usually rack up 10-15 kills, 5-10 assists with one or no deaths.

 

TLDR: in the hands of a competent but relatively unknown pilot, strikes are a Huge threat. Don't count them out.

[Verain]

In recent months I have witnessed a lot of escalating animosity toward strike fighters both on the forums (which is nothing new) and during some heated matches on various servers.

 

That seems legit to me. Strikes are absolutely undertuned.

 

The end result is a prevailing GSF culture that has deemed the Strike Fighter as its bastard stepchild.

 

This negativity reflects reality. Strike Fighters need buffs. This hasn't been the subject of serious debate past about the first six months or so of GSF's history, though there were a few holdouts until pretty much all the experienced players had run super serious. Aces didn't give this up without a fight, because the strike mechanics, concept, and look are positively beloved by the community- but even the niche builds we were happy to talk about and play were never more than at most one ship in eight, and even then, a very specific meta counter. Much, much weaker than the build diversity we saw in gunships, scouts, and bombers.

 

 

I happen to love strike fighters

 

We all love strikes. That doesn't make them not suck. We need buffs, not good feelings.

 

and though I may disagree with popular opinion I also accept the majority of players' belief that strike fighters aren't viable in competitive matches.

 

Then you don't disagree at all. We all love strikes and want to see them buffed.

 

What I don't accept, however, are players who despise strike fighters to such a degree that they actively get angry and upset with others who choose to fly this ship.

 

I can see how that is frustrating, but if they want to win, and you are playing a ship that reduces those chances even by your own estimation, why wouldn't they be cross?

 

"Why are you flying crappiest ship in the whole game?"

Well, why? You can answer that you wanted to play a strike, because you want experience in it, and you enjoy it. Just don't pretend you were flying to win- that's the wrong ship. You know it, he knows it, the devs know it...

 

"Flying that useless ship is the reason we lost that match!"

Is he wrong? If you're a good pilot, they might want you in a good ship.

 

"Pick something else. You're just gonna feed them."

Strike Feeders are real.

 

"Everybody knows that strikes suck!"

At the top you said you want buffs, the devs have said they want to buff it... this isn't an insult, it is a statement of fact.

 

"Because of you I now have to work even harder at carrying the team!"

And he does. That's true.

 

"Just because you got 2nd on the leader board doesn't mean strikes are good ships!"

This is also true. Good pilots can do well on any ship, but they will do better on better ships. In this case, you can tell him that you know that.

 

"You're gonna gimp our team out of a win!"

Some of the time this is true, right?

 

"Even the devs agree that strikes suck!"

Also factual.

 

"You're an idiot for flying that ship. Go uninstall the game and kill yourself."

This is incorrect. You don't need to uninstall the game, you merely need to choose a better ship. Also, killing yourself overdoes the negative reinforcement you need- snapping a rubber band at the underside of your wrist should be enough to help you kick the habit.

 

 

In my experience, I've found that the strike fighter is capable of contending perfectly well when going head to head with every other ship

 

Nah, this is not true. That you are doing well doesn't mean that the ship is ok. As you note, the dogfighting king of this game, the type 2 scout, blows it away- not just in solo, but in total contribution, because the strike is basically a bad scout. The strike has some strengths versus bombers in transit, but if you are finding that this is effective in your meta, you would do even better in a gunship- those bombers should not be presenting repeated missile lock opportunities, nor fighting in areas where your slightly superior maneuverability should help you much at all. Gunships would help you capitalize on this misstep even more. And if you find yourself holding nodes with a strike, a gunship is generally better at that, a scout is about the same, and a bomber is vastly superior.

 

If you are basing your ratings on solo play, the strike is bad. If you are basing it on team contributions, the strike is very bad. If you are basing it off of your personal flight experiences outside of super serious and other organized nights, you are lying to yourself.

 

Look, if strikes are fine and worth playing, then they don't need buffs. But you yourself know they need buffs. The devs want to buff them but obviously got pulled off the project. And all the top players have been saying the same thing for the entire life of the game.

 

 

I'm sorry you get hassled for playing strikes, but they really are an objectively worse option, despite (or maybe because) of their excellent design. It is likely that the devs understood the strike strengths and weaknesses intuitively, but failed on this understanding when it came to other ships. Its very possible that the misplays of early testers downplayed the now-glaring weaknesses of the strike offensive toolkit- this seems likely due to the apparent overreliance on lock-on missiles, which seem tuned around a different game than we have on live.

 

 

First and foremost, a strike pilot is grossly underestimated.

This doesn't help, though. If you (strike) and another pilot (scout) are going to attack a place, it is true that your opponents may evade against the scout more, or focus the scout more, because they judge the scout as being a larger threat. And if the scout is a so-so pilot and you are a good one, this could even be a tactical mistake. But it relies on enemies that don't remember your name (and if your enemies don't remember your name, either you aren't great enough to be memorable or they aren't great enough to know the good pilots), and it also relies on you actually being better than the scout pilot. These factors are all real in non-serious games, but they all fly out the window when the game is stacked with good pilots. Good pilots will know roughly how big a threat you are and won't be underestimating you. Replace the so-so scout with a scout flown by someone as good as you, and suddenly you are choosing between a strike and a scout, and a scout and a scout.

 

Of course your team will be better off with you in the scout!

 

With the vast majority of players who view strike fighters as a joke, a skilled strike pilot can capitalize on its "outsider" status by engaging with "META" ships in ways META pilots are unaccustomed.

 

Making your opponent have a beeping noise on their console is not a meta play. Also meta is not capitalized (it is not an acronym), nor in scare quotes.

 

Like every other ship, the key is learning how to fly a strike within its parameters and play to its strengths and weaknesses. Part of the fun and challenge for me is giving my opponents a good fight in a ship I happen to enjoy flying the most.

 

Then why do you believe the strike needs buffs? If I tell you that "the key to learning how to fly a [gunship|bomber|scout] is learning how to fly within its parameters", and then I immediately also agree with someone who wants to buff that thing, then I'm actually saying, I believe the key is to learn how to fly the ship well, and then beg for buffs. That sounds odd, right?

 

It is because strikes need buffs. Aspects of other ships could use buffs or nerfs, but strikes don't have a job. Strikes aren't absent in the meta because they are some ancient force time forgot- they are just too damned weak.

 

I'm sorry people are harassing you for flying a strike, but you know in your heart they aren't that great. That's why you posted all this wall, instead of posting youtubes of you carrying against premades in your strike. The metagame is the metagame for a reason, and it isn't because we all hate strikes, while having written massive posts and spent dozens of hours discussing potential strike buffs and (so far fruitlessly) trying to communicate with the devs on this issue.

[Verain]

Going head to head with a scout, which yes has superior burst, is till usually a win for me because they can't eat through my heavy shields before I blast them to pieces.

 

Do you find this is true when you are on a scout, versus a strike? What happens when the scout is also flown by you? Do you find yourself soloing top scout pilots on your strike?

 

If they went evasive, I'd probably be screwed. However, their confidence at "oh look, free strike kill." Ends up making them overconfident and they make the mistake.

 

What if they aren't idiots, though? Seriously, "ship has mouth, can eat food" isn't an argument in favor of a ship.

 

Those kinds of things don't happen when I'm flying a scout or GS. You don't get overlooked.

 

Because those ships aren't underpowered! Do you find yourself only able to contribute when you are direly underestimated?

 

Anyway, I usually rack up 10-15 kills, 5-10 assists with one or no deaths.

 

Pilot kills or foodship kills? Are you taking nodes, holding nodes, are you assassinating the high dps members of their team, are you deroosting gunships?

 

...and wouldn't you be better at all of that in a scout?

 

Of course you would!

 

 

I really don't like this line of argument. Of course a great pilot will do great in any ship, but that pilot would do better in a better ship.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Verain

[FlavivsAetivs]

I'm gonna make the point that I am absolutely NOT better than a scout than I am in a strike. My framerate is fine in a strike, but for a BLC scout I have problems.

 

Yeah I've gotten 11+ kills in a BLC/Cluster Sting, but I had 8 deaths too and it was mostly against noobs. Meanwhile against vets I can get 11+ kills in a Clarion and have 0 deaths.

 

~ Eudoxia

[Greezt]

I'm gonna make the point that I am absolutely NOT better than a scout than I am in a strike. My framerate is fine in a strike, but for a BLC scout I have problems.

 

Yeah I've gotten 11+ kills in a BLC/Cluster Sting, but I had 8 deaths too and it was mostly against noobs. Meanwhile against vets I can get 11+ kills in a Clarion and have 0 deaths.

 

~ Eudoxia

 

I'd argue that damage is more of a factor than kills (except maybe in a T1 gunship in domination matches). Also, flying a burst scout is harder than flying a strike. Having 0 deaths on the Clarion is also easier thanks to heals, powerdive and directionals.

[Verain]

How many total games do you have in a type 2 scout? In all scouts? How many total games do you have in a type 3 strike? In all strikes?

 

If you are seeing better performance in a Clarion than a Flashfire, I think you are not taking your Flashfire seriously enough.

[FlavivsAetivs]

In a type 3 strike? Uh on Eudoxia 1200+, on all my toons probably 1300. I have my Pike built for anti-bomber and the Starguard is never anything more than an inferior nuisance so I don't fly it. Clarion is the only thing that can actually compete.

 

Over all my toons in a T2 scout? Bout 200 probably ('bout 100 on Eudoxia, 'bout 100 on Euander). I play it imp side mainly. I play T3 a lot cause I can last a while after I pop tensor at the beginning of a Dom match.

 

The issue is framerate. Turning rate is high on scouts so it's more of a slideshow than even Clarion or a Rampart can be.

 

I'm trying to unlock Quarrel on Harb so I can finally learn gunship, but I've never really been able to hit the broad side of a star destroyer in that thing (seriously if I shot at the star destroyer in Denon I'd probably miss it).

 

~ Eudoxia

Edited April 18, 2016 by FlavivsAetivs

[Ramalina]

Also meta is not capitalized (it is not an acronym), . . . .

 

You can use meta with respect to GSF in the sense of meta-data when talking about general game theory of the meta-game in which case it is not an acronym and should not be capitalized.

 

In the context you were quoting, it was almost certainly meant as Most Effective Tactic Available, which is an acronym and does call for capitalization. If one is being old-school about grammar it also calls for a period after each letter.

 

I think the proper grammatical complaint would be that META is not an adjective, so META needs other words to connect it to ship. For instance, flying the ship is not a META in GSF under normal circumstances.

 

As is typical of English grammar, the grammar for meta on the GSF forum is being established by common usage and that usage is happily ignoring the rules that people who have studied English grammar think it ought to be following.

 

We could rearrange things a bit to Most Effective Available Tactic if people want an alternative to capitalize, since that doesn't have an established custom of breaking the normal English rules of grammar.

 

As a bonus we'd all get to start talking about the MEAT ships in GSF. I can think of a few crew choices who'd be disappointed (lorewise) to find that a MEAT ship is not ship that is particularly delicious when cooked using a plasma railgun.

 

Well, maybe they are particularly delicious when cooked with a plasma railgun, but not in the, "eat it for lunch," way.

 

 

One could consider doing a really good job of flying a strike to be a disservice to the community. If a newer pilot in a low requisition gunship or battlescout gets repeatedly demolished after attacking a mastered strike fighter (keeping in mind that they're unlikely to recognize subtle hints like shield piercing on the HLCs), coming to the conclusion that a strike fighter is a more competitive ship is not unwarranted based on the limited information available to them.

 

I always cringe a bit when I see cases where I'm fairly sure that I've persuaded someone to switch from a competitive ship type to a (probably stock build) T1 strike in order to, "even the odds," against me.

[FlavivsAetivs]

Most of JC's locals keep a Clarion/Imperium on their bar 'cause of me. Mostly as a non-meta ship for blowout matches though, although I have seen a few attempts at what the other players literally have called "Eudoxia knockoffs".

 

Not trying to brag, as I said I suck outside of a Clarion, so really am at best a mediocre pilot. I just thought it was funny and was going off your point that a mastered strike can convince newer/mediocre players that something that really isn't better, is better.

 

But yeah, I never tell new players to fly strike. I tell them buy the Rampart/Quarrel with their fleet req.

 

~ Eudoxia

Edited April 18, 2016 by FlavivsAetivs

[philwil]

I have done well with a Starguard. Not mind boggling stats. But I have done well.

 

Some of those 'phrases' have been used against me in ground PvP, lol.

 

I don't listen to them.

 

Those types of thing don't make you better, or your faction better.

 

For the thinner skinned, it might make one hang it up for good.

 

Not this guy.

 

I pay my sub. I fly what I want to fly.

 

Now, I'd probably complain a bit if one person kept driving into a bombers mine field, or flying within range of a good GS and getting killed. And, I mean ALOT.

 

If you get offed quickly, I tend to change my ship to one that isn't so easy a target. Or at least I feel more competitive in the battle at hand.

[philwil]

I have also been called out for flying a GS 'all the time'.

 

In reality, I checked this out and posted it on the gsf chat, that I actually don't fly it enough. Probably 1/4 to 1/3 of all my flights have been on a GS. And most of those times, I flew multiple ships in the battle. Trying to get 'my niche' in the match.

 

I have been told Gunships and Bombers are easy and for lazy pilots.

 

Those that say such things have either A) Never flew one, B) flew one, and never 'got the hang' of it .

 

To do them correctly requires being 'active'...as in not sitting under a sat ticking the time away, or flew one in a competitive match.

 

I am far from perfect in every way, but I do work at it. ALOT!

 

Those pilots that bother me are the ones who fly into bomber mine fields, or GS walls and complain. I don't like them like many in the game, but you fight fire, with fire.

[RatPoison]

Verain hit all the highs and lows of this thread already. Fly what you want, but the least we can do with one another is be honest about the reality of strikes.

Most of JC's locals keep a Clarion/Imperium on their bar 'cause of me.

And now we've entered the twilight zone. Extreme conjecture.

 

...

 

Strikes are mediocre, strikes underwhelm... strikes only find success on strike night and when the skill level of the strike pilot is beyond that of the competition. To parrot Verain, if the goal is to win... then flying a strike is in contrast to that goal in situations where the skill level of the competition is close to, equal to, or greater than that of your team. To each their own, and fly what you want... and for what it's worth, since launch, I can count the number of times I've been witness to a person telling another what to fly without taking my shoes off. So is this really a thing? or just the behavior of one person on one server?

Edited April 18, 2016 by RatPoison

[FlavivsAetivs]

was going off your point that a mastered strike can convince newer/mediocre players that something that really isn't better, is better.

 

To quote myself, this^^

 

Not so much me specifically but the Clarion event night on JC. We had about 16 clarion pilots running pub side that pretty much blew out anything that came against them, purely with that one ship type. Regardless of skill level or meta/META (however you do it) ships or whatever. It convinced a lot of people to put that ship on their bar, a lot of people noticed a significant pickup in the number of people queuing in Clarions/Imperiums.

 

~ Eudoxia

Edited April 18, 2016 by FlavivsAetivs

[JediBoadicea]

In my opinion, any response to the original post here that attempts to speak solely to opinion about the Strike Fighter's viability is missing the more salient point. While the OP did put forward his own opinion about the viability of Strike Fighters, his concluding statement, and the primary sentiment expressed, gets to the crux of the matter, which is the animosity expressed towards players of a game for their choice of imaginary ship to fly in the interest of maximizing their fun.

 

Is GSF a competitive game? Yes. Do people have a right to want to win? Yes. Do they have the freedom to belittle and berate and insult other players for choosing a ship they don't like (regardless of the reason)? Technically yes, of course they do have that freedom. That doesn't make it sportsmanlike, gentlemanly, cool, nice, friendly, or any other variety of fuzzy words you'd like to use. And for those to whom none of those fuzzy words matter in this context, I feel the one thing that should matter to all of us is what all lovers of GSF already know: that our community is small and beleaguered enough as it is without actively bashing players (whether they be new, intermediate, or veteran) just because they wanted to fly a Strike Fighter.

 

The meta / "meta" / META / M.E.T.A is an interesting concept. A lot of people have crunched a lot of real numbers and factored in a lot of experience to come to what many in the GSF community collectively accept as standard belief about competitive viability in this game. But ultimately that is totally irrelevant when it comes to player enjoyment and the environment in which we share this game. If GSF had ranked play in which all players queueing up for ranked could make the argument that you shouldn't be there unless you are playing to win at all costs, then a stronger argument might be made for arm-twisting all participants into complying with "generally accepted" tactics. But even then you are on shaky ground, because this is a free-for-all video game and not sponsored competitive play or the professional sports world. No one on SWTOR is beholden to anyone else for their victory; no one has been strapped into their chairs with toothpicks propping open their eyelids and forced to engage in MMO play, with all the inherent bonuses and drawbacks MMO brings to the table.

 

So much of the argument around the over-arching importance of meta / "meta" / META / M.E.T.A is that, in "competitive" play, choosing anything other than meta / "meta" / META / M.E.T.A ships is "hurting your team." But this idea resides within an unrealistic bubble of hypothetical assumptions, in which somehow, miraculously, all players that get queued into a match are of exactly equal skill level, operating out of the exact same tactical playbook, and defining enjoyment by the exact same metric. None of that is ever absolutely true.

 

In a competitive match against a lot of very experienced players flying in accordance with the meta / "meta" / META / M.E.T.A., will you be materially hurting your team's chances by flying a Strike Fighter? That is a theoretical question that can in no way be answered factually, conclusively, or without argument, because context always matters.

 

And if you are one of only 1-2 experienced pilots on a team flying against a full opposing premade adhering to the meta / "meta" / META / M.E.T.A (and yes, I keep spelling/slashing this out to illustrate how fundamentally ludicrous an idea it is that a term we arbitrarily decided to adopt for purposes of discussion be somehow treated in any respect as gospel, grammatically or otherwise, or held up to be the only acceptable terms of play when we can't even agree on how it should be typed), then it makes no difference what ship you choose to fly; you're probably going to lose, and that's okay. It's a game.

 

I play to win. I always play to win. Sometimes that means no holds-barred, and sometimes that means sitting motionless by my repair drone just to man the refueling station for a whole match, because it's obvious my team is going to win in a blowout regardless of whether I'm actively chasing down hapless noobs or not. (Let's call this the N.O.R. - No Overkill Required - method of play, so long as we're playing with alphabet soup.) Often times I will start a match in a Strike Fighter, because the opposing team is all two-shippers and I feel a gunship would be overkill, or because I don't recognize any "dangerous" names on the opposition, or because I'm challenging myself to learn a new component, or just because I want to - and then, if I get killed and realize that the match is actually much closer than I expected and the opposing team is catching up or has surpassed us and some bigger teeth are required, then I typically jump into my Flashfire. Because I want to win, and I recognize that - at least in my hands, and probably in most hands - a Flashfire is the deadlier choice. That is my prerogative. I can change my ship choice in the middle of the match if needs warrant that change - and isn't that, too, at the core of the hallowed meta / "meta" / META / M.E.T.A.? Adaptability? Nowhere in the OP's original post did I see him vowing that he flies nothing but Strikes and would never get off a Strike no matter what. So lambasting someone for choosing to include a Strike as one of the many ships they may like to fly seems an alarmist position to take.

 

This post marks one of the few times I've ever posted anything on a forum with a confrontational tone; I'm normally far too much of a lurker and conflict-averse for it. But I too have seen exactly the sorts of comments the OP quoted being hurled about at people choosing to fly Strike Fighters. To me, the very idea that any player of this game "needs" to be "reprimanded" or "corrected" just for choosing to fly a Strike Fighter is preposterous - regardless of whether that comes in the form of a suicide-instruction, an insult, or a slap to the wrist. By all means, disagree with the OP in regards to his opinion about the viability of Strike Fighters, and put forward your counter-position. But in my own opinion, condoning any sort of discourse or invective levied against a fellow player's intelligence or worth just because they choose to fly a ship they like in a game they enjoy... well, if nothing else, it's certainly counterproductive to fostering any sort of play environment that would make new players (or even old ones) feel comfortable.

 

People leave multi-player games behind all the time due to bad experiences; why would we want to increase that likelihood in GSF over something so fundamentally trivial? The more narrowly you insist on defining the boundaries of "acceptable" gameplay, the smaller the game pool is going to be.

Edited April 18, 2016 by JediBoadicea

[JediBoadicea]

Well, as is too often the case when you rush on with an overly dramatic exit, you always hit that moment, some hours later, when you go "oh yeah, I should have said this!" So I shall swing open the metaphorical door and toss back in a: "And another thing!"

 

I also think it's a little disingenuous to try to use a Super Serious Night as a benchmark for what should be overall acceptable or accepted (take your pick, depending on how censorious you'd like to be) playstyles in a game like this.

 

To present the results of a super serious event in which, numerically speaking, only a niche percentage of the GSF player base participates as some sort of unassailable “proof” that players should only ever fly certain types of ships, is to present an argument based on a few fundamentally flawed "logic" assumptions:

 

First, it presupposes that the results of an activity performed by a small, selective, highly atypical (in terms of superior skill level) group of participants are de facto reflective of the experiences, play styles, and preferences of a broader community who may not even know super serious nights exist. (And believe me, plenty of people in the GSF chat channel have no idea super serious nights exist, just like some GSF players have no idea the GSF chat channel exists.)

 

Second, it presupposes that prioritization of competitive edge over anything else, including fun factor, is the only acceptable reason for anyone to be playing.

 

Third, it presupposes that the aim of a super serious night (i.e., to be super serious) is the aim of every person who queues up for GSF on any given server, at any given time.

 

None of these presuppositions is fact. They may be circumstantially true in some cases, they may trend toward truth in some cases, and they may be the preference of some players – but none of that makes any of it universally true. And it certainly doesn’t make any of it a mandate.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I love a good competitive match. On my server I’m an excellent pilot; against the top pilots of other servers with more robust GSF populations, I don’t rate nearly as well. But I’m experienced enough that I can recognize validity in the meta arguments, and that I adhere to most of them myself – based entirely on my own experiences, preferences, and comfort zones. (How well I may execute them is a different matter. )

 

But to use super serious nights as a benchmark by which we will then justify berating players for ship choice is like saying that, because all professional baseball players use only bats made from rare maple for superior quality, then anyone who shows up at their community or family game at the local park should be told to get their butt off the lawn and back to the parking lot for having the temerity or bad form to show up with their $15 WalMart bat. Professional baseball players, as with super serious night GSF players, are an extremely small minority of the overall baseball or GSF playing population. Professional baseball players are more visible, and super serious night fliers are more visible (at least to other super serious night fliers) because they also tend to post on the forums more - but that does not invalidate the play experience of everyone else.

 

The experience of a super serious match - the level of competition involved, the skill threshold required to competitively compete - is night and day difference from what you get in your average GSF match. Everyone knows this. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need or desire for a super serious night. The fact that they require a different approach and attitude and level of readiness is the whole point of the affair. By it's very definition it is not apples-to-apples when compared to normal GSF play.

 

In GSF as in real life: your mileage may vary. Experiences are different. Goals are different. And people play various games for various reasons.

 

Further, given how often GSF veterans rush to to tell newer players that skill has greater impact in this game than upgrades, it is odd that we seem to subscribe to the concurrent but philosophically contradictory belief that skill really just doesn't matter when it comes to your choice of ship itself. Apparently Strikes are just so inherently bad that no amount of pilot skill can redeem them? And Scouts are so inherently superior that a crappy pilot is always making the right choice choosing it over a Strike even if they aren't able to do anything but self-destruct in their superior burst scout?

 

There's the sort of hyperbolic quality to the argument made against Strike Fighters that most frequently seems to come out of a "consensus" when it's achieved by a small pool of people - and even among the small GSF community, those of us who frequent the forums are a yet smaller pool of the player base. I guess I just I don't really see the benefit of exporting an insularly-developed idea out to an outside community in the form of belittling commentary in the game chat channels. Yes, the hardcore GSF players do a tremendous amount to help keep GSF alive, but by numbers alone the forum regulars here are not enough to populate an entire player base.

 

I guess, fundamentally, I simply don't "get it." Maybe I'm just not hardcore enough.

[JediBoadicea]

"Just because you got 2nd on the leader board doesn't mean strikes are good ships!"

 

This one makes me laugh, because I'd be willing to bet the type of person who'd say this would also be the first to say: "I topped the leaderboard, that's proof you're all losers and that I carried the team!" And never see the contradiction.

Edited April 18, 2016 by JediBoadicea