TRFWesVos
-
Posts
33 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Posts posted by TRFWesVos
-
-
Hey folks,
This week, we are creating three separate forum threads for GSF discussion. You can head to this thread to get links to each of them.
For this thread let's focus on ship balance and how you feel about it. Let us know your thoughts below, here are a few questions to get you started:
- Are there any ships you feel are over or under powered? Which ship(s) and why?
- Are there any ship components that you feel are over or under powered? Which components and why?
- Are there any crew members that you feel are over or under powered? Which crew members and why?
Note that this discussion is not about the addition of new ships, components, or crew members. Just about the balance of existing ones.
Let us know your thoughts!
-eric
I agree with those who have said that no ship is truly overpowered. If you start nerfing ships, it could have very unpredictable results. Instead, I would suggest buffing strikes (particularly the T2 strike) and buffing certain components.
In particular, missiles (except clusters) need a huge buff. Others can give specifics, but right now missiles are far too easy to evade and too hard to land a lock with. They're basically useless
- Are there any ships you feel are over or under powered? Which ship(s) and why?
-
Hey folks,
This week, we are creating three separate forum threads for GSF discussion. You can head to this thread to get links to each of them.
In this thread, let's focus on itemization. For a long time we have made it a point to keep Galactic Starfighter as a separate progression from the rest of SWTOR. Command XP has helped a great deal by giving GSF players a method of progressing their characters while playing Starfighter, beyond the XP you already receive.
One thing we are considering is adding more ways for GSF players to enhance their "ground game" characters. This would most likely be through a vendor where you could purchase items. What do you think of this idea? What types of things would you want to see on the vendor?
Be as specific as possible! Let us know your thoughts.
-eric
1) Definitely need the ability to display our mastered ships in our strongholds. If we master a ship, we should get it unlocked as a decoration. Maybe even add a room onto strongholds that is designed as a hangar bay? Also, the ability to display mastered ships on a guildship would be excellent, too. There are already hangar bays on the guild ships; letting GSF guilds display their ships there would be a huge perk.
2) Various flight suits available for purchase would be great for those of us who play GSF and RP. I know that some of us get the generic suits as a subscriber reward, but some variation would be nice.
3) Before the change to requisition, I would have said add legacy requisition tokens, but I'm not sure they're needed now. Still, they might be nice to have for those of us who have multiple toons and don't like starting from scratch.
4) Ship customization. Paint jobs, laser colors, etc., should be available to be purchased for those who have mastered ships. These should be custom and different from what's on the CM, so as not to cut into the revenue stream. Included in this, I'd like some way to display kills on the paint job of each ship. So if I get, say, 100 kills with a scout, I should be able to paint that on the nose of my scout.
5) Related to that, GSF achievement decorations for strongholds would be great. Just something small, but it would go a long way to decorating a pilot room.
-
Starfighter Improvements – Increased Requisition gains, Gunship and Bomber available by default, some new ship customization options
The bolded parts got me to resub. Seriously, the best part of this game is GSF, and it's finally getting some love. I don't PvP (other than GSF), I don't raid, and the Eternal Empire story bored me. So Devs, thank you thank you thank you for finally updating GSF, even in little ways.
Now, if we could just add some bug fixes and a faction-wide hangar, things would be golden!
EDIT: As a note, I'm also (along with others) hoping very strongly for a return to class stories. I don't care if they are coupled with flashpoints (though not operations, please, for those of us who don't have time to do long group content - I usually only have less than an hour at a time to play), but please give us class stories again.
-
I'm having the same issue on my end. Launcher comes up, I try to log in, and I get the spinning circle.
Any sort of update on this would be appreciated.
-
Not the place, but I can answer it anyway. You'll need to turn your graphics settings down. Mine was doing the same thing on Chapter 2, and a few subsequent chapters, but lowering my graphics settings did the trick.
-
Hey, I put this in the suggestion box, but I want to know what the rest of the community thinks of it:
Bioware has been forcing me to PvP if I want to pick up Pierce or M1-4X. I don't like PvP. However, being in matches has given me an idea, which was well received by the GSF community on TEH, at least. The idea is this: create a PvP game type that combines elements of ground PvP and GSF. One possibility would be a large map with several ground-to-air turrets. Ground PvPers would have the responsibility of taking and holding the turrets, while GSFers would have to fly cover and attempt to destroy enemy turrets (and enemy players) from the air. Turrets would run on a similar AI to current GSF domination matches, so they'll be shooting at the fighters trying to take them out. There are also other possibilities - a ship assault, for example, where ground PvPers are the assault team, taking and holding hard points, while GSFers fly cover and attempt to take out enemy hard points.ADVANTAGES:
1) Creates some more interest in GSF.
2) Gives Strike Fighters a role in space combat, as they would be the primary turret destroyers.
3) Creates a very Star Wars style atmosphere, with ground and space forces collaborating.
4) Gives PvPers a new map.
5) Gives GSFers a new map and game style.
6) Creates a bridge between the two versions of PvP in the game.
DISADVANTAGES:
1) Large map size (at least for the first suggestion). For ground PvP, this is bad, as they'll spend a lot of time running from place to place. A counter to this could be to allow speeder piloting for ground forces, or to allow some sort of transportation system from point to point. That could give GSF pilots another target/defense point.
2) Requires GSF and PvP to work together. Hopefully, this wouldn't be a disadvantage for long, but at first the two communities probably would not mesh well.
3) Takes resources. Everybody complains about Bioware pulling resources from their favorite area to expand the game in another area. Not much I can say to this, except that GSF hasn't had a bone thrown to them in a long while, and PvP could use something new as well. This would make both communities quite pleased.
So, thoughts?
-
Agreed, it would be somewhat expensive, but probably no more so than making a new GSF map and a new PvP map - everything else is already in the game. You could probably recycle most of the VO, maybe with just a few new additions. The turret models already exist - just port them off the domination maps and stick them in a building. PvP has a ship-based game and at least two turret-based ground games, so those are there. They could probably port a good chunk of the ground maps in from places like Alderaan, Tatooine, Hoth, Voss, and Corellia.
Of course, I guess getting everything to be three-dimensional might take some work. But I'd say it's worth it for the sheer pleasure of playing such a game.
True, gunships probably would be better turret killers. But strikes would be in a bit of a better spot than they are now. There'd at least be something for them to do, since you couldn't really mine the ground turrets. Bombers wouldn't have much of a place in the game, except to set up gunship nests.
-
Bioware has been forcing me to PvP if I want to pick up Pierce or M1-4X. I don't like PvP. However, being in matches has given me an idea, which was well received by the GSF community on TEH, at least. The idea is this: create a PvP game type that combines elements of ground PvP and GSF. One possibility would be a large map with several ground-to-air turrets. Ground PvPers would have the responsibility of taking and holding the turrets, while GSFers would have to fly cover and attempt to destroy enemy turrets (and enemy players) from the air. Turrets would run on a similar AI to current GSF domination matches, so they'll be shooting at the fighters trying to take them out. There are also other possibilities - a ship assault, for example, where ground PvPers are the assault team, taking and holding hard points, while GSFers fly cover and attempt to take out enemy hard points.
ADVANTAGES:
1) Creates some more interest in GSF.
2) Gives Strike Fighters a role in space combat, as they would be the primary turret destroyers.
3) Creates a very Star Wars style atmosphere, with ground and space forces collaborating.
4) Gives PvPers a new map.
5) Gives GSFers a new map and game style.
6) Creates a bridge between the two versions of PvP in the game.
DISADVANTAGES:
1) Large map size (at least for the first suggestion). For ground PvP, this is bad, as they'll spend a lot of time running from place to place. A counter to this could be to allow speeder piloting for ground forces, or to allow some sort of transportation system from point to point. That could give GSF pilots another target/defense point.
2) Requires GSF and PvP to work together. Hopefully, this wouldn't be a disadvantage for long, but at first the two communities probably would not mesh well.
3) Takes resources. Everybody complains about Bioware pulling resources from their favorite area to expand the game in another area. Not much I can say to this, except that GSF hasn't had a bone thrown to them in a long while, and PvP could use something new as well. This would make both communities quite pleased.
So, thoughts?
-
What Class are you attempting the Chapter on?
Were you in the Chapter prior to today's maintenance? If so, how far into it?
Consular (sage) 65
I had just started the chapter last night, prior to the maintenance. When I logged on today, it kicked me out of the story onto the fleet, and I had to restart the chapter.
-
Scout (Tallisibeth Enwandung-Esterhazy). A Jedi without a lot of power in the Force, and yet she manages to accomplish things at which other more experienced Jedi fail.
-
Thank you for posting, Alex! We have been waiting for dev contact for a long, long time. I hope it continues.
Unfortunately, I do not believe there is a single major reason Strike fighters suffer, nor is there a single silver bullet that will fix them. Their inefficacy in the meta is determined just as much by the specialized strengths of the other classes (along with some specific components) as it is determined by the Strike's own chassis and component choices.
I'll try to break it out as best I can. I'll use Republic fighter names for simplicity.
Strike Offensive Weaknesses
Offense.1) No surprise burst damage.
Every single Strike weapon involves sustained warning to your target. Whether it's a stream of Rapids, Quads, or Heavies, or the lock-on tone of a missile, your target always has ample time to respond before taking significant damage.
On the other hand, every other class has at least one way to deliver sudden, untelegraphed damage:
NovaDives can combine primary weapons and rocket pods (which, unlike missiles, offer no warning), along with Targeting Telemetry to create not only increased criticals, but criticals that deal increased damage.
Flashfires can do the same with Quads + Pods, or they can just use Burst Laser Cannons (which inherently do surprise burst damage). Again, using Targeting Telemetry or Blaster Overcharge further increases the surprise burst damage.
All Gunships have Slug Railguns, which by their nature deal a sudden burst of shield-piercing, armor-piercing damage, with no warning except a charge-up glow (if you're looking at the Gunship).
Quarrels have Ion Railgun, which deals a sudden burst of high shield-damage (negating the one thing the Strike is "best at") and crippling the target's mobility (which for a Strike is already in trouble). Again, it has no warning except if you happen to be looking toward the charge-up glow.
Warcarriers have their three drones, all of which strike without warning: the railgun drone fires just like a railgun, the Interdiction Drone immediately applies its crippling snare (while doing damage), and the missile drone releases a missile with no warned lock-on time. The only warning happens once the missile is already flight. Seeker Mines are the same--there is only a very narrow window in which the target can react to use its missile-break.
Minelayer mines deal their damage with no time to react. Seismic Mines bypass shields (again negating the Strike's main strength), and Interdiction Mines immediately cripple victim mobility.
All of the above weapons and combinations have the ability to very rapidly kill or cripple a target with little to no warning. Note that none of those combinations involve missiles.
The Strike, on the other hand, has no access to Rocket Pods, Railguns, Drones, nor Mines. The Stirke's secondary weapon offense is limited entirely to missiles, all of which offer significant warning to their target. Tragically, it is even deprived of the one burst damage primary weapon in the game. It has always been a mystery why the Star Guard--as the primary weapon specialist--does not have access to Burst Laser Cannons, while Flashfires, Quarrels, and Condors do.
The only way a Strike can deliver significant, lethal damage before giving a target time to react is on a Star Guard with Ion Cannons and Cluster Missiles. In that case, the Star Guard can strip the shields of a target even while locking on with a Cluster Missile. This is a strong combo, but it is very short range and severely limits the Star Guard's component choices--and it still requires landing a missile. For a class based on versatility, there should be more viable offensive options.
And the Pike and Clarion are simply hopeless when it comes to delivering surprise burst damage, as they cannot even pull off the Ion Cannon/Cluster Missile trick. All of their offensive potential relies on sustained primary weapon fire while attempting to lock on with missiles.
This leads us to the next point:
Offense.2) Missiles are Ineffectual
Missiles require the greatest set up time, are bound by both ammo and cooldown, and offer ample warning to their targets. And yet their damage and secondary effects are largely unimpressive compared to other secondary weapons. Cluster Missiles are the exception--when fully upgraded, they do solid damage, require little lock-on time, have a very short cooldown, and have enough ammo capacity so as not to be very restrictive.
But by far, the biggest reason Cluster Missiles are effective is because they can be spammed. And if you can spam a missile, then you can drain the target of both their engine maneuver missile break and Distortion Field's missile break.
That's the real problem with missiles--there are too few missiles flying around to eat up all of the missile-break's.
One potential solution to this would be to take Distortion Field's missile break away. This would likely go far in balancing the power of Flashfires, but I know there are Quarrel enthusiasts who are concerned such a nerf would hit them too hard (since their only other missile break is the 20-second cooldown Barrel Roll). Personally, I do not share this concern--I fly a Quarrel with Feedback Shield, and missiles are rarely a concern for me.
If decreasing the number of missile breaks isn't palatable, then the other option is to increase the number and rate of missiles being fired. One way is to simply reduce lock-on time. I'd suggest doing this, not for Clusters, but for every other missile. Too often, long missile locks are spoiled by lag, which sours players on them (and GSF in general). Shortening lock times across the board (except for Cluster Missiles) is a safe fix that will be good for GSF as a whole..
Another interesting question is this: should any missiles have cooldowns at all? Or is lock-on time, warning to target, and ammo limits enough of a check to missile power? I tend to think so. A Strike firing Concussion Missiles (or even the derided Ion Missile!) as fast as he can attain locks would be very threatening and a very strong counter to Evasion, which has long dominated defense. This would be my personal suggestion.
This would be a soft nerf to the Pike's very weak advantage to chain fire two missiles consecutively; however, in a world where missiles have no cooldowns, the Pike's ability to spam both long range torpedoes and short-range dogfighting missiles would be make it a force to be reckoned with.
This change would buff Strikes, but it would also buff Sledgehammers, Condors, and the misbegotten Comet-breaker. Note that even with this buff, Star Guards and Pikes would still be largely passed over in favor of Sledgehammers and Condors, because a Mine or Railgun is superior to the ability to switch between multiple lasers or missiles.
So if you decided "no cooldown on missiles" was the one fix you're going to make, then make it inherent and exclusive to the Strike chassis. Then, at least, they would have a unique capability that might let them edge out Sledgehammers and Condors. I would also recommend giving Clusters (for everyone else) a longer cooldown, to prevent Flashfires from spamming them, and to re-emphasize "spammable missiles" as a unique Strike perk.
Offense.3) Switchable weapons (that aren't Railguns) is not a great #1 system ability.
In judging the value of a "switch weapon" ability, you have to consider how it compares with other #1 abilities. In particular, ask yourself, "If I could trade this ability for a mine, drone, Targeting Telemetry, or Blaster Overcharge?" For Star Guards and Pikes, the answer is "Yes, I'd give away weapon switching for one of those system abilities." For the Clarion, it is a tougher call, as Repair Probes is a solid system ability.
There are five ships in the game that can switch between two different weapons with the #1 key:
Star Guard (two different primary weapons)
Pike (two different secondary weapons, all of which are missiles or torpedoes)
Quarrel (two different railguns)
Comet-breaker (two different secondary weapons, all of which are torpedoes or railguns)
Condor (two different secondary weapons, all of which are missiles or railguns)
I think there is general agreement that of the above list, only two are worth a #1 system ability slot:
Quarrel -- but only with Ion Railgun and Slug Railgun, which complement each other so well. Switching between Plasma and Slug is of no value, as those weapons do not synergize.
Condor - since a Slug Railgun is a great, universal long-range weapon, and Cluster Missiles are a solid short-range weapon that combine well with Burst Laser Cannons
The Star Guard's ability to switch between primary weapons would be more valuable if it had a better set of primary weapons to switch between. Heavy Laser Cannons and Quad Cannons are great long-range weapons, but what's missing is a strong short-range weapon--namely Burst Laser Cannons, but even Light Laser Cannons. Unfortunately, Rapid Laser Cannons are just altogether underpowered and nigh-useless.
Unfortunately, due to the aforementioned weakness of missiles, the Pike has even further to go. The first step would be giving it access to the solid Interdiction Missile and Rocket Pods (!!! -- yes, Rocket Pods on a Strike--they would give the Pike stronger jousting skills and tons of flexibility).
As for the Clarion, the one Strike without a "switch weapon" system ability, its utility is solely defined by Repair Probes. Combat Command and Remote Slicing are largely ignored, the former because of its extreme cooldown, and the latter because of its underwhelming effects (and still long cooldown).
Strike Mobility Weaknesses
Mobility.1) Strikes are often out of engine energy.
It costs a Strike just as much engine energy to engage and sustain afterburners as it does a Bomber or Gunship. That's not only silly, but lethal given the Strike's role. Unlike a Bomber or Gunship, which--once in position, can fulfill their roles while relatively stationary--a Strike needs to boost both to get where it's going and subsequently keep boosting while fighting. In particular, it needs to keep intermittently boosting to keep enemies at optimal range (close enough to hit, but far enough to keep centered).
As it stands, Strikes have to spend all of their energy getting where they are going, with nothing left to actually fight and maneuver with.
Strike afterburner activation and sustain cost needs to be higher than Gunships and Bombers for sure--I would even say it should be equal with Scouts--especially considering that Strike base speed will still be lower.
But even this would not solve the problem, since ...
Mobility.2) Ion Railguns are ruinous to Strikes.
Strikes are uniquely disadvantaged by Ion Railgun. Lacking the Evasion afforded Scouts with Distortion Field, Strikes are easy for an Ion Railgun to hit. And when that hit comes, the Strike (which is probably already almost out of energy) is robbed of whatever engine energy it had left. It can't use Barrel Roll. It can't use afterburner. It is literally dead in space, with no chance of getting to cover, let alone presenting a threat to the Gunship which shot it.
Compare this to what happens with an Ion Railgun hitting other ships. When an Ion Railgun hits a Bomber (which is probably sitting on a full tank of gas), the Bomber shrugs and lurches behind nearby cover. When an Ion Railgun hits another Gunship, that Gunship has usually lost its duel, but has enough gas left to seek cover. Plus, it had a fair and even chance to win. When an Ion Railgun hits a Scout without Distortion Field, that Scout is usually either running Shield-to-Engine Converter or Power Dive, either of which can be used to get it to cover.
This is true of any ship with Power Dive, in fact, and so the Clarion is in a much better state against Ion Railguns than its two classic Strike siblings.
I believe the optimal solution here is to alter Ion Railgun, such that its draining effects are reduced depending on the target's available shields on the arc that was struck.
A fully charged Ion railgun does 1850 shield damage. A Strike's base shield is 1800/arc. I'd propose that, an Ion Railgun's energy drain effect should be related to how much damage it did beyond the victim's shields--this would replace its pitiful hull damage. The more damage that was leftover after the shields were brought down, the more energy drain. But if the Ion Railgun doesn't eat through the full arc of shields, then there should be no energy drain at all.
Not only would this offer extra protection to Strikes, which have inherently high shields, but it would buff all the high-capacity shields, and potentially sway the meta away from Distortion Field a smidge.
Mobility.3) Inability to dogfight at short range.
Strikes have stronger turning speed than Gunships and Bombers, but it is still significantly lesser than Scouts. Combined with the lack of Burst Laser Cannons, this dooms the Strike to lose any dogfight against a Scout--or even a Quarrel or Condor with Burst Laser Cannons.
Even a Quarrel, as slow as it turns, can clean up Strikes under a satellite quite easily, using Burst Laser Cannons. The Condor, which can get more turning speed and Cluster Missiles, can do so even better.
Ultimately, a huge problem in the game is that Rapid Laser Cannons and Light Laser Cannons are just woefully ineffective against a target that is moving quickly, or getting frequent breaks of cover--which is pretty much the name of the game under a satellite in Domination. The Strike does not have the tools (namely Burst Laser Cannons) to play that game well.
Giving Strikes Burst Laser Cannons would help here, but they are still going to lose to Scouts, who have superior turning, Evasion, and offensive cooldowns. This means that a Strike has very little chance of ousting a Scout off a node, and no chance of beating a Scout who closes on it, even in open space.
This is perhaps the hardest to solve. I suggest giving the Strike superior turning speed compared to the Scout. From a lore perspective, it makes sense that a space superiority fighter could turn faster than a speedy scouting craft. Plus the Scout would still have the speed and Evasion advantage, as well as its offensive cooldowns. But the Strike could claim definitively that it is the best "dogfighter".
Strike Defensive Weakness
Defense.1) There is but one Defense, and its name is Evasion.
The Strike chassis trades 5% Evasion away to get 5% Damage Reduction in return. It trades away access to Distortion Field to get Charged Plating. These are just simply bad trades, because Damage Reduction is largely useless. Not only does Damage Reduction not reduce damage to your shields, but it also does nothing to reduce the magnitude of harmful effects like snares. Worst of all, there are too many weapons with 100% Armor Piercing, which completely negate your component choice.
And let's not even talk about offering Charged Plating on a starter ship that doesn't have an Armor component to stack with, which is the most horrendous newbie trap in the game.
Evasion, on the other hand, has nothing but upside. It reduces damage taken to both your shields and hull. It saves you entirely from detrimental draining or snaring effects. One might think missiles are supposed to be the anti-Evasion weapon, but Distortion Field is the one shield in the game to offer a missile break. And there is no ubiquitous weapon upgrade that says "Ignores Evasion 100%", as there is with Armor Piercing.
The solution here is not to give Strikes Distortion Field or more Evasion. The solution is to make other choices viable, and to nerf the overall effectiveness of Evasion if necessary. Not only does Evasion create a Scout hegemony, but it needlessly confuses and frustrates new players. They aim at a target, dead center, shoot at it ... and nothing happens. It makes GSF look amateur and laggy and broken.
100% Armor Piercing should be reserved for very special, very hard-to-hit-with components. Personally, I think only Proton Torpedo should have it. Slug Railgun's armor piercing magnitude should be based on the range to target. Shooting at 15km? No armor-piercing. Shooting at 3km? 100%. Shooting at 10km? Maybe 40%.
All other weapons which currently have Armor Piercing of 100% should have it reduced to 20 or 30%, I think. If someone elects to build for Damage Reduction, they need to get something out of it, even against armor-piercing weapons.
This change, however, would necessitate a reduction in Charged Plating's magnitude and/or duration.
Conclusion
By no means am I presenting the above ideas as the only solutions--or frankly as the only problems Strikes have. As I said, it's a complicated, multi-faceted problem. As far as Strikes can be fixed without touching other ships, great. But I do believe that at least some small adjustments will be needed... to Burst Laser Cannons, to Distortion Field, to Slug and Ion Railgun ... in order for Strikes to carve out a lasting place.
Thank you again for finally stopping by, Alex. I hope this can continue to be a 2-way conversation.
This. Definitely this.
-
goddammit it's like no one on teh knows I exist
It's because I haven't flown with or against you recently.
Erm, US federal minimum wage is like $7.25, and many states are pushing for $10+ (San Francisco is aiming for $15 by 2017 or something). Even at that rate, a month's sub is maybe two and a half hours of work after tax. If you're working 30 hours per week, you've got enough for multiple subs. If you're not from the US and/or have a job that doesn't pay ****** minimum wages, it gets even better.Yeah...but once you factor in a house payment, student loans, groceries, internet bills, self-employment taxes (since I'm self-employed), business expenses, and supporting a family, that $15 a month is precious.
-
As players, no, we don't need to do this. It's nice when some do, but your priority in a pvp game is that YOUR team is having a good time- not the other guys. If an MMO puts a name in red, well, you know what happens to it. It's like the old rule for Dungeon Master in D&D- "don't give the god hitpoints, because if you give it a whole lot of hitpoints, the players will find a way to to turn that number to 0".
You aren't responsible for your enemies having a good time. If you switch sides a decent amount then it should balance out, but that's not everyone's responsibility either.
Verain, I can't agree with you here. What you are saying would be true if there was a large enough player base for queues to constantly be popping. In that case, then everyone would be having a good time regardless of the outcome because good players would inevitably be on both sides and, even if there was one lopsided match, you could get a better one a few minutes after the end.
However, we don't have that player base at the moment. All of us in the GSF community should be focused on building that base so that, when we want to have a good match, we can. Steamrolling newbie teams doesn't help us build the player base; therefore, it is counterproductive not only to the other team having a good time, but to your team's enjoyment as well.
If you've been playing an alt for a couple months, all your ships you care about should be mastered. If you've been playing since launch, you might have all your ships complete (I sure do, but I think I'm the only one).Yes, the difference is, the first kind loses to the second kind.
Yeah...there's a lot I could say here, but I'll pass.
I normally start a dialog with ion raligun.In practice, I rarely see a premade go all out versus actual noobs. What I do see often is like, a premade versus some very strong pilots on the other team, and newer pilots and even foodships on both sides. The premade has to coordinate or face a loss or a very frustrating experience, and once that happens the newer pilots on the other side won't be happy. To them, they were facing an unwinnable game and now it got worse. Put succinctly: I don't need to b chased for a whole match by the two good enemy players even in a game that's going to resolve in my team's favor, unless that decision actually is going to be winning us the game. I'll just hang out by the seeker mines and light them up, thanks much.
Apparently you're not queuing in the morning on Ebon Hawk, then. Every time I have done so recently, as an Imp, I've ended up on a team with mostly newbies (the occasional vet, but mostly newbs) and am getting steamrolled by Visaeris (or Daeneris, or whatever Game of Thrones moniker he's using this week) and his buddies. I like to flatter myself into thinking that with a decent team and upgraded ships, I could at least not get steamrolled by that group, but with a bunch of newbies who don't even know how to shoot, I've got no chance. I'm no Nem or Drako, with the ability to carry a team, and when I'm the best pilot on the team by far, against that...yeah, there's no chance. Matches end 950+ to 50- or 45+ to 5-. And people stop queuing.
On this you are absolutely and objectively wrong.I know this, because I've seen "cross server" added to several games. The first one was Warcraft II, which went from "play over a BBS" to "play over the net, by hanging out in a channel and asking for games" to "set up matches with a ladder system" to "play over bnet". Each step greatly reduced the odds of a newer player making a match with someone with a hugely different level of skill, and greatly increased the ease of finding an opponent of reasonably similar skill.
WoW is normally a go-to example for me, and here is no different: originally, you were limited to players on your server. This meant you saw the same names repeatedly, which was rather charming, but it also meant that if you saw a certain premade you were up against, you KNOW you would lose. Yes, you could get a really good group and take them on sometimes, but if they were running and you weren't... and unlike GSF, there were absolutely people who would just play essentially all day long. The few people who had the time to get the raid gear, the skill to pvp, and the even-more-time to queue heavily would simply be lords of that playground, with weapons that were literally twice as good as the average ones.
We did lose some cool stories when that mostly ended (it didn't entirely end, you could still get those fights in open world pvp), but cross server pvp was literally night and day. I remember the almost instant pops vividly, and I definitely remember how much fairer the matches became. Even today, if you queue for random BG wtih four of your friends, the enemy team will often have vaguely similar gear and normally a 3-5 person premade on the other side as well. When you have that many people queueing solo or group, you have that kind of ability. In fact, the big problem limiting WoW matchmaking is the inability to make wargames.
So yes, I promise you that the queues would be vastly better with cross server, for ALL pvp. Ranked ground would pop faster and make better matches, random ground would give you balanced teams without everyone being some fotm alt and no heals or whatever, and GSF would be able to pit premades versus premades a lot more often than currently.
I literally cannot imagine it somehow resulting in less balanced matches. I just, cannot. You'd get instant pops versus similar numbers of premades on both sides, and closer queued ship reqs.
Since TOR is my only MMO (seriously, what kind of job do you have that you can afford more than one sub? I want it), I can't comment much on this except to say that, yes, I wish we'd get cross-server queues, and no, it's not happening anytime soon. Which is a shame.
I'm always happy when they up the rewards for GSF, and at the very least sellable decorative pieces would be nice. But there's a downside to this: if you add really important stuff to GSF grind things, you are "forcing" players who don't want to, to play. It's a fine line, because an MMO always "compensates" you for your time, and if one mode of play is fundamentally unrewarding, well, that's bad- people who want to play are incentivized not to. But go the other way and it's really bad too.Again, can't comment much except to say that more people playing is good.
-
I don't know about the missile. I have a NovaDive equipped with an upgraded EMP just for this purpose, though - if there are a bunch of mines on a sat, I'll suicide in to set off the EMP and let the rest of the team clean up.
-
I said it many times.
Take an assault bomber. LoS and dive in.. Pop your mines. Watch the GS scatters while your scouts are free to pick them off.
Take as many scout as there is gunships and chase them through the whole map.
Problem is simple. PuG can't coordinate that kind of tactics. And most lack the basic skills to make those possible. It isn't a nerf-GS problem, it's a L2P problem.
Tactic 1 requires a bomber, which is just about as undesirable as a gunship.
Tactic 2 requires a great deal of coordination, particularly from a PuG without voice, whereas a gunship wall requires next to no coordination - everyone just jumps in their gunships and starts blasting.
Still waiting for Tactic 3.
To some degree I agree it's a L2P but it also strikes me as a case where the counter requires more skill/coordination to pull off than the GS wall tactic it is countering. That being said I'm not sure how one could solve it without nerfing GS into the ground which is also not desirable.Wait, nerfing GS into the ground isn't desirable? I beg to differ.
I've been in matches where my team was able to draw the enemy GS out of position by retreating and then using scouts/strikers as a defensive screen while allied GS picked off the enemy GS. Trouble is while that tactic can work with pugs the striker/scout screen is likely to get non-contributor at least once since that game moves very slow and most targets will be beyond their weapons range. Which I think encourages players to engage the wall to avoid taking a hit to their req for the match even if that will be counterproductive to your team winning.A sound tactic, but again it requires a good deal of coordination as well as a team made up completely of veterans - one or two newbs kills it because they simply rush into the wall, and the GS just stay back and shoot. Also, non-contributing is a problem.
Now obviously in dom you just go to a sat every now and again to reset the timer but in TDM there's no way to do that short of shooting somebody. Maybe if there was some way other than combat in TDM to reset that timer it would make gunship walls more manageable since it wouldn't be encouraging/forcing strikers/scouts to make banzai charges against a GS wall?You can pick up boosts, but that creates its own problems (namely, finding them and flying between them while also trying to run a screen & retreat game.
-
So much misinformation here. Killing two bombers is easy with the right build... More make it even easier. Killing a Sheep wall can be hard. But it can be done with some coordination and skills.
I'm interested to discover how to kill a Sheep wall without creating your own Sheep wall. I refuse to participate in those.
That said, I'm going to expand on #3 of my post (just in case the devs do read this):
Map 1 & 2: TDM over Coruscant/Dromund Kaas. Obstacles would be capital ships and space debris, like Denon, but with the planet in the background and (if possible) turrets scattered either on the capital ships or on stationary satellites (non-capturable). They'd be low-accuracy, bad tracking, but high damage (about half a standard slug railgun hit) to make them an actual threat. You could even add in points for killing turrets.
Map 3 & 4: Combined with the fleet assault idea, make a fleet assault map for Korriban/Dromund Kaas as well.
-
1) Significant nerf to bombers and gunships when more than one of each are present in a match. So long as that is implemented, nerf BLCs. The only reason they're needed as is right now is to smash gunships.
2) Add more scout and strike types. There's always more you can do with scouts and strikes.
3) Add more maps.
4) More gameplay styles, particularly a capital ship assault. Included in this would be allowing a queued group to select to, instead of flying, man a small corvette-type ship, with each group member getting a different station.
5) Legacy Requisition, maybe at 1/5 of Fleet Requisition, and with CC conversion available.
-
So? A lot of real life things happen, it doesn't mean the game has to tolerate or reward them.
This is actually a really great argument for what the OP is saying. Your political agenda in trying to crash a match should be punished by the game more than it currently is.
"You might be angry that people on one of the teams might be better than you, so you should quit out of bad sportsmanship and rage."
Actually, the latter is a specific example of what I was saying is not a good reason for quitting a match. If you quit because you're getting killed, or because you won't top the boards, or because the other team is winning, I think you're wrong to do so. But if you're that type of player, I'd rather you quit than self destruct or not contribute. That huts the team far worse.
If my team is losing, or I'm getting killed, etc., I stick with the match until the end, even if the other team is the Bastion Gunsheep squad and we're getting crushed (though I might, after the match, swap sides to ask them to play nicer). It is when my own team starts to roll out the gunship or bomber full squad that I request them to play with a little more class, then quit in protest of the match. My goal is not to punish anyone, but rather a statement that I won't participate in classless play. I have better things to do with my time than support a bunch of jerks (which is what I consider rolling out a full squad of bombers/gunships to be).
In addition, some of us enjoy the game for more than just the competitiveness of it, though that is a factor. I enjoy the community on TEH, the chance to fly a space fighter...and I do like matching wits and skill with other pilots. But that said, I'm not (as someone said in another thread, or maybe GSF chat), I'm not a kid out of school who has nothing to do with my time. When something comes up IRL, I have responsibilities that I have to take care of. The game should not punish that.
-
I have to disagree with you on this point. There are times for some of us that Real Life takes precedence over the game. I know for me, there are times where I have to take care of things outside the game and have to quit matches because of it. In addition, there are some times that certain players quit a match to make a point. I know a few Ebon Hawk players (myself included) who will quit a match if their own team rolls out a gunship or bomber festival (which I define as more than 1 or 2 bombers/gunships per squad), on the principle that those matches are fun for no one on either side except those who need to stroke their own egos by demolishing the opposition.
So their are legitimate reasons to quit a game that is in progress. If you are rage quitting because you are getting curb-stomped, or because you are getting focused, or just shot up, that is a problem, but do you really want that player on your team anyway?
-
Domination:
Meghwyn - Starguard - No Guild - Ebon Hawk - 20 Kills and Assists
Medals:
Meghwyn - Starguard - No guild - Ebon Hawk - 15 medals
Objectives:
Meghwyn - Starguard - No guild - Ebon Hawk - 140 Objective Points
Strike Domination:
Meghwyn - Starguard - No Guild - Ebon Hawk - 20 Kills + Assists
Meghwyn - Starguard - No Guild - Ebon Hawk - 140 Objective Points
Meghwyn - Starguard - No Guild - Ebon Hawk - 38537 Damage
-
Shoutout to Keli. New transfer to TEH, and he's already topping leaderboards. Well done.
-
I'm certainly no ace, but I'm moderately decent when supported. I'm willing to help teach (though I could probably benefit from some teaching myself, too).
-
But this isn't a new game - it's a enw game mode. Does Huttball sense? No, but we play it anyway. It's fun to alter your strategy, and having the powerups allow new players to take out the vets (even on a new GS, damage overcharge can still 1 shot).
Actually, I don't play Huttball.
Even so, Huttball at least has lore behind it. There's a story point to it, even if the story point is silly (which, IMO, it is). Powerups don't.
In addition to the previous point, what's wrong with a killball? Whenever I see a killball, it's frustrating to me as a solo player (I have no mic, so I'm out of luck when it comes to fighting with or against a well-organized voice-chat pre-made squadron), but that is the heart of this game. The purpose is to form and use squadron tactics, not just solo dogfighting. Whenever I come up against a killball, I tip my cap and try to stay to the outside and pick off the ones who aren't part of it. That tells me they're using good tactics. Powerups, and damage overcharge in particular, are defeating the purpose of good squadron tactics.
-
But here's the problem: the damage overcharge is so good and its presence is such a huge gamechanger, especially against uninformed opponents (of which there are many, because wut's matchmaking), that you are almost guaranteed a better K/D ratio if you hunt out red dots for most of the match than if you hunt out enemy ships. And in a game match that is all about KDR, well, that's kind of a problem.
It's not fun for me to hunt out the red dots, so I don't. If I happen to see one while I'm chasing someone, you can bet your **** I'll break off to grab it. And that's fine, in my opinion -- I have to weigh the risks (taking a predictable flight path, which might get me shot down by a gunship or something, and losing my target, who might survive because I'm not pursuing him) against the rewards (getting the powerup!). But at the same time, I know I'm not performing as optimally as if I spent my time searching for powerups full time.
This is called a dominant strategy, and it's bad game design.
Games are, at their heart, all about problem solving. When we play GSF, we're solving a bunch of problems -- what's the optimal set of components for my playstyle? What strategies and tactics can I employ to kill my enemies? What strategies and tactics can I employ to win the match? Once these problems are solved, we start to "burn out". (I'm sure you've all seen similar in ops and in other games -- someone plays the game too much, gets too used to doing the same thing, and stops playing. They've solved all the problems, and they get no more enjoyment from going through the motions.) I could expand on this, but Jesse Schell has literally written a book on the subject, so I'll simply recommend his The Art of Game Design for anyone interested.
This is why we as players are so eager for new content. And when the content is just rehashed versions of what we've already done with few changes, well, it's simply not as interesting.
Flying in space PvP is generally interesting because you're never sure what the other team is going to do. Each combination of enemy pilots and enemy ships provides a different challenge, and there's often different solutions. That's why I love PvP; no two fights (against skilled opponents) are alike, and I have to adjust my tactics on the fly if I want to win. It's challenging and interesting.
But when the dominant strategy is found, matches become predictable -- and when gameplay is predictable, it becomes stale and boring. No new challenges are presented, no new problems need to be solved, and players lose interest. There's no challenge or surprise in picking up a blackbolt and zooming around the map looking for damage overcharge, then turning my lasers on whichever poor saps happen to be closest. The same thing happens every time: I fly along this path, I pick up the big red dot, I hit tab, I boost to the nearest enemy, and I click on him twice. Continue tabbing until DO runs out, then go back to searching for red dots. Hell, a bot could do that -- why should I?
I also strongly disagree with the concept of powerups, especially in a story-based game like SWTOR. Why do they exist? Why do they defy gravity? Why are they so powerful? Where the hell were they on the Death Star runs? I agree that there needs to be some element preventing people from forming killballs and rolling across the map, but I think shiny powerup balls were the wrong answer... and when they're so powerful as to form a dominant strategy, well, the whole system is just bad and needs to be reworked.
*Not liable for asses lost as a result of foolish bets placed with parties including but not limited to Satan.
This. So much this. Bombers and gunships I can deal with. I think they need to be modified to better fit their niche role, but I can accept them. Powerups, though, have no place in this game unless there is a justifiable story reason for them to be there. Otherwise I'm just playing an arcade game, which is not why I'm paying Bioware every month.
GSF Discussion: Friction Points
in Galactic Starfighter
Posted
Learning Curve: It's steep, but I think most of that is because of the lack of either a good tutorial or a PvE area. Add either of those, and the issues with the learning curve disappear. Ideally, a group PvE area would be perfect, as it would allow veteran players to train newbies who need training without having the pressure of a time crunch or opposing veterans vaping the newbies before they can get any instruction.
Ship Balance: I addressed this in the other thread, but I think the biggest issue with balance right now is that strikes are weak, mostly because missiles are weak. And gunship/bomber clusters are bad for the game in TDM (or even Domination, for that matter). They discourage players whose style is to dogfight while encouraging a sniping war. There needs to be a way for a certain ship type to be able to break up gunship clusters/walls without extreme coordination (which you really can't get in a PUG, particularly with newbies).
Something New: Always happy to have something new, but that's not keeping me from playing. I think if something new were to be added, I would like to see a few new maps for the current game modes as well as a few new game modes. The one I've seen suggested I like most is some form of capital ship attack. It would act like Domination in a way, but with clear attacker/defender delineation. The defenders would be escorting a capital ship, perhaps a crippled one, that has some anti-fighter turrets (like domination turrets). The attackers would have to destroy certain points on the ship in order to achieve victory. Then sides would swap. Or, alternatively, each side has a capital ship to escort, and they have to split their forces between attacking and defending. The first team to destroy the capital ship three times wins.
Matchmaking: The matchmaker is awful. Not sure how to fix it, but something needs to be done. I will let others address this, as they are more knowledgeable than me in that area.
Character v. Legacy: Before the changes to requisition, this was a problem. Now it doesn't bother me, though having some legacy requisition would be nice.