It's a game. I've got no ideological or educational ambitions. I always take the build what works best. Even if it is "Cheesy" I do not care. And i am glad that there is no more a Elitist (aka competitive) Scene in GSF.

 

BTW: Pod Scouts were actually a problem for Fortress. But also not seen longer.

 

That's fine, but none of that is helpful to new players, which is why the guide tells them to stay away from fortress.

That's fine, but none of that is helpful to new players, which is why the guide tells them to stay away from fortress.

 

Especially for new players Fortress is significantly easier to handle. Disto takes a lot of experience and some anticipation that still lack new players.

Especially for new players Fortress is significantly easier to handle. Disto takes a lot of experience and some anticipation that still lack new players.

 

No, stop this right now, Fortress Shield just makes them free kills, telling them it's good means they won't understand how to improve and will be forever newbies.

No, stop this right now, Fortress Shield just makes them free kills, telling them it's good means they won't understand how to improve and will be forever newbies.

 

You should stop. Disto lures new players into the RNG trap rather than relying on their own strengths.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Magira

Disto lures new players into the RNG trap rather than relying on their own strengths.

 

Clearly trolling at this point. Farewell.

You should stop. Disto lures new players into the RNG trap rather than relying on their own strengths.

 

Stop trolling the thread.

 

Disto for the missile break alone is critical for the Type 1 gunship. Power dive on the Type 3 makes feedback or directional possible (I'd argue still inferior to disto, but at least feasible). Fortress shield gunships are free kills unless the opposition is useless or the gunship's team is farming the other side. In either of those scenarios, builds no longer matter.

And about the RNG...it's been said before so for any newbie who's interested, I'll just leave links.

 

Verain's post

Ramalina's post

My post with the graph

Edited July 8, 2015 by MiaowZedong

Stop trolling the thread.

 

Disto for the missile break alone is critical for the Type 1 gunship. Power dive on the Type 3 makes feedback or directional possible (I'd argue still inferior to disto, but at least feasible). Fortress shield gunships are free kills unless the opposition is useless or the gunship's team is farming the other side. In either of those scenarios, builds no longer matter.

 

I would debate this. Fortress in gunship duels can win 2v1 gunship duels. I see it happen often. The issue is that the gunship that is dueling now has to rely on heavier cover to swat scouts away. Meaning that the gunship's primary lock break will actually be its team, rather than a component. The fortress GS still has the ability to disable and destroy agro bombers and strikers at range, and can still aid in its own defense at close range thanks to BLC.

 

another issue that comes of using fortress, however, is that you aren't relying on an evade miss to soak up your damage. Any sheild bleed still hurts you, so you really need to be near a repair drone.

 

In short:

DF gunships are very superior in a generalized self sufficient way.

Fortress GS are more specialized to kill other gunships, but are in dire need of good team support.

Seeing as GSF is a team based game either is viable.

I would debate this. Fortress in gunship duels can win 2v1 gunship duels. I see it happen often.

 

And I've landed ten protorps in a single match. Doesn't make it a good component.

 

I've also seen plenty of fortress gunships die because they have no defense other than large amounts of shields. They generally forget that ion can carve through shields, slug can partially ignore shields, and protorps can fully ignore shields.

 

Again, your options come down to stand and die, or run and lose your shields and die.

I would debate this. Fortress in gunship duels can win 2v1 gunship duels. I see it happen often.

...

Fortress GS are more specialized to kill other gunships, but are in dire need of good team support.

 

Sorry, absolutely not. 2v1? Not against T1s (the most common kind by far), because T1 Gunship duels at the top end depend on one thing: who hits first. Why? Because the lead shot is Ion Railgun. The first shot will stop regen and bleed off most weapon pool. A repeated hit means the target is sitting there useless. After that, it doesn't matter how much residual shield it may have (also it just got hit twice by ion, so it probably won't have much shield left). Fortress shield gunships will probably not have any real evasion chance, so it's going to get hit, and once it does, it's going to die unless someone helps it. 2v1? Not even a chance.

 

The difference between evasion stacking and shield stacking in a gunship duel is not a question of X% of evasion giving X% reduced damage. It's about evasion giving you 1-X% chance to live and not need to respawn, while fortress doesn't actually give you any real protection against being drained, and thus snared, and thus dead.

Just going to throw my opinion in the ring on the fortress shield debate going on.

 

Fortress shield is indeed only good vs inferior pilots.

 

Vs Scouts it makes you a sitting duck as Armond described above, as long as the scout knows to never let the fortress Gunship line it up even if it's using rotationals the Scout always wins.

 

Vs T2-T3 Gunships it can win you some 1v1 duels because of your superior shield total. This is where everyone seems to think Fortress shield is good, the problem is that the T2-T3 Gunships are already sacrificing Gunship dueling power so you're just adding the ability to win an already one sided match up more.

 

Vs T1 Gunships you just plain lose because of the nature of the Ion railgun duels. T1 Gunship vs T1 Gunship duels equate to who lands 2 Ion's first, some players go for the quick kill of Ion > Slug but for the most part it's all about landing those 2 Ion's. Fortress Gunships always eat the first two because they don't have to evasion to dodge one, Distortion Gunships have the chance to win even if they don't get the first shot in because of RNG.

 

 

These are the big reasons why most top end Gunships use Distortion. The ability to run to teammates and dodge enemy Gunships Ion's are the big plus'. A few players opt to use Feedback, this is a meta choice as it can be very good at killing Scouts but even this is still in the minority.

 

 

Magira talked about how Fortress shield is "easier" to use for a newer player. I don't think this is true at all, it might be easier mecanically but teaching yourself to just hold still and tank damage because you have bigger shields is really awful for your learning curve.

You realize im not defending the validity of the component or saying "it is greatest thing since sliced bread and is far superior to DF in every way," no, I'm saying it is viable and has its place.

 

A fortress GS is specialized to rarely move, get hit, and not die. Against type 2/3 gunships, the fortress sheild can, has, and will usually win 2v1

 

The math may not lie, but it wont always tell the full story. Looking at the reality of gameplay, and taking into account that fortress gunships are less mobile you can see how it can be useful. It's likely that the 2v1 will come to them, not the other way around, meaning that the fortress will use its weakness to its own advantage - it will land the first hit, with a higher charge. Most GS pairs run "quarrel/condor" pairs. one for ion assist generation, the other for slug kill and close range support. Quarrel goes first, condor goes second. They don't fire at the same time, they don't begin charge at the same time, they don't die at the same time. Fortress can soak up an ion hit and a slug hit np. Painful asit may be, that is how it was designed.

 

One type 1 against two type 1's is always going to lose in equal skill, no matter what viable builds each craft is using - and no matter the ship class. Your argument of "oh no it can't" is invalidated by its own point. A DF single quarrel vs 2 DF quarrels wouldn't win in the same hypothetical perfect world situation when the only thing that mattered was math either. The most basic example I can state is this, 2 is a bigger number than 1. Multiplying something x1 and that same something x2 will lead to the x2 having a bigger number.

 

However, in real play, a fortress sheild type 1 GS has a higher chance of winning a 2v1 gunship duel against DF type 1's and either a type 2/t3 than a DF type 1 GS, and as true 1v1's or 2v1's never really happen in GSF, you had better believe that the Fortress GS will know its own weaknesses, and sit near enough to a drone to help with its sheild bleed. Meaaning that although fortress is far from an excellent component, it is still viable, it can still win 2v1 gunship dues, from what I have seen will do so more often than a DF GS.

 

I'm not debating that it is still "bad," "niche," or "not meta." All of those are true, meta is meta for a reason and niche components are niche for a reason. That being said, discarding all niche components as trash or not viable is equally as wrong. For in real play, everything has a use to some degree.

In short, fortresses only real advantage is that it forces you to adopt an unconventional tactic.

 

That doesn't make the component good, it's still bad, very bad, but it at least makes it viable as the tactic it is forced to adopt will put it in the position to always land the first hit.

This thread is for newer GSF players to see a concise explanation of why common egregious mistakes are bad. The OP delivers this, can we please not spam the thread with double-posted convoluted self-justifications which don't belong here?

This thread is for newer GSF players to see a concise explanation of why common egregious mistakes are bad. The OP delivers this, can we please not spam the thread with double-posted convoluted self-justifications which don't belong here?

 

It belongs here and I only spoke up because people on both sides of the debate were glossing over a point. Which is that DF is the better choice hands down, but fortress can be better for newer players in helping them learn how to use their ship

 

Example:

1 newb in a type 1 gunship rolling fortress against intermediate players rolling type 2/type 3's.

Newb takes more damage, doesn't feel as useless, practices aim, has a higher survival chance.

 

Stacking the deck in favor of a newer player against non-aces. In training Lace'dwith, I explained the sheild options to him and encouraged him to go DF, he opted for Fortress sheild as he only really used his quarrel to fight type 2 and type 3 gunships. It worked for him. Although in my mind - and many others - it would have been wasted req, for him it served to advance his training and help him learn the class.

 

It worked for him, it works for others, it shouldn't be discarded.

Magira talked about how Fortress shield is "easier" to use for a newer player. I don't think this is true at all, it might be easier mecanically but teaching yourself to just hold still and tank damage because you have bigger shields is really awful for your learning curve.

 

 

When I was new fortress + rotational sounded so good in my head.

I flew only a handful of matches with that setup and my experiences were so bad, I stopped playing gunship altogether.

 

]...]

The math may not lie, but it wont always tell the full story. Looking at the reality of gameplay, and taking into account that fortress gunships are less mobile you can see how it can be useful. It's likely that the 2v1 will come to them, not the other way around, meaning that the fortress will use its weakness to its own advantage - it will land the first hit, with a higher charge. Most GS pairs run "quarrel/condor" pairs. one for ion assist generation, the other for slug kill and close range support. Quarrel goes first, condor goes second. They don't fire at the same time, they don't begin charge at the same time, they don't die at the same time. Fortress can soak up an ion hit and a slug hit np. Painful asit may be, that is how it was designed.

[...]

 

That only works if the two attacking gunships are bad. A fortress gunship will lose most fights against one T1 gunship, how is it supposed to win against a T1 gs with a T3 gs as support?

 

Fortress gunship landing first, more charged hit is unlikely for many reasons.

More charged requires the fortress gs to see the attacker coming. Any attacker will try to do a surprise attack.

It also requires to start charging before the attacker is in range because if it's not precharged then both gunships will have roughly the same state of charge when they fire. If the attacker sees the precharging he simply waits until the fotress gunship has drained itself. Also there most likely are obstacles, where the attacker can hide behind, charge and then strafe into LoS to shoot. And even if the fortress gunship has precharged and then the attacker has still the option to go in anyway, use DF and most likely will not get hit by either the first or the second of the two ion hits required to shut him down (I think chances of landing one rail shot at max range with wingman up against a full evasion T1 gunship with df up is 66% per shot and 44% for two consecutive shots).

The attacker however will hit the fortress gunship almost certainly (90% chance to hit per shot without wingman; 100% with wingman) 2 times in a row (81% chance to land two consecutive shots without wingman) and will shut it down completely. The fortress ship has then two options: doing nothing and hope someone else rescues him from the situation as he will be out of engine and weapons power and fortress shield doesn't soak an infinite number of hits. Or he runs away in time, giving up his only defense.

 

(Correct me if I made mistakes with the numbers, I looked them up on the dulfy calculator).

 

Edit:

It worked for him, it works for others, it shouldn't be discarded.

 

"It works" isn't a good argument - I kann kill by clapping my hands, but it works only against insects. More GSF related: I sometimes fly my T1 gunship without using railguns. That works perfectly well against bad pilots.

 

But killing bad pilots who are in suboptimal builds themselves should not be the goal when choosing components and upgrades. The goal should be to be as competitive as possible against good pilots in good builds (or maybe you make a build that counters a specific build of the good ones (you only should do that when flying in premades), but those builds are rare and usually the good builds are the best counters to themselves). Whatever setup someone is flying, it may feel good for now but there will be a point where a suboptimal setup will block further improvement.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Danalon

When I was new fortress + rotational sounded so good in my head.

I flew only a handful of matches with that setup and my experiences were so bad, I stopped playing gunship altogether.

This is exactly the point that a newbie needs to see. We could write essays about how bad Fortress is but that's besides the point and would only serve to confuse new players.

 

For Danalon

 

 

Edited July 8, 2015 by MiaowZedong

Show of hands. Who here actually expects a new pilot to take on seasoned aces and win even if the seasoned ace is using a non-meta build and the new pilot is in a mastered meta GS?

 

You are equating gear to skill, and in GSF we all know this isn't true. The logic around telling newbs to get into competitive builds in order to fight competitive matches is flawed, and that can be proven by simple hypothetical. Take yourself back when you first started playing. Day one. First match. Then put what you knew then into a mastered type 1 meta build gunship. Then take yourself as you are now, and put yourself in a non-meta ship stock. Then play that fight out in your mind. Just imagine it. How badly would you crush your past self?

 

The argument you guys are using boils down to this. "What's good for the ace is good for the newb." In other words "what's good for the CEO is good for the consumer." Both sides of the argument haven't stopped and thought "well, maybe people at different skill levels have different needs, and maybe different people learn differently."

 

All I've been saying is not to discard non-meta builds as not-useful. What works for people works for them. I'm not saying "hey lets encourage people to use **** components." I'm saying to ask yourself why they are using said components, and am telling you that everything has a use - no matter how far out that use may be.

 

And that is why i will continue arguing that fortress sheild, **** as it may be, is still viable.

Requisition is hard to earn as a new player without experience. And spending it on suboptimal components imho is a waste. Also, especially on a component like fortress shield that forces a special playstyle, it may have the side effect that the newer player learns a playstyle he will not be able to use later in competitve matches and has to re-learn another playstyle for the same ship. In my opinion, running away from all kinds of things is one of the most important skills a gunship pilot has to learn; fortress shield is counterproductive to the learning process in this case. Edited July 9, 2015 by Danalon

Hey drak, remember our conversation last night.....

 

3 types of people. Ones that like to "win big" . One's that Like to "Win THEIR way with some efficient but less used combination". And ones that like to "win often taking the most efficient way every time regardless of their 'preference'".

 

Guess which category Fortress shield Rotationals fall under.

 

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b

Posting this for the OP because she can't right now:

I've watched this thread enough today without being able to post. Obviously, I can't reply after this post (and I won't pester anyone else to post for me, honest) but I'm happy to continue the discussion on Enjin, where I'm easy to reach.

 

Show of hands. Who here actually expects a new pilot to take on seasoned aces and win even if the seasoned ace is using a non-meta build and the new pilot is in a mastered meta GS?

 

Is anyone actually arguing that this should happen? I haven't seen where this has happened. The entire point of this thread is to help players start with the right tools. It saves time and requisition and doesn't limit their potential in the same way playing with bad components does.

 

You are equating gear to skill, and in GSF we all know this isn't true. The logic around telling newbs to get into competitive builds in order to fight competitive matches is flawed, and that can be proven by simple hypothetical. Take yourself back when you first started playing. Day one. First match. Then put what you knew then into a mastered type 1 meta build gunship. Then take yourself as you are now, and put yourself in a non-meta ship stock. Then play that fight out in your mind. Just imagine it. How badly would you crush your past self?

 

Not as badly as I would if I played a good build, and not as badly as I would if "past me" was in a bad build. Players should learn how to use the right components from the beginning. Nothing they learn from Fortress Shield applies to using Distortion Field OR Feedback Shield, and you're suggesting that they should waste time and requisition on learning a component that does not help them. It teaches bad habits.

 

I'm not trying to suggest that they can't play with components later (though Fortress is never the right choice in my opinion). I'm saying that they should learn how the game is actually played before they do so. Are you honestly trying to suggest that we should teach people to be bad before they can learn to be good?

 

The argument you guys are using boils down to this. "What's good for the ace is good for the newb." In other words "what's good for the CEO is good for the consumer." Both sides of the argument haven't stopped and thought "well, maybe people at different skill levels have different needs, and maybe different people learn differently."

 

No. My argument is: players should learn how to use the right components from the beginning. Learning bad components doesn't do them any good, and there are certain things in GSF that are true no matter what skill level is involved. Fortress shield is one of them. That is my entire point. That's the reason this thread exists. My goal is to help new players avoid some very common mistakes. Please stop posting here to suggest that bad components are viable. They aren't.

 

You're welcome to start your own discussion thread on the matter, but I would very much like for you to stop giving bad advice in this thread.

 

All I've been saying is not to discard non-meta builds as not-useful. What works for people works for them. I'm not saying "hey lets encourage people to use **** components." I'm saying to ask yourself why they are using said components, and am telling you that everything has a use - no matter how far out that use may be.

 

And that is why i will continue arguing that fortress sheild, **** as it may be, is still viable.

 

Good. Post a new thread on the topic and argue the point all you like. I don't agree, but you obviously want to discuss merits of "non-meta" builds. That discussion does not need to happen in this thread. Please take it elsewhere.

Now, replying for myself...

Hey drak, remember our conversation last night.....

 

3 types of people. Ones that like to "win big" . One's that Like to "Win THEIR way with some efficient but less used combination". And ones that like to "win often taking the most efficient way every time regardless of their 'preference'".

 

Guess which category Fortress shield Rotationals fall under.

 

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b

Honestly? It falls under "none of the above". Because, against anyone good, you won't win "your way" with Fortress Shield and Rotationals, you'll just get your face melted. People who want to win their way will make non-meta calls like running CF or Bypass, T1 scout or T3 gunship, but they won't run an entire build's worth of bad decisions.

Edited July 9, 2015 by MiaowZedong

Requisition is hard to earn as a new player without experience. And spending it on suboptimal components imho is a waste.

 

I agree to this, but with dailies and weeklies, new components aren't that challenging to buy or upgrade. Also, the not-shared hangar has the benefit of GSF specific alts.

 

Also, especially on a component like fortress shield that forces a special playstyle, it may have the side effect that the newer player learns a playstyle he will not be able to use later in competitve matches and has to re-learn another playstyle for the same ship. In my opinion, running away from all kinds of things is one of the most important skills a gunship pilot has to learn; fortress shield is counterproductive to the learning process in this case.

 

Shouldn't every player be alowed to learn their own way, in their own time? Also, shouldn't ever player take the time to learn every viable strategy? I would say only learning one tactic ever (IE running away) is far more counter productive in a team based game than taking the time to learn every viable tactic and how it works with pugs and premades. Although my option may take longer for someone to get to the so-called competitive level, when they got there they would make a name for themselves quickly as a team player. One who can ace most ships and know the strengths and weaknesses of off builds.

 

At the end of the day, even aces are only human. Humans are unique in very odd ways with weaknesses to be exploited. Some Players (Note: I did not say builds) are weak to non-meta buids. Why? Because they try to emulate top aces and built their meta build around what they expect the best players to use and to do. People panic. Humans make mistakes. The math can't account for that.

Posting this for the OP because she can't right now:

 

Now, replying for myself...

 

Honestly? It falls under "none of the above". Because, against anyone good, you won't win "your way" with Fortress Shield and Rotationals, you'll just get your face melted. People who want to win their way will make non-meta calls like running CF or Bypass, T1 scout or T3 gunship, but they won't run an entire build's worth of bad decisions.

 

 

 

Good guess on it being type 2 (Johnny) but that would be incorrect.. Its type 1 (timmy) its the "win big" as you pointed out it doesnt work against good pilots but as the original poster pointed out thanks to the increased weapon power regen and being able to rotate to a pilot instantly it DOES increase the amount of dps you can do to a group of bad pilots thus making the times that you DO win "bigger" wins. Thus appealing to the type 1 personality of those that like to "win big" remember that winning big does not mean winning often only then when wins DO happen they happen "bigger" making the type 1 player (or the "power gamer") happy. In other words it DOES have a type, just not the one you thought I was pointing to.

 

Edited July 9, 2015 by tunewalker

A fortress GS is specialized to rarely move, get hit, and not die. Against type 2/3 gunships, the fortress sheild can, has, and will usually win 2v1

 

Against type 2 and type 3 gunships, a type 1 gunship will win 2v1 with or without fortress shield.

 

Fortress shield is a "win more" component. It will turn a slight victory into a landslide victory. Unfortunately, that's not very helpful -- a victory is still a victory. It won't turn a loss into a victory, which is really what you want out of your build.

 

Almost as important, it won't help against anything other than gunships without ion railgun.

 

I'm not debating that it is still "bad," "niche," or "not meta."

 

Except that's exactly what you're debating -- twice, by the time you made that post.

 

In short:

DF gunships are very superior in a generalized self sufficient way.

Fortress GS are more specialized to kill other gunships, but are in dire need of good team support.

Seeing as GSF is a team based game either is viable.

(Emphasis added)

 

And then at the top of the very same post:

You realize im not defending the validity of the component or saying "it is greatest thing since sliced bread and is far superior to DF in every way," no, I'm saying it is viable and has its place.

(Emphasis added)

 

Honestly, the logic fails and self-contradictions make me disinterested in reading the remainder of your posts. Please stop discussing, in a thread about a concise newbie guide, why newbies should take bad components.

Now, replying for myself...

 

Honestly? It falls under "none of the above". Because, against anyone good, you won't win "your way" with Fortress Shield and Rotationals, you'll just get your face melted. People who want to win their way will make non-meta calls like running CF or Bypass, T1 scout or T3 gunship, but they won't run an entire build's worth of bad decisions.

 

This is literally Spike telling Johnny why Johnny is bad and spike is good.

 

Re-read the article. It's been a while (and I'm not re-reading it myself tonight, because I'm a nerd and I've already read it 2-3 times), but I distinctly remember MaRo saying somewhere in there that Timmy and Johnny don't care about how much they win. Certainly on his blog, he's explicitly said that they're in it for the experience, not the win. And again, it's the Spike in you adding the caveat of "against anyone good" (Spike is the only of the three that cares about that kind of thing, or, arguably, anything about their opponent).

Edited July 9, 2015 by Armonddd