Zharik
-
Posts
1,082 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Posts posted by Zharik
-
-
I think the reason that objective points are given for defending a held satellite but not for attacking a neutral/enemy satellite is to give an incentive to node-guarders - you don't need an incentive to fly around enemy satellites because that's where the action is. That's a pretty reasonable goal. (The incentive isn't in the scoreboard ranking so much as in the requisition earned.)
Incentive for guarding is good, but if half your team is sitting on your lone satellite, good luck prying one of the other two from the enemy. I can't tell you how many times I have had to say something when the score hits like 600-300 and we've still got 3 guys sitting on a very uncontested satellite where the rest of are team is *so close* to turning another satellite neutral...
Maybe defense points should only give half reqs for a loss. (or double for a win, either way encourage players to play to win)
-
yes that works, but of course you dont have turrets in TDM, if people arent playing bombers in TDM then every one has a maneuver. Its a niche weapon for a very niche situation, that needs to be played perfectly to be viable, and can be done better on a clarion then on a Spearpoint.
Very niche?
60% of the matches involve capturing satellites?!? Hardly niche and well worth having 1 of your 5 possible ships have the ability to pry the control of a satellite from a bomber or 3.
I generally fly another ship in TDM.
-
omg, please this....
I have a female medic body type 2, so pretty much every assault cannon looks ludicrous on her. I've been watching closely every pack they realease and every time there's an assault cannon the goal seems to be making a more humongous looking one than the previous one
I'd like an assault cannon where the word "elegant" close to it won't be a sarcastic remark.
But if you are not careful in what you ask for, you'll end up with something that looks great - exactly how you want it to, but it will sound AWFUL.
-
i would like it if subs got 16 slots by default. i will typically switch the gender, alignment and advanced class. so i have a female light side scoundrel, and a male dark side gun slinger. male dark side sorc, and a female light side assassin, etc.
So my only fear is that they eventually make a new class and/or race making me want to play that... and I am at 21 of 22 now.
-
low subscriptions?
All games suffer a drop off a few months after release. After some of the population decides to go back to (or on to) some other game. Kids these days have no focus.
-
Ok, I get it, the SWG crowd launched a successful campaign for you to include some RP stuff that hardcore PVP and PVE players don't really care about (based on my own anecdotal experience) but you're going to make guild ships provide buffs? What?! You're forcing guilds who don't give two craps about this RP dreck to now buy guild ships or be at a constant disadvantage. That sucks. I'm trying write this calmly but I'm pretty pissed off after reading the producer letter. It's unconscionable that you take something that a lot of guilds wouldn't bother with and now shove it down our throats or we put ourselves at a constant disadvantage. Awesome. Why don't you just levy a tax and just take our credits?
I apologize if the buffs mentioned aren't combat-based but if so I would suggest a different adjective other than "powerful". That word leads me to immediately think these are combat based.
To be fair if they don't add things that are a credit drain on players' bank accounts, inflation will go through the roof. And for credit drains to be effective, they need to be things that people will willingly spend millions on.
-
I would also like the things to stay as they are, for us, the OTHER paying players.
What about saber stances, mr. OP? What about knives and shotguns the size of two thirds of an avatar?
I`d say curb your OCD and live without your precious green on trooper.
Much anger in this one, I sense.
-
And I think that what interest people the most, is their place on the board.
In other words, that's how the game sorts scores by default that will have the most influence.
^ So true. ^
Oh yeah, and the only reason DPS is superior to total damage is what about the poor guy who got pulled in halfway through the match and looks bad for a lower total damage than his peers? DPS would auto adjust for that.
-
This may or may not be what you are seeing.
100% chance that this statement is correct!
In all seriousness, mines and drones have been known to not show the damage numbers when being hit, and that sucks.
-
Bursts don't always show the visual, but as far as I can tell they fire anyway.
^ Pretty sure this. I've seen the damage numbers before without the animation being played, so that is likely a client-side issue with the animation, *not* an issue with your guns failing to fire.
-
They are talking EMP missile.... take 3 seconds to lock on and is as dodgeable and gives just as much warning as any other Missile. It does 180 damage and then you MIGHT disable their engines along with their number 1 ability.
If you note, I targeted a turret... turrets, drones, mines cannot do anything to break a lock and a bomber can't do much (LOS or suddenly boost to break manually) so everyone in the blast radius gets hit.
Tactics need to adjust to the weapon's strengths. The weapons do not need adjusted to your play style.
Ion Missile is still garbage though.
-
In fairness, you were using it in basically the ideal situation -- against numerous targets that were unaware of you.
Actually the scout was aware as he was trying to lock on to me, which is why I use the antennae for cover and strafed to break his lock.
But yes, I was in fact trying to illustrate what its ideal situation is. (shooting at a bomber in the middle of a furball is ideal too, in TDM) I was trying to illustrate that using it against a scout in a 1 v 1 is a waste of potential and not what it was designed for, that's all.
-
Hey, that's great. How'd it go after that point when they all responded and swarmed on the strike and dropped more mines while the EMP missile was reloading (and the stuff that was out of range of the blast was able to trigger on you)? If that all didn't happen, they weren't very good.
Don't get me wrong, EMP is nice to help clear a satellite (and that screenie could have been the start of a good, coordinated assault on a satellite), but it rarely clears the whole thing and even when it does, they just throw out more mines and drones a few seconds later. I decided to pick EMP up on my Tier 3 scout since the other options just are frustrating going into a defended satellite, but it doesn't change the fact that EMP is not a great counter to bombers on a satellite. If you want a satellite cleared, bring in a gunship with Ion aoe. I've been forced to do it lately since everyone wants to fly a bomber as of late and people aren't flying gunships enough (or smartly enough).
Gunships are going to be better vs bombers, because bombers are slow and have no evasion. And bombers have no viable chance against gunships without LOS, which the Ion AOE takes care of (which I think needs fixed).
To answer your question, I was alone there (my team was not very experienced) and I was honestly trying to occupy as many of them as possible. I died twice but kept them there for several minutes, using terrain (in space, I know right?) and killed 5 turrets, iirc. Granted this only matters if 7 vs 5 elsewhere we win, which we did not, but that was hardly a problem with my ship build...
-
Bombers who waste time building big minefields are stupid anyway, given how long it takes to build field and how little time it takes for it to be destroyed.
Regardless, even by destroying their mines, you didn't "root out" either Bomber. If they were Minelayers, they had new Seismics or Seekers out in 0-15 seconds, depending on the state of their Secondary cooldown. And they'll have new System Mines out in exactly 16 seconds. Unless you and your team can quickly coordinate to get sustained LOS on at least one Bomber and destroy it in 15 seconds, nothing meaningful happens. And getting that sustained LOS is hard .
Meanwhile all the Bombers have to do is orbit the satellite close and fast for 15 seconds and then it's like you never fired the missile at all.
You are right in that EMP Missile is absolutely crucial for destroying turrets if you don't have Armor Piercing weaponry. But considering every variant of Strike and Scout EXCEPT for the Command variants has easy access to Armor Piercing (Rocket Pods, BLC's, HLC's), that's hardly a check in the Command variants' favor.
In other words, the only person who really needs EMP Missile help in destroying turrets is you--your allies can 3-shot them with minimal laser cost and superficial shield damage.
Did you count the number of things I hit with one attack? Would any other missile do as well attacking a bomber infested location (of which 60% of the game is based on, mind you)? And am i really expected to solo 3 ships?
And you wonder why I called you narrow minded...
SMH
This was a comparison of EMP Missiles vs... well other missiles/torps, right?
-
EMP is fantastic for rooting bombers out of satellite camping.
http://aisthesis.shivtr.com/gallery_images/696528
This is a tier 2 EMP Missile vs 2 bombers, 3 turrets and a scout. 2839 damage, 6 destroyed targets (some were hit by my other EMP Missile earlier) and turrets disabled for 15 seconds... which is long enough to kill all 3 with quads.
Use tactics when deploying these weapons! In WWII, torpedo bombers (fighters with 1 torpedo under their belly) did not dogfight, they tried to sink enemy ships. You are trying to dogfight with a missile not designed for dogfighting!
-
While I would LOVE an Op with some military feel to it (including walkers, tanks, maybe airstrikes - similar to EC) I don't want them cashing in on movie's scenes even more. IOW, don't do AT-ATs on Hoth...
It is bad enough that with a galaxy of possibilities, we have the Empire (3000 ish years before THE Empire), we have Rancor pits in a Hutt's palace, carbonite freezing, etc. Pay a writer to come up with something original, yet Star Warsy. Really, this should not be that hard.
-
... I agree with a reply that an intelligent crafter does not sell at a loss by underselling the finished item bewlo the cost they paid for its materials...
The problem is that there are so many crafters that don't actually check this, and THEY drive the market for said finished product down.
Actually the issue is that most everyone crafts *something*, so competition is high. Also zero diversity in the end product does not help at all. Use Skill Augments as an example. Fred's are the same as Luke's who are the same as Adam's, who are all the same as... well everyone who crafts Skill Augments. So the only difference between crafters is price.
-
Again, a Classic and Standard version of the armoring is a solution here. Some, like the OP, don't watch the attachments on the chest, some, like myself, nine times out of ten prefer it. Make everyone happy.
Bud, this is the internet. Nobody gets to be happy, let alone everyone!
/sarcasm off
Ok now for the on topic part, I agree with the "belts carry the flaps" idea. Perhaps a toggle like hide head slot for belt flaps?
-
I fear it would be redundant with Combat Command, actually. So at the moment I trying it with Running Interferences
So who says you have to run the system ability and the copilot ability at the same time? Stagger them and get a VERY long AOE buff.
-
I understand you want to bring ideas to the game but you keep posting multiple threads in different sections and it's starting to look like spam.
Starting?!?
-
Yeah I have had that happen with drones too. Seems like 300m is the closest you can consistently get them as you should.
-
Unless you are hunting someone specific, extending your Sensor or Communication Range doesn't offer much tactical benefit, in either Domination or TDM.
Having all the friendly ships able to see what you see, and vice-versa is tactically valuable. Though I would agree that it is more so in Domination than in TDM. Even so, there are inherent advantages to knowing where the enemy snipers are sitting in TDM as well, when approaching a battle.
Before the changes to sensor range and dampening, the only real choice was communication range, imho. Now there are strategies involved.
-
In addition, I would like to add that I personally have found that the target indicator is not always valid for me when targets are very close. For instance, if I'm following a target at close range and they are angling/curving away from me (such that I have to 'lead' them in order to get a hit), I find that if I aim for their leading indicator it usually doesn't count as a hit -- when my indicator turns red. Note that I'm sure that I'm not just 'missing' due to them evading. When I shoot around slightly behind their targeting indicator (when it's not 'red' on my screen) I tend to get more hits.
I believe that this is lag. Similar to the lag that makes your missile lock on "break" even though the target is in the middle half of the circle's area.
-
I'm not 100% certain, but it feels to me like the current hittable area of the lead indicator is larger than a single pixel.
It is the whole circle. You can see your cursor change when you are "lined up on it" properly. Click once at the edge of an otherwise "easy" hit and see the damage tick.
Bomber Madness
in Galactic Starfighter
Posted
No friendly fire for mines... No, no, NO!
Talk about an avenue for griefing!?!
T