Verain
-
Posts
4,299 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Verain
-
-
These already exist. Look under GSF Keybindings, Movement. They are the strafe commands.
-
Adding the stealth ships is probably not due to a dearth of models (you can go look up the models for stealth ships online, but don't link them here), but due to balancing needed to add new stuff.
Also, the Imperial Agent ship is far too large. The fighters are way smaller, which is a big part of why the class ships are not in GSF at all. If you were to port it in sensibly, it would be much slower than a bomber, and much larger than a bomber.
-
No it would be GSF "Ring around the rosie"
-
HI mates,
I'm using playonmac with wine 1.7.53 to run SWTOR. Didn't had any trouble until now.
Since the last launcher update, I can't play to swtor anymore.
Basically the launcher never open.
Anyone having the same problem ?
Like, how did you bump this thread instead of finding the ones on the front page about it?
Brief version: the updated launcher doesn't work under Windows XP or Wine. Bioware will probably fix that. Wine will patch to support the new thing later, probably by taking a patch from a guy on this forum.
In the meantime, your solution is in this thread:
You will need to download and extract the binaries from a third party site (I consider them trustworthy, but your level of concern may vary). You will need to rename or remove any existing /bitraider and/or /patch subdirectories in your swtor directory. Then you will need to modify your launcher.settings file by inserting the specified option to prevent it from using the new launcher.
This is a workaround where you use the old launcher, and prevent it from updating. Hopefully Wine will be updated in mainline before October, OR that Bioware fixes it and then you can just remove the line in the settings file and it will update at that time (hopefully to a newer launcher that works).
-
who doesn't see aaaaany problem with BW completely and unnecessariuly bolloxing-up a miniscule launcher patch.
In Bioware's defense, this is a problem with certificate stuff, which isn't super easy to get right, and there's a problem with their oldest supported OS, which is both a little bit uncommon and already has a couple long term issues (many Windows XP users can't get sound to work in GSF, for instance: I doubt that will ever be fixed). Current workaround is using the old launcher (nothing about the entire system insists on the use of the newest launcher) and has a text mode config file to enable the workaround, both of which are strong customer-friendly decisions that allow a player to get their box up and running with a little bit of drama. Basically, yes, this is a big deal and they deserve to be called out, but they are also communicating about it and their existing setup wasn't consumer-hostlie so a workaround exists and is functional.
If there was no workaround, or if they weren't working on a real fix, I'd be a great deal more bothered by this.
-
You have three choices right now.
1)- Grab the fix that another poster has pushed for Wine. Compile a separate copy of wine and use it bare, not with Lutris or PoL or whatever.
http://www.swtor.com/community/showpost.php?p=9376362&postcount=115
He's submitted this as a patch. It adds support for the new crypto type. It will probably take a bit for it to go on there.
2)- Wait for Lutris or PoL or Wine-staging to pick up that patch, then update to it using your normal whatever.
3)- Use the workaround today.
This reverts the patcher to an older version that is a couple months away from certificate expiry. In that span of time, hopefully your Wine packager will accept and package support for the new cert type. This is what I did, works great on FC25 again.
-
Just ran into the problem. XP user. Still running into the Launcher issue. Waiting for Official fix.
If it's your main box, consider the fix linked on the reddit thread. You will probably need to do something like that anyway- if they fix the launcher tomorrow, you'll need to somehow unbreak your existing launcher to make it actually grab it, after all.
-
So BW does support legacy operating systems when their original creators do not?
Yes, of course they do.
Processor:AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4000+ or better
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.0GHz or better
Operating System:
Windows XP Service Pack 3 or later
RAM:
Windows XP: 1.5GB RAM
Windows Vista and Windows 7: 2GB RAM
You would certainly expect some reduced functionality with base system requirements. You would not expect to be unable to log in at all.
Sorry all, need to get with the times and upgrade your unsupported OS.My unsupported OS is fully upgraded. Windows XP, on the other hand, is a supported OS.
Requesting/DEMANDING a developing team to do so is a waste of time and valuable resources.If Bioware wants to stop supporting some of their loyal customers, that's up to them. They should, of course, announce this in advance, not just hotbreak an entire OS. That's obviously an accident, not a design goal.
Let's be honest here.With such a selfish set of statements (screw people who can't or won't upgrade, I could potentially perceive a small benefit if they threw you under the bus, so do it!), trust us, you don't want us to be honest with you.
-
Your problem is you are using an unsupported MS operating system.
Incorrect. This is a Bioware problem. XP is listed as supported, right? You can't start the launcher. That's not support. The fix will come from Bioware, not Microsoft. You can sidestep the issue by changing your OS, but OP's issue isn't that his OS is broken, it's that the launcher is.
The workaround for XP is to use the older launcher, which the main thread links to a fix on jedipedia via reddit. You also have to modify a file to instruct it to no longer use the latest launcher. That will get you in game for a couple months, which is as long as Bioware has to fix the issue.
-
I know some people like it, so this isn't a troll post.
You didn't put it in our forum on purpose though, so there's that.
1) the ship designs. They don't really seem all that exotic for SW fighters. I never get excited about calling myself a pilot of any of the ships available.I mean, that's fair. I love almost all the GSF ships, and I like almost all the rest. The only ones I merely like are the imperial strikes, which are shaped funny and don't look that great. The only one I don't like is the Ocula/Skybolt, which is a model that wasn't created for GSF at all, but a shuttle that they decided was a scout. I deeply love the Republic scouts, gunships, and bombers and the Imperial scouts and bombers, the Republic strikes are perfection, the Imperial gunships are very nice and the Imperial strikes are meh.
But personal taste is a huge part of this.
2) the hypersensitive mouse controls. I haven't looked to hard so maybe I missed it but breathing on my mouse oversteers in any directions to the point of frustration every time.Reduce your mouse sensitivity. Many GSF players do this. Alternatively, adjust to making very minor adjustments for steering and only swinging the mouse when you need the cursor to move for aiming or very sharp turns. This is entirely in your power. If they reduced the mouse sensitivity by a lot in the game, I would have to increase it to compensate, and could easily lose resolution as a result. Meanwhile, you can just tell the mouse to slow down and be happy.
3) lack of joystick support. This isnt such a big issue but it does take away from immersion.If you added joysticks it would be terribly, poorly, or properly. Terrible joystick support you can use a joy2mouse program right now. No need to bother the devs, the joystick will steer the cursor. Bad joystick support would be something like the joystick steering the ship directly, but losing the ability to gimbal your guns. Joystick players would complain that they lack the same targeting abilities of mouse users, and the small benefit they gained in terms of flight would have odd balance effects that would hurt some weapons much less than others. Proper joystick support would support another set of axes for gimbaling guns (the cursor) separate from the flight of the ship. This would result in joysticks being massively better at flight than mice, which is because joysticks are massively better at flight than mice. This would hurt participation in a game where players already complain about the skill gap. If I can use my hotas on top of everything else, lol.
Like many I am a huge fan of the older starfighter styled games like , Freespace and Wing Commander. GSF doesnt have that intense feel.Fair because subjective. Joysticks do deliver a better experience and, if done properly, better controls than a mouse and keyboard. But there's a reason that all the recent games bend over backwards to hurt joystick users and give them an objectively worse experience: it's because most players don't have a good joystick, and a mouse can't ever be as good as a joystick if you don't tie a heavy sack around a joystick user, which things like controlling a cursor already do.
4) no pve. This is the biggest reason for me. PVE is a goid way to learn the ropes before jumping into pvp content especially since GSF has a bit of a learning curve if you want to be skilled at playing.PvE is basically asking for a new game mode. It would do the most to generate new interest in the game, and players who don't PvP would basically be getting a game mode using GSF ships, and other players would use it as practice for the PvP portion, which currently dumps you directly into a field with whomever is queued, gogogo.
The big issue here is the scope of this. It's massive. It's a larger scope than developing GSF from scratch multiple times. Sure would be nice though.
5) lack of connection to story based missions. This is true of both gsf and the class ship components of the game. It seems quite odd that none of it is connected.This has never bothered me. It you were adding PvE, you'd add this. Without that, no real reason.
What don't you enjoy gsf?Have you stopped beating your dog yet?
-
The idea isn't to force joysticks on anyone, merely to provide support for joysticks.
No, that would ultimately just add more joystick related QQ to the forums.
Here's my thoughts on this:
http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=926753
Most of the points in OP have been addressed. PvE would be amazing, but the cost immense: that's basically "make a new game that is 5-10x the scope of GSF, to interact with GSF ships and game mode". That would be amazing, but it is a request for an entire new game mode.
-
I updated the patch to support the crypto (enhanced provider name and type). link to post
You can apply the patch to wine-staging and compile with it yourself and it will work fine (I currently run it). If it gets accepted, you can compile it as-is.
SNy
Oh! Sweet, thanks. Yea, that sounds like you have it worked out completely already. I'll probably stick with the older launcher instead of building myself, but I'm sure I'll end up with your patched staging over DNF soon enough. Solid, man.
-
As for wine, I submitted a one-liner patch to wine-staging (that one-liner is also to be found earlier in the thread, inside a SPOILER tag).
I suspect the direction they will want to go is to support the crypto, not disable it. Still, your workaround will be the correct way to do this if Bioware hasn't added back support for the older crypto, or Wine hasn't added support for the newer, soon enough.
-
Here's the source
Thanks, this worked for me! (wine staging 2.10, FC25, never any bit raider)
Whenever Bioware fixes the core issue, I should be good to patch up to a working version. Hopefully this happens before the game can't log in without a patcher update.
For whatever reason I cannot get the skip self patch bit to work
After one start, the line:
, "skip_self_patch": true
(starts with comma, then space, then the double-quoted part, then colon, then space, then the word true, then carriage return, then line feed)
Was moved from where I left it to underneath the bitraider_disable line (for me "true") and above the "DevLogin" line (empty string). But I think you should be good to put it anywhere?
Also, there's a blurb on the linked page about removing (or in my case, I just renamed them) the /bitraider and /patch subdirectories. That part seemed easy to miss. I didn't have a bitraider directory, but I did have a patch directory.
-
Agreed, but the same technical mitigation would dampen both effects. It will still remain ultimately a ToS level issue though.
-
There's three types of players that can ruin your game pretty quick.
The first is the Inveterate Foodship. This player is terrible, he can't hit things, and he dies a lot. He is an active menace to your team: you'd be better off if he left the match. He's trying as best he can, and it's shockingly awful. You might think you were once as bad as him... but you probably weren't.
The second is the AFK Farmer. This player hates that he "has" to GSF, even though he doesn't have to, and he will avoid participating as much as he can. He's not actually AFK- if you try to kick him, he will get in combat or whatever. Since kicking requires everyone to go push buttons as a coordinated team, he's a burden even if you manage to get the kick off.
The third is the Griefing Self Destructor. This player hates his team, and crashes into rocks as much as possible in TDM to throw the game.
In theory, the latter two are actionable- these actions are against the ToS, and players can be temp or even perma banned for them. The issue is that you can't tell the second from the first with any automated method, and so the second type of player generally persists unless everyone constantly spams reports on him, which is really very rare. Bioware doesn't want to accidentally ban an Inveterate Foodship just to clean up AFK Farmers (nor would we players generally want a potential new GSFer to get in trouble just because they are magnificently terrible), so in practice both do their things.
This thread is about that third type of player, and in general, if everyone reports that guy, eventually he will be actioned. This seems to take longer than it used to, and based on other complaints on other forums, I think that's sort of true of other PvP bad-behavers. But it is not allowed to SD repeatedly for the purposes of throwing matches, so keep spamming reports against those guys when you find them.
Long term, I'd like to see something that scales up respawns on players who die immediately in TDM (in Dom this behavior rarely matters) to prevent this from being as big of an issue as it is now- ultimately this player needs to be actioned by a GM, but it would be great if, in the span of time between the player beginning malicious action and a GM ending it, the player would have less influence over matches.
-
I often wondered why Quads didn't really match the power of BLCs.
I mean, against a target you have undernose, they have great dps. They also aren't a super fast gun, so the amount of initial damage you deal is pretty solid, which is a pretty big deal. But generally nothing can beat bursts in effective damage, because it's a really hard gun to escape or turn off in any way.
-
Crew members Passive Overview
Crew member selection is a uniquely SWTOR take on ship abilities. It takes a game mode that is just a bunch of ships and adds people to it. Early on, there were threads asking for more choices among crewmen, and this post will mostly echo to that era. The reason that those threads fell off is twofold- first, we weren't seeing a bunch of new GSF changes, so players naturally focus on talking about the issues that they perceive to be top problems. Second, the crewmember system, while having fallen short of its potential, is neither broken nor unworkable as-is.
Also, I'll echo what we've seen in the itemization thread- the eight crewmembers (four imperial, four republic) that you get by default in GSF, should absolutely be companions somehow by now. I see people with pages and pages of companions, there's no way I shouldn't be able to have Salana Rok follow me around in-game. Ok, back to topic.
GSF crewmembers are divided into four categories. In each category, there are four "passives" to choose from. These passives normally differ pretty wildly in power- that is to say, they aren't balanced. Because everyone has access to these, none are "overpowered", even if they are considered mandatory- they don't have a deleterious effect on gameplay. Of the three categories, one of them- tactical- has reasonably meaningless passives. For this reason, any copilot ability available in there can be selected pretty much "free of charge".
The copilot abilities have been the subject of nerfs and buffs in the past. They get the attention, and they do matter, as their abilities can absolutely swing games.
If "tactical" didn't have four largely unimportant passives, then we would see players having to choose between copilot abilities and passives that were different across factions. I think this is great (and it is present to a small degree still), but it definitely somewhat controversial.
I believe this is the correct path towards making GSF crewmembers a more engaging system:
1- Fix some of the crappy passives. A niche passive is fine, a stupid or strictly-worse passive is not.
2- Try harder to make some of the weaker copilot abilities, stronger. I feel that some copilot abilities in the current game are underranked by many players in the meta, simply because it is easier to use a known-good copilot ability that you have internalized, versus forcing yourself to learn a playstyle that is better under some situations and worse under others. But there are still weak abilities.
Passive Problems
In Offense, the passives are:
+6% accuracy
+2 Degree firing
8% faster missile and railgun reload
25% of base quantity extra missiles and rocket pods
In Defense, the passives are:
+10% of class base shield added to shield maximum
+15% of class base shield regeneration added to out-of-combat shield regeneration
+5% evasion
+9% armor
In Engineering, the passives are:
13% Reduced blaster (not railgun) cost
13% booster and engine maneuver cost
10% of class base engine bar added to engine bar maximum
10% of class base blaster bar added to blaster bar maximum
In Tactical, the mostly-unimportant passives are:
5km to comms sensors
3.5km to frontal cone sensors
3km to non-frontal cone sensors
2km to sensor dampening
In Offensive, the 6% accuracy is too important to not take for almost all ships. The few that ignore it will do so for the purpose of getting a different copilot ability, and this is almost exclusively bombers. 6% accuracy can easily be higher than 10% extra blaster and railgun damage over the course of a match. This is very high for an accuracy number. Even in a non-evasion meta this would be a really big deal, but it has been mandatory since the start. The passive would compete well with things like "+10% blaster damage" or "+8% railgun damage" or "missiles crit chance +40%". It is totally out of place next to the other three, which are reasonable choices about firing arc and missile allocation. I will continue to recommend adding 5% or 6% accuracy to every blaster and railgun choice in the game, and replacing this with something that doesn't map so reliably and importantly to dps and crowd control. Whatever is added needs to be something you might meaningfully either give up, or choose over, the extra ammo, arc, and reload abilities.
The other three offensive ones are reasonable choices, though I will point out that it is a bit odd that they work with so few components. The 8% reload is a very small boost, even to railguns who can make maximal use out of it. Perhaps it could have one small value for rocket pods (instead of 0), one larger value for railguns, and one even larger value for missiles. The final one, extra ammo, is almost exclusively taken with rocket pods (where the generous pod allocation is still reliably run through quickly) and cluster missiles (where the +25% of base is very helpful when taking the double warhead special). Mines and railshots are infinite in quantity, and most other missiles it is difficult to fire all of, and generally poor anyway. Extra arc competes well with these, as the extra arc normally has a pretty terrible accuracy- the shots taken in this space of the screen are iffy and rare. I still take that arc though. I know not everyone does. Seems balanced.
The defensive abilities are almost balanced. The shield regeneration was clearly lowballed, probably out of an abundance of caution as regards shield regenerating dudes orbiting satellites in the early meta. It's just too small to be a good choice for most ships, even if some can use it occasionally. I'd recommend a buff. The two generally best defensive abilities are +10% shield and +5% evasion, but if you build for damage reduction the +9% damage reduction becomes mandatory. These feel like reasonably balanced choices, and if you wanted a specific copilot ability, you would probably feel comfortable exchanging one of them for a lesser (for your build) one in exchange for that. You certainly have more choice here than with offensive or engineering.
The engineering abilities are trash tier balancing, the only one of the four categories to be truly dumb. No one can afford to not run +13% engine efficiency without their build being badly hurt. The +10% extra engine is almost strictly worse than the +13% extra efficiency (like, from a full power pool of engine). Likewise, for anyone but a gunship, the +10% blaster pool is almost strictly worse than the +13% blaster efficiency. Even with this terrible balancing, the six crewmembers on each side still see two get chosen reasonably often: the double efficiency crewmember and the double engine crewmember. Rarely chosen but arguably optimal under some situations is the crewmember with more weapon energy plus engine efficiency, which a few gunships have found use for.
I wrote a whole post about the engineering guys:
http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=736226
These are the hardest to try to balance, because 13% engine efficiency is; noticeable in terms of game power, pretty much omnipresent across all hangars, not actually broken, and very disruptive to try to come up with alternatives to. Oh, it's also not something you can just bake into all the components like you can with +5% accuracy.
My suggestions for the other thread were to increase blaster efficiency to 15%, roll the extra engine and extra weapon power together into one passive, and make a new passive that maybe decreases the duration of controls by a percent (a mechanic that GSF may not be able to support, who knows). Even with those changes, you would still almost always be picking the 13% engine efficiency as at least one of your two choices- you would have three crewmembers to choose from instead of two, at least, and if you were fishing for a copilot maybe you could talk yourself into it.
-
Disto offers a better defense than any other option against two damage types. This is due to two things -- the abundance of shield piercing, and the missile break.
There's some other mechanics in play. One of the odd things about GSF is that armor penetration is largely all-or-nothing. With the sole exception of plasma railgun's talent that reduces armor by some fixed percentage (subtracts, not multiplies), everything ignores armor or respects it completely. Meanwhile, armor itself varies from 0%, 5%, 10%... to like 99%, with turrets at a surprising 70%.
Of the missile types, the two fast lockon guys- clusters and interdictions- are forced to respect armor. Ion respects armor because all ion stuff does, dealing large damage to shield and being bad against hull and terrible against armored hulls. Rocket pods, concussions, protons, and even EMP and sabo probe, all ignore armor. Thermite doesn't just ignore armor, it disables it completely for its duration!
While obviously signalling that these are meant to be more useful against bombers than they are in practice (all bombers have to huddle by objects or be destroyed by any missile or railgun on the map- the missiles work amazing versus bombers waddling unescorted from A to B or whatever), the other important thing to notice is that there is no mechanic to take 30%, 50%, or 60% less damage from missiles. There's no model for taking a glancing blow from a proton that explodes near you, but doesn't detonate straight on your engine or whatever.
This is why no one suggests stuff like "distortion field reduces damaged caused by lock-on projectiles by an amount equal to half of your evasion percentage" or whatever. There's few attempts to change the ability to meaningfully make distortion offer SOME benefit against missiles. You've seen mine- the increased lockon time as baseline for distortion, which should hurt cluster spam more than the other missiles. Others attempt to shrink the double missile break advantage by raising the distortion field cooldown (along with the evasion magnitude or duration), and keeping the break, and making it happen less often. And others just want to take it away with no real compensation, hoping that the meta will become "you can fly a ship good against blasters and railguns, or you can fly a ship good against missiles", a design that honestly would probably work, but I just am not a fan of adding more rock-paper-scissors unless it is necessary.
If we had a separate mechanic to talk about this, or a way for evasion to effect missiles in some manner, then that could work out. But we sorta don't.
I still feel the problem child here is kinda cluster missile. If you had no fast lockon misiles you were even thinking about, you'd be super willing to discuss getting rid of anyone ever having a second missile break, or discuss the possibility of changing missiles wholesale to lock on easier, or with a much larger angle, or range, and not have to constantly be like "...but I mean, except for clusters, because type 2 scouts with clusters are reasonably present in the meta already".
Eh, whatever. I'm repeating myself on this. We're deep enough in thread that I should go ham on the crewmembers anyway.
-
Color Blind / Color Support
I'm personally a big fan of UIs that distinguish purpose ONLY with color. On my home box, I redid the window decorations to only be different colors (same brightness), right next to each other, rainbow from red for close to violet for pin-to-workspace. A colorblind man would find my computer extremely unusable, and I don't give a crap, because I'm not colorblind. However, my custom scheme is neither a default inclusion in XFCE, nor does it ship with default-enabled window decorations that are unusable by the color blind- you have to dig around in settings to find any that are distinguished by color at all, and even then they are also distinguished by default position, etc.
SWTOR in general has global requests for a set of colorblind modes (to allow for recognizability for the more common types of colorblindness), and I won't touch on that. I will instead talk about small changes that would help accessibility for at least a decent number of users.
In GSF, the two big things that show up oddly are satellite colors in game, and the satellite and score colors in the UI. If a green satellite had some blue stripes on the wings, and was green and blue in the UI, that would probably make a big difference. If the team scores had a bit more distinction in how they were written- say, one was a larger font- that would also help. Secondarily, if some visual element existed for maps and targeting in addition to color, that would also help.
There's a bunch more that could be done if this was a design goal, and it is kind of a SWTOR problem, not a GSF problem. But I feel that 80% of the issues could be addressed with tweaks.
-
I do think we'd figure out a lot more if we could set our throttle with a mousewheel or +/- instead of tapping back and forth between presets to maintain a desired speed, but maybe learning throttlemonkey is just an intended part of the game. I don't feel I would miss it if it were gone and replaced with something more precise, but meh.
Anyway, I think the thread is mostly resolved: the effect that slows your turning down if you are going too slow is probably responsible, and is probably not something that switches on below a certain speed, but has some smoother and lesser effects at speeds that are slow, but not below decelerate (you probably start to see it somewhere between "neutral" and "decelerate" throttle preset speeds).
-
I think they mean stuff like the trade and pvp channel, which definitely are there at start, just like general chat. If not, well, that seems like that would be the easiest and would make sense to do. *shrugs*
The game doesn't have automatic server channels, and for GREAT reasons. If there is one automatic server channel, then it is the general chat for the server. If there are two, then the second one could be something else. So if you added a GSF chat, it would be all divided up into zones- ZONE channels, like General, PvP, Trade. All the pilots would have to make another server channel, and this one would be hard to get the word out for.
-
Server wide channels don't exist at character creation. If that's going to change, it shouldn't start with /gsf.
-
Names are a problem, but they are nowhere near the problem they could be. In WoW, when server merges happened, the characters became addressable by the server they were on. So if Apple and Orange merged, your character Tiny would be Tiny-Apple or Tiny-Orange, or whatever. The servers still existed in name, but in practice they were gone.
So that's one solution. Another would be to build a list of active characters with clashing names and work with them- there's probably less than you might think. Aggressively pruning the name list at the same time would also work very well.
"Launcher is being updated. Please wait"
in General Discussion
Posted
Using the old launcher should absolutely have worked, if you renamed the folders specified and correctly entered the JSON string.