This still generates a problem with people queued preferring arenas. If there are 8 people queued, 4 specifying arenas, they are more likely to get an arena, making them happy. But the 4 who didn't want to do an arena would also be forced into an arena because there aren't enough people queued for a team of 8. Regardless, if it's just going to be a slight tweak to the probability of the match type, I don't think it's worth the effort of implementing. It's a whole new feature they have to code that, in the end, practically doesn't do anything at all. To much work for barely any benefit. Plus, it just creates one more thing in the game that could potentially screw up and bug out.

This is not true and is the reason why people get so worked up about this. If you're facing the direction of North and you call out "Left" then you actually mean to say West. If you're facing South and call out "Left" then you actually mean to say East. The same word can mean literally two opposite directions. And that's not even considering the fact that some people say left/right based off the location of the door in orientation from the spawn, while others say left/right based off of their layout on the map. Bottom line: It's confusing if you don't specify what you mean. Cardinal directions are always based off of the map, not your orientation. So saying "left" or "right" is just as meaningless as saying "over here!"

I'm on board with visual ques. Colors/shapes whatever. But another suggestion that I've wished they had for the longest time: Put a small "N", "S", "E" and "W" on the edges of the minimap. You're making it way too over complicated. It shouldn't be based off of your positioning. Cardinal directions are based off of the map. Considering the minimap stays fixed in this game, then North is always in the location shown at the top of the map. South is always at the bottom. East is always to the right and West is always to the left. Your current position never comes into the equation. I'm like you and easily get turned around. This shows profoundly when I play GSF, since I often find myself behind enemy lines, and unsure which direction I should move in in order to get back to my side. So, believe me when I say, don't pay any attention to your orientation or position. Just look at the minimap and that should solve your problem.

I love huttball though. The problem with having a WZ filter is that it would lower the amount of players available to be matched with you for PvP. For example, consider there are 16 people willing to PvP. That's a full match of 8 vs 8. But, say 6 of them want to play attack/defend (voidstar), 4 of them want to play Huttball, 4 of them want to play in arenas, and the remaining 2 just queued generally. Well, the 6 who only selected voidstar likely won't find a match since only 8 people would be available from the pool of players queued for it. Same for huttball, which would only have 6 available players. An arena could potentially work, assuming the factions are split in a way that is fair (3v3). In all actuality, no match would pop, even though there is enough people willing to PvP in the queue. This is why there can't be queue filters for WZs. It would absolutely destroy PvP in this game.

Giving a replacement the right to roll is fair. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that people in the group don't want to run IF we have to get a replacement; they want to ensure that the other people they were running with have a chance to get something. Meaning we will need MORE replacements if those people decide not to go. So I'm not trying to say the loot system is flawed in how people roll on stuff. It's flawed in that it is causing way more problems than it is solving.

Another point that just came up last night as a strike against this system: Last night my guild made our first progression run through HM S&V. We spent about 3 hours on it and made it to Styrak. Gave him a couple shots, but decided to call it a night because it was too late and people were tired. We want to reform sometime later this week, but we are unsure if everyone's schedules cooperate. Now, because we can't get the same people, some of the people in the group don't want to run with replacements because they think it's unfair that the people who couldn't make it put in the time for the first 3 hours only to be absent when the actual loot drops on the final boss. Meaning, we likely won't come to an agreement about finishing that run. And it's the loot system's fault.

While, yeah, up-heaving GC in general would be my preferred course of action... I think it's here to stay. That's why I think that as long as it's going to be staying, we try to tweak it so that it doesn't suck as bad. IE: Making it the supplementary gearing system people thought it was originally. That's why my original post counters tweaking the ops drops with adjusting the command token costs.

This is going to be an extremely long post, so I'll break it up into sections for readability sake. First let me say, I love GSF. I still play it and have great fun with it. However, beyond that, I recognize that it could be so much better. Despite being completely inactive on the development end, as far as we know, that has not stopped me from coming up with ideas from time to time about how I think the mode could benefit from some changes. It's gotten to the point where all my ideas would require basically restructuring the underlying mechanics from scratch. The gameplay wouldn't really change, just how you make ships and how they play vs other ships. Now, all that being said, I honestly don't even expect the devs to even consider a word I say here... but I still want to share my thoughts anyway, even if no one else really cares. So, let's dive into it. For starters, I need everyone to suspend their ideas of how the mode currently functions. Now then... Gaming Philosophy - - - Galactic Star Fighter, GSF, is a PvP mode. It's competitive. It's based in the Star Wars universe. But it's also a game. As a game, it needs to uphold it's fun and enjoyment factors OVER it's competitive nature. In addition to that, it needs to fall in line with other Star Wars themes. This means that anything that can be built in such a way that overpowers the fun, or Star Wars lore, in favor of competitiveness should automatically be flagged as broken and removed from the mode. Consider the hand gesture game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. You throw one gesture representing one of those items and it trumps one other item. Scissors beats Paper, Paper beats Rock, Rock beats Scissors. All three choices are simultaneously overpowering to one of the opposing items and completely vulnerable to the other. If one of the items, say Rock, could beat both Scissors and Paper, then it forces people to suspend their fun and decision making in order to jump on the "I want to win" bandwagon; they will always choose Rock because that means they could never lose, only draw. Therefore, any time a player in GSF is forced to pilot a specific type of ship or use a specific type of weapon for reasons outside of their own strategy and decision making process, it's grounds to base a case that game mechanics are broken and balance needs to be addressed. And, beyond even that, the basic idea of over-performing enemies and under-performing friendly mechanics is basis for frustration that goes beyond the basic "learn to play" argument. I'll get more into this later though. The bottom line is that the game needs to be fun, first and foremost. Restructuring the Balance - - - I keep bringing up Rock, Paper, Scissors. And I realize that that is merely a game of probabilities, and GSF is more skill and stat based. However, that doesn't mean that the base stats of ship types cannot be designed in the same way as Rock, Paper Scissors; merely giving each type of ship a narrow advantage over another type, but disadvantage to a different type. That being said, the following is how I believe different ship base stats should measure up to one another. This does not necessarily mean that ship X will always beat ship Y, it just an increase it likelihood due to base stats. The following percentages are divided among power pools. Non-power using stats are based on a rating scale of 1 to 5 stars ( * ). "W. Range" stands for "Weapon Range." You may notice a "Tech" stat, which is something I've created. This is a stat that would encompass passive utility abilities that work in support roles. For example, higher tech rating ships might be able to capture a domination satellite at a faster rate than a lower tech ship or might be able to resupply or heal friendly ships or disable enemy ships at greater efficiency or have a higher proficiency with ion-based weaponry. I have also reclassified some ships and even created a new type of ship. Strike Fighter - Hard hitting, mid+ range assault fighter used to assault known enemy locations. Minor shielding and hull deficiencies are made up for with weapon power and attack speed. Shields: 25% Engines: 35% Weapons: 40% Armor: ** Accuracy: **** W. Range: **** Scanning: * Tech: ** Scout Fighter - Lightly armored and shielded scouting craft moves at extreme speeds and capable of complex evasive maneuvers. Poor, short-range offensive capabilities are made up for with advanced long-range scanners making scouts the ideal technical support and reconnaissance craft. Shields: 35% Engines: 50% Weapons: 15% Armor: * Accuracy: ** W. Range: ** Scanning: ***** Tech: ***** Gunship - Slow moving, heavily armored and heavily shielded. These weapon toting behemoths provide cover and artillery support from great distances. Their inaccuracy is more than made up for when it comes to their attack range, attack power and available arsenal. Primarily used to suppress wide areas and force enemies out from behind cover. Shields: 45% Engines: 10% Weapons: 45% Armor: ***** Accuracy: * W. Range: ***** Scanning: *** Tech: *** Minelayer (formerly bomber) - Although weak in armor, minelayers have advanced shielding to keep them safe. Due to their low armor weight, these craft can move surprisingly quickly, but their lack of weapon effectiveness makes them poor choices for dog fight style combat. Instead, they rely on an array of mines, probes and drones to lock down defensible locations. Minelayers are also excellent choices to fill support combat roles. Shields: 55% Engines: 30% Weapons: 15% Armor: ** Accuracy: ** W. Range: *** Scanning: ** Tech: **** Assault Bomber (new ship class) - Sharing roles with the strike fighter, assault bombers are designed for frontal assaults on known targets. Although slower than their strike fighter counterpart, they boast higher shields and armor. The assault bomber specializes in heavy ordinence and ion weaponry. Shields: 50% Engines: 30% Weapons: 20% Armor: **** Accuracy: ** W. Range: *** Scanning: ** Tech: *** In this sense: Strike fighters are best suited to take on Gunships, Minelayers and enemy defensible locations with frontal assaults. Although they are easily overwhelmed and lack defensive capability. They are simultaneously effective vs gunships, but also vulnerable to them if they are caught off guard. Scouts are best suited to keep Strike Fighters and Gunships busy, give support to friendly units and recon enemy locations. Scouts shouldn't expect to be effective at eliminating enemy targets, but more effective at annoying them and keeping them busy. They are also complete fodder if they find themselves in a Minelayer's minefield. They are good at bringing down a target's shields, however. Gunships are best suited to break Minelayer defenses, force enemies out of cover and suppress enemies engaged in dogfights. But lack close range combat effectiveness. Also, I want to point out that I intentionally made gunships INACCURATE, in direct opposition to their current hyper-accurate and snipe-like attributes. Minelayers are best suited to defend locations, create support arrays (safe havens for friendly ships), and hold positions until reinforcements can arrive. They also lack close range combat effectiveness, but don't suffer from lack of evasion capabilities like the Gunship does. However, because their armor is relatively weak, and only shields are what keeps them alive, they are most vulnerable to ion weaponry. Assault Bombers, the new ship class, is a supplementary assault class for the strike fighter. In situations where a mere strike fighter isn't enough, assault bombers would be used to punch through an enemy's defenses. However, since the assault bomber specializes in ordinance, it lacks the dog fighting capabilities of a strike fighter, making them weak to enemy strike fighters and scouts. Final note regarding balance: I've removed two features from the game. - Firstly is the removal of all types of railgun weaponry from my design theory. No longer will ships and drones have long-range sniping capabilities. I don't believe that they add anything beneficial to the game and often force enemy players to match them to compete, which goes against the philosophy I stated earlier (nothing in GSF is more boring than a gunship death match.) - Secondly is the concept of the "evasion" stat. Hitting or missing your target should be determined solely on if you lined up your shot properly. There should be no RNG chance that you miss a well-lined up shot. Any moves that currently "increase your evasion" should be reworked to simply scramble the pursuer's targeting reticle - perhaps even making it disappear for a few seconds while the ability is active. Creating your star fighter - - - In the previous section, I outlined average ship capability based solely on their base stats. Obviously skills and tactics would play larger factors into how well each ship can perform vs each other, but beyond even that are the various ways you can further tweak and customize your ship to suit your play. Doing so would add or subtract bonus stats to various portions of a ship's base stats to make them more specialized in certain areas than they are by default. Currently, the way this works is that ships are broken down into components, and you can progress through a tree of upgrades for each component that gradually make your ship stronger. I do like this concept and I am going to keep it's general intention in my design theory. However, there is an underlying mechanic that I want to add that would implement some more complexity and variability in player's star ships. I call it the Chassis System. Think of a ship chassis as you might think your character's species. Then, think of each ship role as you might think of your character's class. Except, in this case, your species is more than just an appearance; it plays a major role in how you customize your ship. When creating your star fighter... 1. You start by deciding what role you want your ship to fill. (Strike, Scout, Bomber, Layer or Gunship). This applies your ship's base stats. __________________________________________________________________________ 2. After selecting your desired role, you are presented with various options of available chassis. This will determine the way the body of your ship looks. Comparatively, in the current game you choose your ship deign based off of specific ship, like Clarion or Flashfire, etc. In stead, you will choose based on the ship's chassis. __________________________________________________________________________ 3. A chassis is more than just a visual identifier for how your ship looks. Each chassis comes with built-in component bays, all of a specific type. You are given a list of compatible components that can fill those component bays. Every component that you add will impact your ship's stats by applying (or subtracting) bonus stats as well as give your star fighter certain abilities (active or passive). Adding components also slightly changes the look of your ship. - - - *Note, you have the option of leaving a component bay empty. Every new component you attach to your chassis will cause the ship to get heavier. The heavier your ship is, the more engine power it requires to move. This not only makes you slower, but also means you won't be able to boost as long as you could without the components. __________________________________________________________________________ 4. The reason why component bays have specific types is to add a little bit more complexity and thought into ship builds. Certain components will require specific types of bays. Just because there is an open bay, doesn't mean the components you want will be compatible. For example, you might have found a chassis with a lot of bays that work to your liking, but then find out that the primary weapon bay is not compatible with Burst Laser Cannons. __________________________________________________________________________ 5. In addition to requiring certain types of bays, some components might require the presence of other components. For example a "Reserve Shield Power Pool" might be required for a specific type of shield component. __________________________________________________________________________ 6. There will no longer be companion abilities. You can still opt to choose a co-pilot if you like their barks, but it's not required. Instead, all of their abilities would be tied to components that you'd attach to your chassis. __________________________________________________________________________ 7. Just like before, each component will have it's own progression tree that you can unlock as you play and earn requisition. I think the best thing about this chassis system is that it doesn't tie down what components you have to work with right off the bat, like how certain ships do that now. It also allows the game designers to come out with new types of components that you can add to your chassis without having to use an entirely new ship with. It also allows you the ability to have more than one of a specific star ship. If you're a fan of the Enforcer, you can have 3 different Enforcer chassis all fitted with completely different components to handle totally different situations. Game Play - - - Game play, actually, won't really be much different than how it currently is. The controls would all work largely the same. I can think of only two differences. 1. Since there are no companion upgrades, all of those abilities are handled through components. You can potentially have more than one new active ability in this sense, as opposed to with companions you only had your co-pilot's ability. 2. Engine abilities will be broken down into two types. 1. Evasive maneuvers and 2. Overdrive maneuvers. - - - Evasive maneuvers will no longer be tied to engine type. All engines offer the same evasive maneuvers, but to varying degrees. Some engines being more effective than others, while others offering shorter cooldowns. Evasive maneuvers are moves such as flips, dives, and U-Turns to break enemy sight and lock-on abilities. All directions for maneuvers are available for every engine, as long as it meets the power requirement. It's up to the player to decide which direction to evade in. Although, performing one evasive maneuver puts all maneuvers on cooldown. - - - Overdrive maneuvers are specific to certain engines. This encompasses moves such as reverse thrusters, interdiction drives or barrel rolls. They are on a separate cooldown from evasive maneuvers but, obviously, eat from the same engine power pool. Conclusion - - - While I find GSF to still be a fun distraction in the game, it is definitely not without it's flaws. I believe overhauling it in the ways I outlined it would increase the amount of innate enjoyment of the mode while simultaneously keeping it competitive. Removing railguns will invite more players into dog fighting combat, thus opening up more options for players interested in strike fighters and assault bombers. Because there will be a more heavy leaning on dog fighting, long range AOE attacks from gunships will make players think twice about where they engage in, but never fear to leave cover in case of being sniped from across the battlefield. Creating a starfighter creation tool with the Chassis System allows players to put a lot of time and thought into their favorite ships and spend time tweaking them long after they have mastered the available components. Overall, I think all of the above suggestions make the game feel more like a star wars game, and a game that is all around more fun; like it's intended to be.

Exactly. I agree 100%. Another thing, my guild is currently progressing through HM ops post 5.0. Just tonight, in fact, we cleared the first 4 bosses of TFB. We spent a couple hours on it and gave up at TFB because it was late. Not one single piece of unassembled loot dropped. What's the point of running this content if it's not going to give you any reward for spending hours of your time doing it?

In the short time since 5.1 dropped, I have witnessed more arguments and disagreements about loot drops since all of my time running group content since launch. This is because loot drops are so infrequent for the effort required to put in. There is just a short supply on loot drops and it's really getting to people. Not only that, but people are apprehensive about back filling into groups because they don't think that it is fair that people who have been there from the beginning and haven't won anything might lose a roll to someone who just joined for the last boss. I understand the logic behind progressive drops. You want people to stay to the end, I get it. But it has far more negative repercussions on the team. -ALL bosses should have a 100% chance to drop a random token. -FINAL boss should have a specific drop. -Command token cost to use unassembled tokens should increase to meet the increased supply of token drops. Let the group decide to dicipline players who leave before the op is complete. This shouldn't be regulated by the design team. There needs to be enough drops in the op that everyone can get something for their time. Otherwise, you're inviting more trouble than you're offering help.

This isn't true. While you're right in that it doesn't change old stories, it does effect the future stories to come. So, if there is some canon change you are really displeased with, then it stands to reason that you're not going to like any new stories that rely on that change. For me, personally, I'd say this about the change to kyber crystals in how they now are colorless, but instead emit colored light based off the wielder's force alignment. It undermines the entire concept and mystery of the Force and the struggle between Force users. Previously, the "struggle between light and dark" was merely a position of moral compass and really didn't have anything to do with the Force itself simply because the Force was the Force, it didn't pick sides. It was the user's decision to use it in what ways they believed in. But, now, the Force DOES pick sides... and I find that to be incredibly stupid.

I agree, it's a terrible idea. Everyone put effort into the ops, so there should be at least some type of reward for everyone there. It doesn't have to be an unassembled piece and it doesn't have to be designed to be given to each person... but there needs to be just enough drops that the group can decide how to distribute it. Seriously, why should we bother doing ops if only 1/4th of the group is guaranteed to get something? It's actually causing problems in my guild because people are getting annoyed that they've run many operations over the past few weeks and haven't gotten a single drop, whereas other players have gotten more than one.

I find Disney's policies regarding the Star Wars canon to be quite funny, actually. Because, for all the great things Lucas created, fans always disliked one very specific thing about what he did with his films and that was to continuously change them and the lore attached to them. When Disney gained control over Star Wars, they promised to do right by the fans and give them what they wanted. So, what did they do? Proceed to change practically every single thing in the Star Wars lore. Easily 50x more so than Lucas could have ever done on his own. :\

I liked the walker missions. Only thing that I didn't like was the inability to strafe.

100% Agree. I love that they are much easier to see and read and are less busy. But the enemy markers need to seriously change color.

But that doesn't really imply that you aren't over leveled. You can still take on foes that are a couple levels higher than you. That's what the challenge is. Taking on an enemy the same level or lower is what people think is too easy. As long as the enemy isn't crimson red, you should be able to defeat it.

Honestly, I wouldn't call farming CXP a "grind." The term grind references how you might grind a blade to become sharper and more efficient. When you grind things in an MMO, you are slowly making your character better through small repetitive actions. CXP farming isn't doing that. You're running around collecting CXP and earning crates. But, because the crates have no guarantee in what they contain, you can't really classify it as grinding. If, for example, they said "At command rank 50, you are guaranteed a chest piece drop!" Then I would consider it to be grinding. But, when you don't know what you are even working to get, it's not grinding, it's just gambling your time away.

For the most part while they were discussing the changes to looting prior to 5.1, I've been on board. It all sounded alright with me. And, as far as unassembled tokens are concerned, I'm happy with the system. That being said, some unforeseen side effects have surfaced within my guild (And I can imagine other groups of players as well). Simply put: Loot drops are in short supply. In a basic 8 man operation, the vast majority of players who run in that operation simply don't get anything worth while. Sure, there are void matters... but you can't use them in place of a legendary gear drop. And when it comes to schematics, there are only a small handful of good ones that once you get, you pretty much have no use for another one across any of your characters in your legacy (generally speaking). So all that really remains viable are unassembled tokens. But that's the thing. They are only guaranteed at the final boss and "maybes" on the bosses leading up to the final. Meaning, in a bad run, only two of eight people will walk away with something. So the problem is this: certain people tend to be more lucky than others when it comes to winning loot. They will win a piece on one character then, on another run, win the same piece on an alt character... all before some other person, who was present for both runs, won anything on their main character. Unlike how in 4.0, everyone practically could walk away with something. Now there is a distinct group of haves and have-nots. And it's causing my guild (that's been around since the game launched with the same core members!) to falter a little bit. People don't want to run ops any more because they think the way the loot drops is unfair. So... the reason I'm making this thread is kind of twofold. 1. I wanted to bring this to attention and petition for ops to start dropping a larger amount of items that can be split in such a way so that everyone walks away with something for their effort. It doesn't have to be an unassembled piece, but something that says "here, you didn't waste your time." Note I'm not saying "Make everyone a winner." I merely want to keep my group/guild together by not having people put potentially over an hour of game time in for virtually no benefit to them at all. (And don't give me that "CXP" BS because that stuff isn't additive.) 2. I wanted to ask other people who play in raid groups what they are currently doing regarding loot post 5.1.

Even if you drop your subscription, you should technically still have guild control so long as you don't log in until you resolve your billing. I know this because it has happened to me a couple times. The way I set up my guild ranks is that just after the GM position, I have a rank specific to my alts (GM Alt). After that I have officers and all that jazz. So, whenever my subscription happened to laps, the GM title always transferred to one of my alts when I tried to log into my GM character. If I tried to log into the alt who was transferred leadership, it would then hop to another one of my alts. I could keep doing this until I exhausted all of my alts, then it would transfer to the next highest ranking player who last logged in.

I made a suggestion a while back that incorporated this along with much more: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=901437

No, it isn't. In fact, it's completely irrelevant because regardless of if they implement group finder invites, the problem you exemplified will continue to exist. So choosing not to add an extremely functional feature on the off chance that someone's gonna be a dick is a very poor decision. Especially since people can already be a dick! In fact, going by your logic, they should just remove all player grouping and chat functions from the game because someone somewhere is going to have a bad time. Yes, I've had this work for me too. But it's hit or miss. If you miss, you end up with ambiguous "no you can't queue" messages or lockouts or, otherwise, are sitting there for an hour trying to figure out a way to get your buddy into your group.

That really shouldn't even be considered as a reason not to implement this. First and foremost, that's a problem regarding an individual player and not the system itself. You can't simply neglect having a feature because some bad egg can maybe be a jerk about it. Secondly, this is already possible to do. If the group leader is gonna be a jerk about it, they are going to be a jerk about it. I've been in flashpoint and ops groups where your exact example came into play. The majority of the time the leader uses a "wait and see" approach to see if the PUG warrants a kick. But, generally, no one ever goes as far as to blatantly kick the person from the group. Not to say it doesn't happen, but its fairly rare. Regardless, I've spent more time in group finder trying to find ways to replace people than I have actually doing missions. And, judging by some other threads I've read on these forums, other people have had the same experiences. So a feature that would make this problem basically nonexistent far outweighs the potential issue of hurting some poor sap's feelings. OR Alternatively, they simple implement an invitation lockout after you kick someone. Not long, like 3 minutes or something. Just enough to be a deterrent.

Because the currency would supersede it. Earning a set amount of ranks would earn you the ability to get the piece you want. It creates a goal to work towards as opposed to mindlessly grinding away with no real goal in mind. So, instead of opening the crates because you're interested to see if it contained anything good, you'd instead work towards increasing your rank so you could get the setbonuses you desire. Also, let me be clear, the removal of set bonus gear from crates wouldn't impact other higher end drops. For example, you could get a piece of gear with the same rating and stat allocation as a set piece... just without the bonus.

Simple fix for that would be to randomize the missions and not tell the player what mission it is until they've loaded into it.

I understand that the point of the group finder is to autonomously find players for a group. But, sometimes situations pop up where perhaps one player leaves your group and you need a replacement... but, luckily, a friend of yours logged in and is available to take the spot. The group finder, however, is massively opposed to manual invites because... reasons? If the group finder didn't match the group, it's somehow invalid? I dunno. But, anyway, the group finder needs an invitation system. And not just a means of using the already existing invite to group function. Basically, if you're in a group finder group and need a replacement, you can go about re-queuing... or you can invite someone manually through group finder. The invited would get a message saying that "Soandso has invited you to join their group finder mission." If they accept, they are automatically given the group finder mission and can shuttle right to the group in progress. Seriously, this would save people from so many headaches.