Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Death Match.....


HeatRacer's Avatar


HeatRacer
05.17.2017 , 11:22 AM | #31
Quote: Originally Posted by HuaRya View Post
If the blitz team can make it over to other teams spawn they can rack up 20-30 kills for a point lead by focusing down
Either that, or feed the enemy team a bunch of kills..
Quote: Originally Posted by battlebug
can you make sword in box light sword so sword come out when opened? then if sword is back after sword, use light saber on box, and saber will be boxed after sword is out.

ThutmoseV's Avatar


ThutmoseV
05.17.2017 , 11:45 AM | #32
The real problem fighting gunship balls is not the gunships, it is the bombers. I think we should seriously consider doing something about bombers to promote more action in a game. I was in a TDM match with premades using voice on both sides that ended 12-6. I don't mind slower chess match battles as much as some, but a little more action is desired by most pilots. Without the bombers, it is much easier for good scout pilots to disrupt a gunship heavy team.

People should be clear however that getting rid of or nerfing bombers will not end one sided matches. One sided matches will still happen just as much if there were no gunships or bombers But eliminating bombers might create more active matches.

One advantage of bombers is that it is much easier for newer pilots to contribute to their team in a domination match with a bomber, and anything that helps newer pilots is a good thing. Maybe just allow bombers in domination?
The Shadowlands
Erannov Vanguard GSF veteran
Sundaro Sage

MaximilianPower's Avatar


MaximilianPower
05.17.2017 , 12:50 PM | #33
Quote: Originally Posted by ThutmoseV View Post
The real problem fighting gunship balls is not the gunships, it is the bombers. I think we should seriously consider doing something about bombers to promote more action in a game. I was in a TDM match with premades using voice on both sides that ended 12-6. I don't mind slower chess match battles as much as some, but a little more action is desired by most pilots. Without the bombers, it is much easier for good scout pilots to disrupt a gunship heavy team.

People should be clear however that getting rid of or nerfing bombers will not end one sided matches. One sided matches will still happen just as much if there were no gunships or bombers But eliminating bombers might create more active matches.

One advantage of bombers is that it is much easier for newer pilots to contribute to their team in a domination match with a bomber, and anything that helps newer pilots is a good thing. Maybe just allow bombers in domination?
Come on now.

Certainly, I don't disagree that the strategic use of bombers - and their nests, when well-placed and used appropriately - can lead to slower TDMs. But you cannot use that 12-6 match as any kind of barometer for GSF in general. As you noted, that particular game was between two full premades, coordinating on voice. Plus, those teams (SRW & Self-Inflicted) have faced off many times, and know each other inside and out. On a day-to-day basis, how often does that scenario play out? Any pug vs pug (or even 4-man+pugs vs 4-man+pugs) match will inevitably develop in a completely different way. I'm trying to say that the 12-6 game was a total outlier.

If your complaint is about tedious, low-scoring affairs...while I'd agree that bomber nests can produce a match that moves at a snail's pace, I don't believe bombers are the chief offenders. Ignoring premades, some of the slowest TDMs I've ever seen have been pure gunship chess. Like, literally 8 GS vs 8 GS. If every gunship is competent, those kinds of games can be unbelievably slow.

And this from a guy who actually enjoys the chess matches. I realize most people don't.

Some TDMs devolve into chess because pilots with mid-level experience revert to GS when they don't know what else to do. It's safer to sit back and try to snipe than to barrel headlong into a GS wall.

tl;dr - I'd argue that most slow matches result from either 1) highly coordinated and experienced teams playing safely, and 2) sheer gunship chess. The former is a rare sight, and in a way, represents the pinnacle of the evolution of a certain playstyle. I don't see this situation as a problem unless the participants do. The latter is much more common. The only way to address these is to convince some of those GS pilots to hop into something else...harangue a couple of them into going scout, and if they're competent, the match is sure to move in a totally different direction.

Zuckerkorn Zuckernaut Spiderzuck Tensorcide Zuck-srw'i
Maximilian Power TøbiasFünke Tryhard Neckbeard MaxPower-srw
Star Forge / Satele Shan / Darth Malgus


Self-Inflicted / Shadowlands Reconnaisance Wing / Retrocide / Imperial Entanglements

Ramalina's Avatar


Ramalina
05.17.2017 , 01:46 PM | #34
I think the chief problem people have with all gunship or gunship + trace of bomber deathmatches is that in a game that seems to have a fairly rock-paper-scissor style of balance, the most readily workable counter at pretty much all levels of both skill and organization, is to answer with a mirror strategy.

So for example, if the opposition is scout heavy, then increasing your gunship ratio and having a bomber or two to shelter, shifts the match balance to be unfavorable to the scouts.

It holds generally for most combinations of ships. Overloading on a particular type allows the other team an advantage if they shift composition to take advantage of the weaknesses of that type. It works on teams overloaded with scouts, strikes, or bombers.

The problem is that gunships cover for the weaknesses of gunships pretty well, and a bomber or two covers for the weaknesses of gunships almost perfectly.

So while the counter to excess of any of the other ship classes is to load up on a different ship class, the counter to an excess of gunships is an excess of gunships. That sort of breaks the, "counter an excess of ship A by increasing your amount of ship B," system of team composition balance.

The question is whether the solution is to buff strikes until they can kill one bomber in less time than it takes 3 gunships to kill the strike, or if it's to buff the strike until it can pick off one gunship before 3 gunships can kill it.
"A padawan's master sets their Jedi trial, Rajivari set mine."
- Zhe Lian, Sage.

Twitch

krfsm's Avatar


krfsm
06.17.2017 , 04:45 AM | #35
Quote: Originally Posted by Ramalina View Post
The question is whether the solution is to buff strikes until they can kill one bomber in less time than it takes 3 gunships to kill the strike, or if it's to buff the strike until it can pick off one gunship before 3 gunships can kill it.
You could make strikes specifically better at killing or annoying gunships at longer ranges, for instance by making missiles better against gunships. I have three suggestions there:
- Only one missile break on gunships.
- Strikes get missile range extenders, and possibly missile speed extenders as well.
- Lock on time for missiles is halved when a gunship is charging. (You're shooting at a stationary supernova after all - how hard can it be to lock on to that?)

Another possible option would be to give the emp missile more range and have it disable railguns. That would mean sitting in a bomber's nest carries some risk.