I want to make sure to say yet again that I appreciate your talking to us more, Keith. Lack of talk from the dev crew has always been a big issue here at SWTOR, and I noticed it all the more after coming over from City of Heroes. Sure, some people will be grumpy about what you are saying, but a dialogue really does help an MMO community, I have found. Otherwise all feelings are left to simmer, undirected. I'm checking in on behalf of the GSF community, hoping we'll see more follow up on the feedback threads that were started there. It was great to get those, and I really hope they bear fruit. I left the game for a long while just after the dev team asked for ideas about what to do with Strikes, and when I came back about 9 months later, I was more than a little saddened to hear nothing happened with all that feedback and it's even worse that nothing has happened since that time, years ago! Definitely think through your changes well, but please do keep paying attention to this along with everything else on the road map.

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*

It's to the point where I rarely participate in a joust. If the other player wants to do it, something is probably in their favor, so unless I'm feeling really confident and the game is not being laggy and my aim is where it needs to be, I'm going to deny them their chance. Knowing when to engage and when not to makes a big difference as well.

Doing this is essentially flipping the bird to players that love flying bombers and/or only fly them. I personally prefer flying everything BUT bombers, but everyone has their cup of tea and I have flown with plenty on Shadowlands that only like to play bombers. While I can appreciate how bombers changed GSF, they've been around for years and they're not going to get rid of them or alienate people that do like them: that's just bad design. A stronger way to approach it is to improve anti-bomber components and weapons. Currently, the best thing to deal with a bomber is a gunship with ion railgun. Scouts can do a good job one on one before it's set up, but the tools they're supposed to use against a bomber's stuff don't work well (EMP, etc.), and yeah... strikes are even worse off. I'd personally love to see satellites rotate to make lazy bomber pilots move (nothing worse than a "tick bomber," to my mind), but I think giving better tools so bomber pilots need to be proactive more is the way to go. Better components would also help against the lazies in shipyards and Kuat that find some trench to hide in and do nothing but fart mines, too. Another thing about overall feedback, if they did make ship hangers legacy based, they really need to give better things we can spend our backlog of requisition on. I kind of wonder if that's what they're thinking since they've asked about vendors, too, but it really will help. Galactic command is nice and all, but it's subscription based, so if you take that and req away, you are drawing away potential pilots, too. Any vendors put in can have increased costs to encourage subs, too.

Well said, Ramalina, I completely agree. Pretty much everything I've been trying to say.

I don't really see weakening armor as much of an option, particularly since you're still going to have turrets, and why weaken armor options when you can just focus on giving each of the lasers a clear cut job to do? Meh, forget it. I don't care if or how they tweak damage reduction armor, etc., or the various lasers. I just want them to take some good time and thought and give each component a place, and the same with each ship type. It's doable. Remember how poor of a choice alacrity used to be in the ground game, or how crit and surge used to be separate? Just do the same with GSF so we can stop having the noticeable disparities currently in place.

So for paragraph 1, it's not a fallacy. You're arguing for flight sim elements being added to GSF, when it's not trying to be that kind of game (just like Rogue Squadron with the N64 or other consoles was flying around, but hardly a flight sim). That's an equivalent analogy to asking an MMO like Old Republic to go to an RTS, so it was a fair point to make. It's also more than fair to argue against some of your other points, like in the second paragraph I left in, which are asking for a fundamental recreation of what we have (you're making suggestions about movement and aiming, all of which are fundamental to how GSF works right now). First off, even if they had all the development time to create a brand new game matching your specifications, you're than alienating anyone who appreciates and likes the current game, which, despite your suggestions in your post, isn't insignificant. A lot of the people posting and that I've talked to in my guild, etc., don't hate how GSF plays, necessarily, they just don't like the skill differences, matchmaking, etc. We don't need to get into a numbers argument about how many play it or like it, either, it's just solid design sense. If you have a game system that people are playing, years of game and development show that you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater And yeah, two. The dev team doesn't want to create a whole new game (look at all the other things in the road map they want to work on, and how long they've let GSF languish). They're asking for friction points for how GSF operates now, so they can tweak it, just like when they talk to players about their current classes. In that scenario, players asking for the ground version of SWTOR to be turned into an FPS only would be similarly met with comments to get on track with what was asked for. I'm not trying to be snippy with that last part, either. Just given how GSF works, what things would be a friction point to be improved and tweaked? Something about matchmaking, the maps, the GUI layout, the stats ships have to play with (like how well Strikes use boost versus scouts), how components work, etc., are all wide open to discussion, as then you're actually giving feedback they asked for. Unless you do that, you're just asking for an apple to be an orange. Simple as that.

I wasn't saying quads and pods wasn't good, I know what they can do. But you have to admit they're weaker than BLCs. BLCs does everything they do in one package and can be used in a rapid turning fight. And if you have a component that does everything well, no matter how you buff the others, they're still going to be a weaker choice in comparison, unless you make them all equally stupid good, by which time you might as well not even have ones to choose from. Weakening BLCs strength against armor is the most obvious choice, since scouts have other options in that category, and it makes that choice more valid. Bringing up the other lasers to be a viable option in other areas is then more valid as well. You have other ideas you've thrown out about the other lasers, but how would any of those buffs be a valid option against BLCs? Making any of them better against shields isn't going to stop BLCs walking all over that ability still, and being good against armor, and being better in a dogfight/turning battle, etc. Unless you start arguing for those other lasers to do everything BLCs can, any development time put in is pointless. Nerfs are never popular, but when you have something with absolute zero weaknesses blowing away the competition, a good developer should acknowledge the issue. I'm arguing for a pretty minor change, too, not some mammoth nerf. If there's some other minor tweak that would help make other lasers a viable option even after some buffs, I'd be cool talking about it.

The problem is BLC is so good, it becomes almost silly to make any other choice. I far prefer Quads with pods or clusters, as that just fits my play style a lot better. I just don't like the shotgun style and feel of bursts. But even so, BLCs are so good they're better than the quads and pods combo for bombers and gunships. You don't even need to bother with a secondary, just maneuver in, pop a CD or two and lay on that primary key. So why shouldn't something that is really good across the board not have some downward tweaks? How can other types of lasers compete when BLC does everything they could do already? It's best for dogfighting and hard targets and also deals with any accuracy issues the game throws your way (as long as you can aim, of course). It's got to have some weakness if anything else is going to get a place. I've said elsewhere that removing the armor penetration (and even swapping out for increased damage to armor for that tier) would make quads and pods have a clear role, and allow other lasers to get a tweak and have a role as well. Should it be done with other tweaks to the game to help define roles? Sure. Strikes need some more capability in taking out bombers, etc. They definitely have missiles that are supposed to be worrisome like a gunship with ion aoe taking out bomber gear. But it's never good design to have multiple choices for a weapon and make one best at everything you need a weapon to do. You might as well remove the rest, then.

Well said. The equivalent of some of this stuff is asking Battlefront to become a flight simulator or something, because you can fly stuff there, too. Asking a game to be something completely different than it is makes no sense whatsoever. Now if someone wants to work with what we have, like just add joystick support over and above the keyboard and mouse setup (which I don't see as being impossible), or work with the components we have to tweak the game that's here, then that's fine and dandy.

I've tried getting some pub pilots to go impside with me when things are lopsided, but people are really reluctant, unfortunately. Or they say something like all their characters over there already finished their missions, which is weird to me, too. If you're a regular GSFer, missions are just a little CXP gravy... you'd think you'd rather more pops and even matches.

Yeah, I'm not against vendors, and I like your ideas there (yeesh, giving us decorations to match up with ships would be a real boon, though I guess they'd have to be different from the current ones from packs and other rewards). But yeah, adding in more companions unlocked from using them as your crew, etc., are some other really great ideas. Mostly wanted to note this as a great idea and hope it gets noticed and acted on.

I thought so, from how you posted. I mostly added that in there as some posting in thread and in the past are like "I wanted a SIM" or something hardcore along those lines, which is clearly what GSF is not intended to be, and frankly would not be a very big draw. Games like Battlefield, Rogue Squadron, etc., show that a lot more people like a more arcadey approach. And yeah, I don't see why joysticks or controllers can't work with GSF. I personally prefer mouse since I played a lot of FPS on the PC, not consoles (I don't know why people prefer controllers, they're so imprecise for aiming). But I get that people want it. Oh, and that's not to say people shouldn't like flight sims or something like TIE fighter, just realize that they're not a big draw for a lot of people.

I feel like bursts never should have been given to scouts, as they're the ones with the speed and maneuverability to get ridiculously close fast and leverage its insane stats at that range. Everything about the combination of the two exacerbates their strengths. But I guess we're here, and removing them entirely from scouts would really change things, probably too much (and create ill will). At the very least I think the armor pen should be removed. Rockets are then the scouts go to for anti-armor or burst on a gunship then. They have clusters for dogfighting. And I dunno, the other missiles would still need a look at (I get a kick out of Sab Prob, but it's bugged STILL and deserves a look at with other missiles). And then there are actual choices people need to make with their builds and even scout type choices, rather than just throw a Type 2 scout at it, because it's able to do everything well. I guess my big contribution to the whole thread would be that EACH ship needs to have a role in the current meta, and missiles and laser types are a part of that meta. Think about how you want each part to fit into the meta, or else you're just going to make things lopsided in some other way. Strikes are the main ship that needs a role or area to shine, so focus on the components and base stats (speed, maneuver, boost usage, etc.) to help it compete.

I wouldn't mind seeing joysticks enabled. I'm really not sure why they aren't, as it's basically the equivalent of how Battlefield works when you hop in a plane or helicopter. GSF really is basically an FPS, but with that vehicle element added to it. But just realize if they did add it, you'd still be playing a "chase the crosshair" game, as everything in GSF is structured around that crosshair: the whole thing is structured around it, and they're not going to rework for something that foundational. It's an arcadey space combat game, not a flight sim. Not sure if that's what you're longing for, but some of the "needs joystick support" crowd still seem to long for a flight sim or something like the old TIE Fighter game, which is not what GSF is at all.

Well, for one thing, if you're going to have mods, they should make some kind of difference, otherwise there's no point in having them. And the ones that make a real difference (that I miss when I'm on a young alt without much req) are disto field's missile break, the CD's on missile breaks (and reduced costs), Slug rail's armor ignore, and ion rail's aoe effect (which you really need to help with a bomber). Everything else is just gravy, and all those things I noted are not top tier and much, much cheaper to get than they used to be. A possible change would be to have players choose from secondary effects (disto field missile break, ion's aoe) at base and just up different stats with the other tiers, but even that skirts close "we might as well just remove all upgrades," which isn't a good option either. It'd be much better to spend this time on making the different gear choices mean something. Gear isn't the issue in GSF, skill level is, and they just don't have a meaningful way to separate us by skill: req levels are meaningless in that metric, it just means time invested. And unless they do cross-server queues, breaking up those queueing in anyway is detrimental, as then we'll never see pops (not like they happen very fast these days anyway). A more robust tutorial that grouped players could join would make a big difference there, but even then, there's nothing like a real match for you to realize how much skill you need. Just like with any FPS, there are people uncanny good at sniping, people that are good, and people that really shouldn't that still keep doing it. You'll see it in Team Fortress or Battlefield, or any game. And GSF really is an FPS in many ways: you have to be able to move and shoot well, making use of your abilities.

That's kind of a solution to the current setup, but the problem I have with it is the FP wasn't designed this way. I've been playing that fp from the start and have never had such an issue with his damage outside of his visor (which is clearly how the fight is intended). You're supposed to LOS when his visor is going, but you're supposed to be able to face him outside of it. Boss damage comes in the form of "you had better interrupt, move, or LOS if you're going to live," or in the form of "you should be able to take this if you are geared appropriately, use your defenses CDs, and use the heal terminals." Wrist lasers used to be the latter, but now it's the former, and he uses it so often the best advice is to LOS the whole fight, which is just silly. Something clearly is overtuned and not intended.

Yeah, I have a TK Sage and don't really feel like he's in a bad spot (nor is he as squishy as my Pyro). But I also know I go more with how things go when I solo and do FPs and PVP, which isn't really strong data to go on, so I get where the frustration comes from there. Still, it's pretty clear my Pyro has to be very careful with aggro. I can still be fairly tanky with my Guardian as DPS, but I'm trying to shed aggro on my Pyro all the time.

Really hoping you buff DPS Vanguards/PTs for survivability, as they are squishy. People talk about Guards and Juggs having issues, but my PT has far more issues when I play him. I've heard others say Pyro could use a damage boost as well, though I don't remember the numbers well enough there. I can't add much there other than to say that my PT definitely seems to cut through things faster with AP rather than Pyro, which is disappointing (I ran with him for the flames, 100%). There are good threads on this in the class forums, though.

Yeah, I'm doubting a new zone or something for Starfighter with the language used, but more tweaks beyond those specifically mentioned are not so intensive they should be out of their sight (and I know I expect more from "changes" than what we have noted). I know supposedly more people needed to play to merit more dev time, but I think the larger amount of players we have seen due to Conquest, etc., show that Starfighter will get more players with smart changes. And I still don't see why a Denon deathmatch (whatever the space battle one is) would be out of the realm of dev possibility, as there had to have been some thought and time put in years ago when the map was first made, and the zone is already made. Going for low-hanging fruit like that would certainly qualify as a smart move and make for much more variety in the GSF queue. I forgot to say it earlier as well, but I'd really like to thank Keith for working on this. I came here from City of Heroes, and City of Heroes was really known for its community and communication from the dev team. It really makes for loyal players to do things like this, so please, keep it up.

I'm really hoping that the Galactic Starfighter changes are more than those planned for 5.2.2 (not that those are not appreciated!). It seems so from the language, but that might just be me hoping too much. I hope not, though! Starfighter is a great part of SWTOR and it has been incredibly sad how neglected it has been. I know there are only so many resources to go around, but players will enjoy it more the more you put into it. The CXP system, etc., has been a great help, and the noted improvements to req and starter ships this summer will be another great boost, but I know that some balancing and additional gameplay tweaks will really bring the players in, from all the comments that have been made over the years with the current state of Starfighter. It will also make a really great game system even better.

Yikes, no. Go out and do some comparisons before saying this. Many give you their version of cartel coins with a sub, and have a rewards program of sorts for being subscribed for x amount of time (e.g., you get something every three months of subscription). And many are not nearly so punitive if you're not subscribed. I still miss City of Heroes with all of this. They gave you the above if you were a subscriber (and incentivized in other ways), which made me want to keep subbing, even though their version of preferred wasn't nearly as restricted.

Hopefully that's still possible. I've played other MMOs where level synch worked better and was more challenging (though still easier than when you were low level). City of Heroes did this awesomely. So there's good potential to the idea. But these gearing changes are really odd and work against recent improvements (e.g., PVP comms and PVP gear costs). I can't say the same there.

What game do you think you're playing? I never understand this elitism in MMOs these days. I sub frequently, but I also have to go to Preferred frequently, due to various financial reasons (or if I'm going to be too busy to make it worth the sub at the time). I keep playing as Preferred status when I can, though, as my characters can progress, even with the limits the game puts on them (with increased costs, credit caps, etc). In doing so, I'm buying and selling on the GTN, contributing to groups in PVE and PVP, etc. I and anyone else doing this is contributing to the game, period. To think otherwise is to be blind to how Free to Play games work. With 5.0, it's only worth playing if you're a subscriber, from what we've heard. Should subscribers have a leg up in the new system? They should, and the game until now has been set up that way. But the game now doesn't exclude so strongly. And seriously, stop talking like Preferred players can't be healthy members of the population. If it weren't for my times playing preferred, I wouldn't come back and I still contributed to those playing the game (otherwise I might have moved on to other games). And when I'm subscribed, I benefit from a population that includes Preferred players. The reason the F2P model still exists is because despite some of its shortcomings, it does allow MMOs to keep going.

Feel free to report your experiences, I'd love to hear it. I just don't have time to move around builds much for PVP, with how freaking expensive gear is. It seems like the high endurance rating would cancel out any DPS gains you'd make, but I haven't bothered to sit down and look at the math of it. And any substantive discussion of this would be much appreciated against the recent trollbait postings we've seen on the subject.