Jump to content

caederon

Members
  • Posts

    1,000
  • Joined

Reputation

10 Good
  1. Hi, I'm Despon. You may remember me from such YouTube Channels as GSF School and... GSF School. I've returned to this forum today to offer you my thoughts on a few aspects of GSF which I strongly feel have hurt the game in the post-5.5 era. You may already suspect that one of the topics I'll choose to address is Remote Slicing. If you did, you're right! However, there is a broader topic of concern which encompasses RS and the EMP weapons. The underlying issues are inextricably linked. We'll get into them in a moment. First, I wanted to address a post from the petition thread, and felt that this was a more appropriate place to do so. If you want to skip to the Remote Slicing stuff, find the heading below. A REBUTTAL There are a lot of reasons the dev(s) might not alter part of a game, and some reasons they potentially would, if indeed they still allot any time to GSF related concerns. I think it is unfair to characterize the support of the petition as 'sheepish,' implying that those who agree are simply moving with a herd. I know from extensive personal experience that many of my peers who have been in GSF a long time believe that RS is too effective. The degree to which it should be altered has been widely and extensively debated, but the vast majority of experienced pilots that I have spoken to feel it is too powerful. Sure, I'm speaking anecdotally and I don't have anything like a... signed petition... to back me up. So take it as you will. But I strongly disagree that this is 'sheepish' herd behavior. I disagree strongly with pretty much everything you've argued here. We'll skip over the direct contention that RS is 'fine' for a moment to address the T3F. All of its primary weapons are good and can lay out plenty of damage, particularly to a disabled target. Protorps offer plenty of ammo, and getting more is quite possible. The T3F can field Power Dive, giving it an excellent tool to escape difficult engagements and extended mobility at no engine power cost. RS is also far from a 'party trick.' Used by a solo pilot, it delivers very powerful control especially when combined with various copilot abilities. Used by a coordinated team, it is devastating. While the T3F doesn't have the raw offensive output of a few other ships, it is very lethal and is a fully viable ship in all situations. Again, I disagree. The RS effect will at the very least nullify the target's capacity to take much meaningful action for the duration of the debuffs. Even assuming that the target is skilled or lucky enough to get under cover before the protorp lock finishes, you have taken them out of the game for a period of time. Depending on who that target is, that can swing the balance of a match. The 'counters' to RS are a subject I'll address later in this post. I agree that people need to learn the skills needed to play the game. However, this is irrelevant to whether the game is in a balanced and healthy state. I strongly disagree with your characterization of those who find RS to be detrimental to the game. Reasonable and well thought-out arguments can be made justifying a call to alter RS. Game balance is a tricky thing, and requires a lot of work. The work done in the now-ancient update that set the current state of the game was not completed. While many things were improved, and greater balance was achieved, some changes were not thoroughly tested and their impact became more evident over the course of time. I'll get into that now. _ _ REMOTE SLICING, 'CONTROL,' AND THE PERFECT STORM Remote Slicing, EMP Field, and EMP Missile all fall into a class of 'control' weapons. Each of these, in addition to applying various debuffs, locks out the player's capacity to use certain systems. Naturally, this is a very powerful effect, because the target can no longer use vital components of their ship and is rendered vulnerable to attack. Prior to the massive game update several years ago, each of the aforementioned components were niche-oriented choices and had limited use. While the control elements of these weapons were powerful, they were fielded very rarely and had drawbacks or shortcomings which meant they were not often seen. The massive updates, however, changed things dramatically. The short version of what happened is: Missiles on the whole became much stronger and harder to counter Strike Fighters received massive boosts to nearly all of their capabilities RS, EMPf, and EMPm all received significant boosts Proton Torpedoes were massively improved GSF went from a state where 'control' abilities were niche choices on underpowered platforms (T2F, T3F, T1S) to a state where both the delivery platforms and weapons fielding 'control' abilities were much more powerful and desirable to fly. Ultimately, this resulted in matches where it was not uncommon for anyone near the action to be frequently hit with both targeted and unavoidable AoE 'control' effects that removed 2-3 of your primary control buttons for large stretches of the game, in addition to other debuffs. Skill in GSF is applied to a significant degree by being able to efficiently utilize your 1, 2, 3, and 4 keys, activating your system, shield, engine maneuver or copilot ability to positive effect. While the copilot skill cannot be disabled, all three of the others can be, and frequently are. This removal of player agency and nullification of learned skill would be acceptable in small doses, as a punishing deterrent on a select number of platforms. When it is present on a large number of platforms, and is frequently seen in widespread use, it presents an unhealthy decrease in player agency and diminishes the role of skill in gameplay. The changes to the meta brewed a perfect storm where this environment of decreased player agency is common. _ _ SKILL AND COUNTERPLAY In my opinion, a powerful effect should require skill to successfully affect its target, and the target should have mechanisms with which to counter it. Remote Slicing applies several powerful effects, and yet the only requirement to successfully land it on the target is being in range and pressing '1.' No lock-on is required. Line of Sight does not need to be established. Aiming is not required. You don't even need to face the target. This extremely powerful suite of effects is instantly and unavoidably applied, and there is no mechanical counter to it. Complicating matters, several very powerful copilot abilities can be coupled with Remote Slicing and they also require no LoS, no lock-on, and have no mechanical counter. There is no skill necessary to apply these effects beyond the most rudimentary gameplay of being able to fly in range of your opponent. It is bad game design to enable players with no skill to easily land powerful effects on players with much greater skill. It removes the incentive to become skilled in the first place. I have heard the argument that the 'counterplay' against RS is to fly very cautiously, scrupulously manage engine power, and fly with a group so you have teammates that can back you up when you inevitably get hit with it. I can't deny that these are effective at mitigating the damage RS does, but from a personal standpoint, it leads to a style of gameplay I don't enjoy and I feel it unduly punishes solo-queue players who prefer not to group - more on that in a moment. When well-known veteran pilots do decide to group queue, the usual response from the opposing players is that it is unfair of them, or they are somehow cowardly for being 'in a premade.' In the words of WOPR: "The only winning move is not to play." _ _ GRIEFING My strongest argument against Remote Slicing is that it is very easily deployed as a means to grief specific players. As a well-known player, I've dealt with this frequently. On many occasions, a particular player on the opposing team will decide it is their life's mission to fly within 5k of me, use RS and whatever co-pilot debuff they have, and keep doing it over and over for that match, the next match, the next match, etc. They do not care if they ever land a kill, do damage, die ten times, or what so long as they keep on RSing me over and over. During most of my playing 'career' I solo queued nearly all the time. I could not call on backup or hope for my teammates to peel for me. So, on a great many occasions, I faced one or more players who chain-sliced me every match. The 'counterplay' to this is... to run away from them. This only works for so long, it prevents me from taking any meaningful action in the game other than trying to avoid them, and in general it makes for a miserable gameplay experience. In some matches, it resulted in a lot of deaths from being constantly disabled. In others when they were not able to follow up with killing me, I was forced to fly around without half my ship's abilities or much engine power for the whole match. And on those occasions when the same players kept chain-slicing me match after match, it was a waste of my time to bother playing. I guess if you want to consider this last argument 'crying,' go ahead. But I certainly will not spend my time playing a game where just by virtue of being a known player, I am continually griefed by an unstoppable, crippling effect that nullifies the skill I practiced to develop which itself takes no skill to apply. There have been many matches where I had plenty of deaths at the hands of a good shooter or a well coordinated team. I don't like being outplayed, but in those cases, my opponents earned their success... and I had tools to use in the game to counter their approach. Griefing someone with RS takes no skill, and the game offers no tools to counter it within the game mechanics. _ _ FIXING REMOTE SLICING My preferred method would be: remove it from the game entirely. I do like the idea of shifting some/most of its effects onto Ion Missile, which currently is useless. Ion Missile has a warning tone, a lock-on time, and mechanical counters within the game. It would be a powerful weapon that people had a fair chance to avoid. My preferred 'tweak some numbers' method would be to significantly reduce the Engine drain and limit the button lockout to only one of either System, Shield, or Engine, with a reduced debuff time. I would also set it to require LoS in order to apply. If we were in a world where GSF was in active development, I'd suggest possible alternate changes like: make RS channeled, requiring LoS for the duration of the effect... or reduce the range to 3k, add a warning tone and a 1.5s 'hacking in progress' stage before the effect is applied. add a copliot ability 'Reboot' that reactivates any disabled systems add an Armor component that reduces the duration of debuffs ...but we're not in that world. RS is a badly designed component that does far too much for far too little effort. I guess I could have just said that instead of this dissertation, echoing what some others said, but I wouldn't want to be 'sheepish.' - Despon
  2. I agree totally. The diminished EMPm has largely ruined T3F as a solo-queue ship for me. While the 'full-damage AoE' iteration was clearly too strong when used by multiple players who knew what they were doing, in a solo-queue 'you vs. the world' scenario it made the T3F a fun DOM ship that offered a very different playstyle that I enjoyed... and that had nothing to do with the lockouts and everything to do with the AoE punishing barnacles on nodes. I'm glad I got to enjoy it for that brief, shining moment. If EMPm gets successfully fixed back to doing full damage to the primary target, it will help... but the T3F will still lack offensive punch so I probably won't fly it a lot. It'd be a great team support role-player in DOM for those who are less focused on burning the skies into ashen cinders. T2F with EMPm will be a viable choice for both game modes once the damage is restored. EMPm/PT is a great combo, and each weapon is worthwhile on its own as well. Conc/PT is a nice combo, and even Cluster/Conc isn't awful, but given that we only get one T2F on our bar, I'll probably stick with EMPm/PT for versatility in either game mode. It's... disappointing that the single announced fix for that patch was in fact not fixed at all. - Despon
  3. Or maybe the ones who do not want any challenge or competition are the five players per match, on average, who cannot add a single kill to the ledger? I've been performing a statistical analysis of GSF matches, recording stats from every match I played from 11/30 until now. So far I'm at 119 matches recorded, spread out roughly evenly over all five servers, nearly all of them solo-queue. The numbers aren't moving a whole lot at this point, so despite wanting a bigger sample size (which I will continue to record) I think it's valid to discuss them. You cannot matchmake in a game where a large percentage of the players do not care to learn the game or even whether they are playing the game. When they can get their non-GSF points through not playing, you end up with numbers like this: (for the purposes of this discussion, I will refer to the scoreboard leader in Damage or Kills as the Ace) Average Damage done... 64397 - Ace 19308 - Average non-ace Average Kills scored... 11 - Ace 02 - Average non-ace Average number of Zero-kill players per game: 5 Win % when Enemy team has more Zero-kill players than Allied team... 89.66% - Domination 93.10% - Deathmatch When teams are populated by multiple players that cannot manage a single kill, they usually lose. A basic game skill like 'shooting the enemy' turns out to be very consequential. If your team lacks people who can shoot the enemy, you are very likely to lose. The great part of this is that anyone can learn to shoot the enemy. You don't have to possess catlike reflexes to exceed 20k damage or land more than 2 kills in a match. You do have to care enough to actually play the game you're participating in, and I am sure CXP farmers and other anchors are not reading this... but to those that are, focus on improving your individual skills and tactical awareness. The only way 'the matchmaker' gets better is if there are more quality players to place in matches. - Despon
  4. ...literally every other option was better. EMPm was terrible, and bugged on top of that, in the past. Its lock time was too long, its damage was trivial (and bugged), and it prevented you from fielding a better weapon. Then it got much better in 5.5, un-better in 5.6, and in 5.6.1 will be better than bad but badder than best. No, it's not. That is ridiculous and unsubstantiated by any kind of evidence. Strikes are good... situationally very good. The other classes are all still quite viable, better on some maps, worse on others, better vs. some comps, worse vs. others. This is how it should be. Matches with 4+ Bombers on a team were a farce and bad for the game. They continue to be. People still do it because inexperienced or indifferent players can't win against them. Skillfully played bombers are an asset to any team. Ticks playing hide-and-don't-move aren't, and shouldn't be part of the game. Holding down RMB to lock a missile isn't some daunting twitch-based reflex check. Neither is playing a support variant like the T3F with Repair Probes, which is extremely durable, mobile, and has reasonable offensive capacity to boot. Strikes are not OP. No class currently is. That is how it is supposed to be. - Despon
  5. GSF matches have plenty of story to tell, and plenty of opportunity for people to be active participants in that story. It is a game where consequential decisions are made in build choice, ship selection, strategic approach, and tactical execution. It's certainly not lacking for opportunity to analyze gameplay. I don't think any AI Director as imagined in that article is necessary or even desirable, there's plenty of potential for interesting content delivered the old fashioned way. - Despon
  6. I should have specified I was speaking purely on the game's mechanical merits, not in regards to the current playerbase. The people playing now are a symptom of SWTOR on the whole, not GSF. I don't particularly care about the prizes, it's a game that is set up for sport-like analysis and play, and would benefit tremendously from an observer/spectator mode. Divorced from the factors that are not part of gameplay, why do you feel this is so? GSF has everything in its gameplay that you would need for a compelling, audience-friendly viewing experience. It has... considerable depth in the choices presented for ship builds greatly consequential choices to be made in team composition many strategic options for a team to approach any of the given maps adjusting tactics and ship selection on the fly in matches can win or lose the match ample material for analysis and play-by-play _ What there says it's delusional to think it has potential as an e-sport? When I think 'casual PvP' I think of the space combat in SW:Battlefront 1. No depth, no real tactics, very little choice. From what I've read, BF2 looks graphically amazing but really doesn't add depth, certainly not to the level of GSF. - Despon
  7. I don't have a favorite e-sport team. Come to think of it, though, I used to like watching PsyStarcraft and a couple other SC2 players. I admit, I'm more a fan of regular old sports. I will say, though, that a 3rd party observer mode is something I've wanted in GSF for a long time, along with replays of matches. From the perspective of one who produces videos for both teaching and entertainment purposes, such tools would be invaluable, and would make for really excellent editing material. Diagramming strategies with views from multiple angles, being able to see from particular players' perspectives... it would be fantastic. Just the ability to illustrate how situations could be handled differently or why a player was able to pull off a particular move would be great for learning. Setting aside budgetary concerns, what would stop this from happening in GSF? As an e-sports enthusiast, if such an observer system and ranked play were in place, do you see any reason why GSF couldn't succeed in that realm? - Despon
  8. And yet that is not what I see in a very large number of matches I have played across four of the five servers recently. Many, many matches I have been in are slow-paced affairs where people fly around, often seemingly at random, making bad choices and executing those choices poorly. There are ample matches that are not against premades where people play the game in slow-motion and exhibit no tactical awareness. These people have not been demoralized by premades, you can count the number of premades flying these days on one hand. They just have little to no idea what they are doing, and/or don't care. I've been in 1000-1 dom matches where there was no premade. All you need is a few competent people on one side and that's all it takes. No VOIP is needed. No coordination is really needed. If your side has a couple people who know what they are doing and can hit a target or lock a missile, it is often an insurmountable obstacle for the average team of random players. GSF needs more people with basic competence to stop these garbage matches from being the norm. - Despon
  9. I think there is an important distinction to be made between the various breeds of pilots who get poor results. _ Noobs Actual for-real new pilots who have a desire and intent to learn how to play. They often perform poorly because they are still learning, which is entirely acceptable. If they are making a legit effort to perform to the best of their ability and learn what is preventing them from doing so, I will never have a problem with that. _ Indifferents Ticks, AFK'ers, CXP farmers, Conquistadors, passengers, those who have no intent to actually participate in a meaningful way because they are getting what they want out of the match regardless of their performance. It is a means to an end for them, not a thing they do because they enjoy it. _ Trolls Self-destructors, Ops-chat ranters, people who want you to suffer because you chose to play the game regardless of whether you are on their team or not (or sometimes, because you are on their team). _ I really do not believe that the legions of people who fill up the bottom of scoreboards with sub-10k damage totals and single digit shooting percentages are true new pilots who want to learn how to play. It is so easy to get past that stage of development with just a little effort. Practically every match, scoreboards are 60% full of people who can't shoot and don't know where to go. This is basic, basic game stuff. It is my opinion that the vast majority of the problem is coming from people who are indifferent to their success or failure in the game, and have no reason to behave otherwise because they are rewarded in the parts of the game they care about either way. - Despon
  10. Here is a of weapon swapping on the T1F in use. At short ranges, Heavy Laser Cannon is disadvantaged. In Domination matches, the weapon swap becomes even more useful. If you are running a HLC / Rapid Fire Lasers combo, it is very much to your advantage to use RFL when in engagements near the satellites. If you are weaving around the vanes, and generally using a satellite for cover while fighting Bombers or other enemies that are tight to the structure, the shorter range laser can be very useful. Don't dismiss the T1F's Ion Cannon. While it doesn't pair especially well with Proton Torpedoes as a Secondary Weapon, Ion Cannon is a powerful weapon in its own right and will synergize well enough with Concussion Missiles (which are a very viable choice of Secondary). Limiting yourself to only Ion Cannon would be problematic, so having another blaster to swap to is quite useful. - Despon
  11. The funny thing is, GSF is structured just like an e-sport, except for the lack of a ranked ladder/league. Detailed personal stats are kept and are available to every player to examine in self-reflection on what they are capable of and where they can improve. A scoreboard is presented after every match showing a lengthy list of performance metrics that are sortable and even deeper information is available on the Performance Tab of the interface. Four-pilot squads are supported, and there are many positives for running them and component interactions that benefit from them. Players benefit greatly from practice and teamwork, even just in the sense of 'I know where to be and how to get there.' There are few limits to the skill someone can develop through perseverance and drive. These are not the markings of a non-sport casual game. The only reason GSF doesn't have ranked play is that the devs got shut off from properly continuing the game's development when it was at its peak (2014) and it likely will never recover from that. We have a GSF right now that is far more mechanically balanced than ever and yet some of the worst quality of matches ever because the majority of the playerbase is terrible at the game through either willful ignorance, indifference, or lack of experience. The 'health of the game' is entirely dependent on ongoing developer support. GSF survived being proclaimed dead for two years plus, go ahead and search it on the forum. GSF has more people calling time-of-death than a primetime medical drama. The undead zombie GSF shambles on and on and on. You know how to stop veteran premades from laying waste to your teams? Learn to play the game. Encourage others to learn to play the game. There aren't so many veteran premades around that one cannot learn and practice GSF. It is likely there are two or fewer veteran premades across all five servers playing GSF at any given time. And what about the new / inexperienced people who are on the same side as the veteran premades? Why do they continue to have a line that looks like 0k 2a 5d 2000dam? They have an open playground to go to satellites, take potshots at people, and otherwise benefit from the premade running roughshod over the opposition. Here is the message people need to embrace in order for there to be fewer garbage games of GSF: You can succeed if you learn and practice. If you do those two things, you will first become competent, then you will push past that and find an area where you can maximize your personal skills to the best. Unbalanced matches vs. strong teams are very frustrating, but they are not every match on every server. Your personal performance can and will improve if you keep playing, seek out learning resources, and remain dedicated... and if enough people adopt that attitude, balance will rise because there will be a greater pool of competent players to draw from, just like there was in the past. - Despon
  12. Veterans in stock ships will mop the floor with people who don't know what they are doing. A single veteran in a partially upgraded ship is more than many teams can handle flying against. People with low skill levels cannot compete against veterans because the veterans know what they're doing. "Players" who make no effort to learn the game and/or who cannot execute basic game tasks are what lead to the uncompetitive blowouts that fill up scoreboards at an alarming rate. When the majority of a team cannot do at least 10k damage in a match, that team is extremely likely to lose. New pilots need to work on basic skills like: firing blasters when in range locking a missile learning which satellite to support not flying in a straight line while being shot to death picking the key upgrades to get first choosing an appropriate Copilot skill _ There's more but that is a start. Learning is half the battle. The other half is doing, and it will require some pain as the new pilot grows in skill and determination to fight through it, but it's very possible. I think any pilot that sets their mind to it can become a contributor that helps their team within a week of starting GSF. They just have to commit to doing it. - Despon
  13. I think you should try flying the Type 3 Strike Fighter, which is the Imperium impside and the Clarion for the Republic (they are functionally identical ships). I recommend that you outfit it with: System: Repair Probes - This is your 1 button's single function. These heal you and nearby allies, and resupplly ammunition if you choose that on the top talent tier (and you should) _ Primary Weapon: Rapid Fire Lasers - these are short range, but don't drain much energy per shot, and on the third talent tier get Armor Ignore, which makes blowing up turrets in Domination very easy. _ Secondary Weapon: Proton Torpedoes - these are very long range, but lock quickly enough that you will have a good chance of catching an enemy ship with them. They are especially good against Bombers. Scouts and Strike Fighters will be tougher to land them on, but if they hit, they do a lot of damage. _ Shield: Shield Projector - this has reasonably good shield strength, and if you activate it using your 2 button when you are close to allies, they will get a short bonus to restore their shields plus extra Evasion. _ Engine Maneuver: Power Dive - Use this with the 3 button. this is a tricky one to learn, but after you upgrade, it costs 0 Engine Pool energy to activate. If you are flying level, it will do what the name suggests and you dive, but if you nose up and then use it, you can go forward. Once you get the hang of the motion, it's very good. ...and if you hate it, try Koiogran Turn, which gives you a nice long immunity to missile locks and a motion less likely to drive you into a rock. _ Armor: Reinforced Armor - extra hull strength with this build is great, you can absorb a lot of damage. _ Capacitor: any of them are fine. Frequency might pair best with Rapid Fire Lasers, making them even more rapid. _ Reactor: Large Reactor - more shields is better. _ Sensors: Dampening Sensors - this choice and component is largely inconsequential. _ Copilot: this varies by faction. On Imperium, choose Blizz as your Engineering crewman and use Hydro Spanner. For the Clarion, use B-3G9, also for Hydro Spanner. This is your 4 button. _ Normally, I would only suggest this build for Domination matches, but you could use it in Team Deathmatch, too. The Repair Probes are a good healing component that can help your team, and the Proton Torpedoes give you a nice long-range punch. You have enough healing power with the Probes and Hydro Spanner to sustain a couple hits before you need to seek cover. Once you master Power Dive and don't faceplant into rocks (which we all do from time to time) you will be able to get out of trouble very effectively. This build won't do a ton of damage, but if you land some Proton Torpedoes, they do damage straight to hull, bypassing Shields, which is great. Try to stay in range of your teammates so you can really help them with timely heals. It's not a ship that is dependent on reflexes as much as it is on being able to use cover effectively. - Despon
  14. These are not comparable scenarios. It is not useful to attempt to relate them. Pre 5.5, Ion Railgun was the only thing in the game capable of sufficiently disrupting Bomber spam, and even then it was only effective at beating it with adequate team support. In the absence of any other changes to the pre-5.5 environment, diminishing Ion Railgun would have led to what was largely in place anyway which was Bomber Spam: The Game. Post 5.5, Ion Railgun is not an issue that anyone has to complain about. Few people are even bothering to run it, because with better Strikes, Gunships cannot stay in position to maintain fire nearly as long and the ships that are coming to get them are tougher and more potent offensively. It's almost as if it wasn't an Ion Railgun problem at all, and was actually a problem with underpowered Strike Fighters. Not that the GS didn't have a natural predator in the T2S anyway, but somehow as Bomber Spam proliferated people lost the will and/or drive to excel in T2S aside from the handful of people who stuck with the ship and could kill Gunships quite effectively. Incidentally there are actual counters that clear Ion Railgun debuffs now, too, which few people use because it's really not so much a problem anymore. And even pre-5.5, Power Dive was a direct counter to Ion snares. The lockout issue stems from bad design in that it removes people's agency without a counter other than 'don't get caught in AoE and/or don't let someone get close enough to land RS.' Let's say they do this. Let's also say that some other group who does not frequent the forums and does not care to engage in GSF Chat or interact with players outside their group figures out 'hey this stuff is powerful' and they go on to use it very effectively. The same problem still exists. Trying to get players to 'hold back,' 'play nice,' or self-regulate in any way is doomed to failure and really has no place in a competitive game. These are issues that need to be addressed on a game design level. If you are playing a game where the goal is to win, serious players will pursue that goal to the best of their abilities, and will use any tools they have available to do so. In my opinion, it's not sensible to ask them to do otherwise or expect that they will. - Despon
×
×
  • Create New...