This....it's bad enough we have new players on the forums whining all the time about game difficulties...the last thing we need is veterans whining also.

Most vulnerable to other bombers. One gunship isn't bad, but if there are two that position themselves properly, that is also annoying. As long as you destroy their mines, and always take out a repair drone when they drop, they'll die eventually. Maybe. If you're lucky. I mean, they're bound to accidentally fly into a satellite fin at some point, right?

Satellites moving in an orbit? What kind of crazy ideas go on inside your head?! That would be neat

I like your map ideas Nemarus, especially the dynamic asteroids idea. It would be more cool if the asteroids or other objects moved. More than anything though (besides cross-server queues), I want more game types. Assault: Game consists of two rounds. One team starts off as offense, the other defense. The offense has 7-8 mins in order to successfully assault a built up base (with plenty of defense turrets, missile drones, etc). The end objective could be something cool like destroying a component inside a large capital ship or space station, causing it to explode. After time expires, switch sides. Fastest time or most success wins. King of the Hill: This is similar to existing domination, except that the objective points will randomly move, and there won't be defensive turrets. Do you get to the objective points quickly with a scout to maximize your time there? Do you get there slowly with a bomber to hope to hold it longer? Do you say screw objectives, "prepare to be sniped!"? Last man standing: Game consists of rounds that do not end unless everybody on a team dies. Players cannot respawn if they die, until the next round. Play until a team wins 3/4 rounds. In order to prevent hiding/overly defensive play, there could be items (similar to powerups) that if attained by the team currently losing, boosts their damage significantly and/or allows a teammate to spawn. The losing team could also attain passive buffs that increase based on their score (such as damaged taken minimized by 10% or so for every additional player the other team has active) It would also be neat to have a capture the flag type event. Could have 'flags' at each 'base' or have a neutral flag in the middle.

In my experience, the 'scope' abilities on the gunship are the glitchiest of any ship. I also have problems with randomly losing charge, or other issues such as the gun not always charging up with I click my mouse. I often consider it just some odd lag issue, but again I never have these types of issues with other ships, so who knows.

Define matchmaking 'working'. All you can say for sure is that you've had lucky experiences lately. Now, let me tell you how I know that matchmaking is 'not working'. There are several occasions where I've been matched up in same-faction games (Imp vs Imp, Pub vs Pub). In these situations, even when nobody on either team is in a group, there have been several situations where one team is totally stacked, and one team is not. It makes sense to have uneven matches in Imp vs Pub matches, the game just selects whoever is available most of the time. In same-faction matches, there is no excuse to have lopsided teams (if nobody is in a group). Based on my experiences, it is incredibly clear that there is no algorithm that matches up teams fairly based on some criteria such as time played, total requisition earned, total ships, anything (all of these are tracked for each player, btw).

Your scoreboard change preferences would only offer some benefits in Deathmatches. Most games are Domination (60%) -- having DPS and Solo Kills listed first really doesn't lend itself to showing who the best domination player was. Admittedly, medals and objective points don't really mean a lot either. I do like a lot of your ideas though, some comments: -Other posts have argued over Total Damage or DPS...without going into too much detail, I prefer total damage shown as opposed to DPS -Solo Kills is a bad stat to track -- it's best as it is now as a mouse-over. We should encourage people to work together (the wingman concept), not encourage people to fly off and do their own thing. -I like the Kills+Assists concept. Total kills is misleading, and can encourage people to only work on getting the final 'kill shot'. Total assists is also misleading, and can encourage people to just tap multiple targets. Combined would be best. This wouldn't have to also change the existing starfighter records categories that each player has. -I really like the idea of showing total repairs on the scoreboard. Those folks don't get enough credit. One other thing I would change is how objective scoring works. In domination, you basically get no credit for flying around a satellite unless you already own it, or successfully assault it. If you spend 2 minutes unsuccessfully assaulting a satellite, you should get some props for it.

Honestly...this game totally sucks outside of GSF. End game content such as raid/ground-pvp is just superior in other games in every way. The only fun thing for a lot of people is leveling alts...and why not level alts on one server while playing GSF with lots more people? The idea of an 'unofficial' GSF server will never work. But - if the devs made an official GSF server, I would only ever play there.

You all make it sound like this thread has a point. It does not.

I don't get it. Ducks on Easter? I mean, I guess ducks lay eggs like rabbits do...

According to Star Wars canon, 'aces' were top fighter pilots that were often invited to prestigious squadrons such as Rogue Squadron. These top pilots were able to accomplish extraordinary feats, such as destroying significantly larger and more powerful targets like Death Stars or Super Star Destroyers. To date, I have not seen any player on GSF come close to destroying a capital ship. I propose that none of us are aces. Instead of Aces, I recommend describing players in terms of their Zombie prowess. The more that a player dies and has to come back from the dead, the worse they are. A player with 33 kills and 4 deaths < player with 9 kills and 0 deaths in a TDM. Which is not to say that Zombies aren't powerful in this game, they're able to come back to life in seconds, as opposed to Jesus taking 3 days. Oh hey, happy Easter!

Can I name a MMO minigame that has done well? The biggest one that comes to mind is pet-battles in WoW. I know what you're thinking, and I laughed at first too...but damn that system is addictive. I choose you Mr. Bigglesworth! It's fairly popular and there are many websites dedicated just to pet battles. Runescape also has a plethora of minigames that have a very large following -- the largest of which is probably Castle Wars. There are plenty of minigames out there in MMOs. I like GSF and all, but it's never going to become very popular without the existence of cross server queues.

Have them all read this: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=729222 The video is in there also.

I haven't made myself dizzy before...and maybe this is embarrassing but... On more than one occasion, I've moved my body from side to side involuntarily. This typically happens when I'm boosting near an asteroid and something pops up that I wasn't expecting. I jerk/roll one way and my body jerks with me...you know, because somehow that will make me maneuver faster I feel really dumb after it happens, then I nervously check to see if my girlfriend noticed my twitch... Sometimes you just get into it!

Challenge accepted!!!

Really, the flashfire name is just silly, when it is quite clearly an A-Wing. I guess Bioware couldn't buy the rights to use the A-Wing name...since Disney owns it now and they're stingy... In any event, I don't like the flashfire name. I also like signing petitions (look at me, I'm making a difference!) You have my signature OP.

We do often compare GSF to First Person Shooters. In an FPS, a sniper aiming reticle is very small, which makes it difficult to get 'headshots'. A shotgun on the other hand has a reticle that is huge, you basically cannot miss in close quarters. Maybe GSF should consider that? It would be worth testing at any rate...though admittedly it would make scouts more powerful than they already are.

OP -- I'm right there with you. One of the reasons that I absolutely despise dogfighting in GSF is because shooting targets at close range is just so counter-intuitive, silly, and frustrating. This is why I prefer attacking targets 6-10K out with HLCs on my strike fighter, and why I don't really enjoy playing the scout very much. Also why I tend to ignore targets that are chasing me....just avoid them and try to attack somebody else. Don't want to get drawn into a close-quarters silliness brawl where we fly in circles and try to hit our small target window. 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. Yes that's right, in close quarter combat I get more hits with my lasers when my targeting reticle is not 'red' -- which in theory shouldn't be possible. For this reason, when I'm very close to an enemy target, I tend to just ignore the targeting reticles altogether. I just look at where my lasers are going, and adjust my aim to make them match up with where the enemy ship is. I'm curious if anybody else has experienced this? I don't think it's lag...believe it's a targeting glitch (whereby the lead targeting reticle just isn't accurate) that gets amplified when you're in close quarters, but when farther away it's minimalized. If it was lag, I would have to aim 'ahead' of the targeting reticle to get a hit, but I typically have to aim behind it.

Just because the bomber may be designed to hold nodes, doesn't mean it should have the discrepancies being discussed in this post. Bombers with concussion/seismic mines can hold satellites fine -- so why should somebody be able to choose interdiction/seismic instead for a significantly better advantage? What you said Verain, is like saying "The Gunship was made to shoot targets at long distance, stop whining about it being overpowered." Well, yes, I agree -- but that didn't change the fact that one of its components was overpowered and has since been adjusted (and rightfully so). Just like the Ion railgun, Seismic currently goes too far and needs toned down a bit.

OP: If it makes you feel any better, being on the winning side of a blowout is not any fun either for most players. Unless you want to go write on the Starfighter Records post about how you got 35+ Kills/Assists from beating up on some newb team (still don't know why people brag about this). The game imo is only fun when there are competitive matches. Sometimes this is most often accomplished via Pugging, sometimes via joining a small group. I recommend trying to find a good time to play when one faction isn't steamrolling with a premade, and try and have fun with it. On a side note -- you can make impossibly one-sided matches more fun by making small goals for yourself. For example, try and hold one satellite in domination...try and see how long you can avoid dying in a deathmatch...etc Cheers

Beat her on my Sith Jugg tank with Quinn healing after a few tries. Some comments: -Always run away from her if she's doing the spinning kick attack (unless you have saber reflect up) -Saber reflect only after she heals to get most benefit -Have companion stand moderately far away to avoid damage/death and having to heal himself too much Following these rules, I beat her without ever dropping below 80% hp and didn't use heroic moment.

I don't feel very strongly about that -- but I would feel strongly about splitting up the default of who spawns from where. For instance, the new Domination is large and has two spawn points....and it's kind of silly when everybody comes in at the exact same spawn location. At one point, the Devs mentioned making the spawn points random for new players that didn't know they could 'change' the location so they didn't keep coming back at the same area that is being 'camped'. Not sure if they are going to implement or not. But it would be nice.

I haven't seen this at all on The Bastion. What I have noticed overall is a general decline in the amount of PVPers during x2 weekends, which makes the queues longer. I can't imagine this becoming a huge problem...there is a 60% chance that players get a domination game instead of deathmatch. And even if they do get a deathmatch, losing the game 'faster' still does not compete with many of the faster ways to get xp in the game.

Is this right? I've never seen it listed as a +10% before. I've never seen specific power management details listed on any GSF guide before....every guide out there just seems to say 'if you want weapons, put power to weapons...if you want to travel a lot, put power to engines...' I've been waiting for a post like this to ask several questions I have with power management, or if somebody can point me to a link that describes this, please do so! -Is the 10% weapon damage accurate if power is applied to weapons? If using a bomber, does this boost the damage of mines and/or drones? Does this apply to railguns and missiles? ---Random side question: Does damage overcharge affect damage from mines/drones/etc? -When you put power to shields, along with faster shield regeneration, how much does your shield power increase? If in a bomber, does this affect shielding on your drones, etc? -When you put power to engines, along with making you regain engine power faster, does it make you fly faster? If so, how much? Does this speed increase apply to only boosting or normal flying also? -When you get a powerup (other than the Damage overcharge), does it completely max out one of your three power pool options? If you get the weapon powerup, and you put power to weapons, is that considered a complete waste or is there any additive bonus with 'stacking' them together? I always switch power to weapons if I get the engine powerup, or vice versa, because I assume they don't stack together (but I've never been sure).