C'est tres difficile parsque Bioware n' le produit encore, dans les cartel packs. On doit trouvez quelqu'un qui a un K-52 dans le Cargo Hold et pouver le vender (n'est pas "bound"). Barro a cherchez pour un pour, je pense plus ou moins 6 mois dans le GSF Discord, avant de trouver son. Aussi, a cause de credit inflation je pense que la prix pour un K-52 est plus que 1 billion credits, donc, on puex pas le trouver dans le GTN. On doit trouvez quelqu'un qui a le K-52, parler avec eux, y faire un echange. Pardonnez mon Francaise, c'est plus que vingt ans passer que je l'ai etudier.

If there are insufficient players who accepted to get both teams to the minimum team threshold, OR the difference, Abs. Val. (team A - team B), in players is 3 or more, a timer will start to end the match. When that timer expires, if one team has more points than the other the team with more points wins, otherwise both teams lose. Example: If team A has 10 players and team B has 11 players, if as the match starts one additional player joins team B and one player drops out of team A, then the teams are 9 v 12 and the timer starts. If the matchmaker can't backfill at least one player for team A, or at least one player doesn't drop from team B, then the match terminates when the timer reaches zero. Scoring during the countdown does not terminate the match, as the matchmaker will continue to add players to the teams to try to create a valid match until the timer expires. I believe the timer is 30 seconds from when the minimum size or size mismatch is first detected by the server. It happens sometimes and is not a bug, it's just the matchmaker acting according to its normal parameters.

If the colorblind UI presets for the main PvE and PvP interface don't carry over the color shifts into GSF, then no. There's no custom UI color config specifically for GSF. If you're not using the CB modes for the main interface try them (I think there are like 3 or 4 options), and see if they work in GSF. If they don't you're probably out of luck at least for now.

Depending on your definition of defending, you can potentially be kicked while defending. Defending a neutral sat to keep it from going red doesn't count as contributing, even though it can be decisive in winning games. Only friendly captured sats count as defender contribution for player activity timer. For making people crash, Sabo Probe works, and so do using missile locks to scare people into Power Diving or Barrel Rolling into terrain. All hard to do while being chased though.

Hey, major change in tone, thank you. So I'll engage, with the respect you asked for, and that your new politeness merits. Yes, good players do play all the ships. That's why we're consistently telling you that you are wrong about this. There is risk in every ship at every skill level. However, less skilled players are not that much of a risk to higher skill players, independent of ship type. The people you can pop with impunity when you jump into a gunship are not highly skilled players. We can say this for certain, because if they were highly skilled they would have enough situational awareness to neutralize your gunship as a threat to them even if they don't engage your gunship. I do this all the time in Domination games. I'm say, in a scout, defending a satellite, that's fairly open like Shipyards B or any sat in Denon, and there's a gunship at 14000 meters. Am I worried? No. By tradition you complicate missile locks by chasing each other around the sat in circles, but you don't have to do that to break LOS. With the projections on top, and one set of the fins, you can deny LOS just as effectively using only 1/3 of the perimeter of the satellite. So it takes a minimum of 2 gunships working together to threaten a single ship defending a satellite, if that ship knows how to fly defensively at a high level. Personally, I usually don't get worried for my safety on a sat until there are at least 3 gunships looking at me. If I go off the sat to hunt the gunships, it's not to protect myself from them, it's to kill them or chase them off because they're being effective at massacring my teammates who don't know how to defend themselves. This principle applies in TDMs too. You can always rely on somebody on the opposite team to get more than 12000 meters from their gunship coverage. So using distance alone, you can score kills all match long without ever being threatened at all by a gunship. Use cover to LOS while closing distance, then a bit of boost and turning for the final stretch, and you can be on top of a gunship with nearly zero risk of getting hit by a railgun shot. A top notch gunship pilot will recognize if you're doing this and run. While they're running, they're not shooting you or any of your teammates with a railgun. With the right build, good engine management, and proper use of cover you can keep a gunship tied up for a whole match without ever really needing to shoot at them. The mere threat of prospective shots will force them to flee. If you're doing this in a strike or scout, you can probably at least fire a few missiles at targets of opportunity as you're doing this, which is probably more than the gunship will manage. It's extraordinarily rare to see high skill scout players in game anymore, but a true scout ace who decides that they're going to try to shut down a gunship ace, is probably going to be able to shut down the gunship ace fairly easily, and get 10 to 20 miscellaneous kills while they're doing it. The reverse is not true. A gunship ace that goes after a scout ace is either just going to drive the scout into using cover all the time, or annoy them into deciding to spend the rest of the game going after the gunship. At high skills the balance of power here slightly disfavors the gunship. This is down to ship design. Scouts and strikes can maneuver defensively, and use their primary means of doing damage at the same time. They are meant to operate under offensive pressure from other ships. Gunships cannot maneuver defensively while using railguns, which are their primary means of doing damage. They have to choose offense or defense, they can't really have both at the same time. The result is that they are extremely vulnerable to other ships while trying to do offensive tasks, and unable to do significant damage while on defense. They need to be left alone and have breathing space to do their work. Deny them that space and time, and they don't function well. Scouts and strikes have exactly the set of tools needed to deny gunships space and time very effectively. If they fail to deny gunships space and time though, gunships have the perfect toolset to punish them (brutally) for that failure. The available evidence indicates that at high skill levels ship choice really doesn't matter for ability to pop low skilled players who aren't paying attention with impunity. The records for single match kills by one player are about 40 kills for gunships, scouts, strikes, and yes, even bombers. The DPS of a scout with Light Lasers, Rocket Pods, and Targeting Telemetry active is more than twice what a gunship can put out with a railgun. When it come to killing ships that are not flying defensively, gunships are not necessarily the best choice. The target will die faster to a high DPS scout build than it would have to a gunship. It takes more work and skill on the scout pilot's part yes, but the payoff is absurdly high peak DPS output. Ship class balance is at play here. Yes, railguns threaten a scout before it can shoot at a gunship, but if the scout knows how to deal with that threat and close to short range it can take a gunship from full health to dead in less time than it takes to charge a full railgun shot. That's actually wildly unbalanced in favor of the scout, which is exactly why gunships can move, have blasters, and have missiles. It's so that a skilled scout pilot has to do more than just counter the railgun to kill the gunship. It also has to dogfight a bit. It's a dogfight that massively favors the scout, but it means that more then one skill (avoiding railgun hits), is needed for the kill. Getting close to a gunship doesn't automatically mean a win for the other ship any more than having more range on a railgun than on a laser cannon automatically means that the railgun wins. They have contextual range based advantages, and player skill in maneuver and resource management is used to change their personal context. That interplay of advantage and counter-advantage is what creates both ship class balance and depth of gameplay strategy. It's worth noting that there's a component that supports exactly the sort of stationary playstyle you're advocating for. Two actually. No skilled player that I know of uses them, because they are among the worst components in the game. Fortress shield and rotational thrusters. Fortress shield forces a gunship to pretty much stay stationary if they want to have a functioning shield. The staying still portion works, the shield portion doesn't. Shield piercing is a thing so a stationary gunship ends up being pretty much a free kill to anything with piercing, and a lot of the most popular weapons have piercing, plus there's the Bypass crew skill. Even without piercing though, DPS is so high in GSF that if you give enough raw health to face tank it, you end up with a ship that's basically a NiM raid boss in space. The balance scheme doesn't work in that case because even a fairly foolish player is still a lot smarter than SWTOR's NPC ai scripts are. Where would a player park one or more near invincible railgun platforms? In a stack covering spawn points maybe? Rotational thrusters is supposed to be more or less a partial, single shot, aimbot/aim-assist for gunships. Similar problem, either it works so badly it's broken, or it works so well it's broken. The area of performance where it might be balanced is so small that it just isn't really a viable game mechanic. Individual components behave the same way, yes, but the ship build as a system does not. A competitive ship has a component set where there are interactions between how the components work that reinforce their mutual strengths. For example stacking evasion by combining Light weight armor, Distortion Field, and base Scout evasion, is a more powerful defensive combination than having Reinforced armor, Directional Shield, and base Scout evasion. Evasion * evasion * evasion beats hull points + shield points + evasion, if you're working from an equivalent stats budget. Once you take out the railgun, gunships don't combine really well as a system in that way. They're moderately worse than strikes were before 5.5 in that respect, and strikes back then were maybe 20% to 30% weaker than any other ship class. If you're beating people in a dogfight using a gunship, I promise you it's not because the gunship is a good ship for dogfighting. I say that as someone, who for years, had all my Condor and Jurgoran ships configured as BLC + Interdiction Missile + Cluster Missile because I thought that "budget battlecout" was a more fun playstyle than sniping. Against an equal skill pilot, the gunship build that is best at dogfighting, is going to consistently lose even against pre-5.5 strikes. A gunship is equivalent to an artilleryman with a howizter and a pistol. At long range they're dangerous, and at very close range they do still have a usable weapon. However, if there's an infantryman at 150 meters with an assault rifle, the artilleryman is in big trouble, despite having two guns that could be fired plus the option of running, none of them put the artilleryman at a combat advantage against the infantryman in that context. The gunship is the same way at close range, it has tools, but none of them give it a combat advantage relative to strikes or scouts at that range, but their tools do give them an advantage relative to the gunship. That's why gunship play at high levels of skill is at least as much a matter of map awareness and energy management so that the gunship can stay at ranges favoring railguns as it is about good shooting skills with railgun. At a certain skill level you don't really need a warning that a missile or railgun is going to be fired at you. You know that Gunships will be equipping railguns, and that strikes will be equipping long range missiles or torpedoes, and you use map awareness and maneuver around LOS objects as your primary defense. Engine and Shield cooldowns are not primary defenses at high levels of play. They are backups for when you've made a mistake, or assists that increase the chance of success when you are deliberately neglecting defensive flying to achieve an offensive or objectives related goal. You use the mini-map to see where hostile targets are, and either mouseover and memory of the starting lineup, knowledge of specific players' ship preferences, mouseover of unselected targets and visual identification, or tab or targeted target selection, or some combination of all of the above to build a picture in your mind of which opponents are flying what sorts of ships and where they are relative to you and defensively exploitable terrain. With enough practice this can become partly subconscious. I have times when I "feel" safe from a gunship. Obviously I'm not a Jedi, I'm not using the force to sense danger, but even though I'm focusing on something else my brain is processing the mini-map and the terrain I'm seeing, and combining it with memory of the map to figure out that there's still a satellite or chunk of terrain between me and a gunship I spotted earlier. There's this sense of sort of a "railgun shadow" and if I get out of position I start to feel nervous. It's just my brain doing crude geometry very fast as a background task, and interpreting that as "feel." Sort of like how people with enough experience can drive on "autopilot" while paying more attention to a conversation with a passenger than to what they're doing with their car. There's the same issue in that if you don't actually look consciously sometimes you can get hit with a nasty surprise that you would have spotted if paying specific attention. It's the learning process. While still learning you have to focus on what you're learning in order to learn, but once learned well enough you can sort of do things by memory, and focus attention on something else at the same time. If you never miss railgun shots, while moving, at close targets, that are skimming LOS obstacles, then either you are top tier, or you need to be taking more railgun shots.

GSF is built on top of the framework of the ground PvP code. However, perhaps because they lack resources to update it, they didn't fork a whole separate GSF branch. Tiny bits are GSF specific, but a lot of the code for base functions just straight up re-uses whatever the current version of ground PvP code is. Result is that when they mess with PvP code, it can mess up GSF because they forgot or didn't care about the dependencies GSF has on PvP. It's not that they changed GSF medals, they changed the PvP scoreboard display, so now though GSF still gives credit for getting medals (you'll see them pop in chat up as you get them), the GSF scoreboard no longer displays them because it's a reformatted clone of the old PvP scoreboard, and when they changed how the PvP scoreboard handles medals they didn't bother to update the GSF scoreboard. So the bug is actually a result of them not touching GSF in this case. It's not the first time something like this has happened. Deployables from friendlies do show up as green circles on the minimap, though there's no differentiation between types. An intensity pulse effect would indeed be a nice feature to have to be able to figure which if any of the dots are repair drones. Personally I usually rely on the green beam particle effect that connects a drone to friendly ships near it to spot repair drones, both friendly and hostile.

I guess my biggest suggestion would be to focus on group play. Make a new character, probably DPS spec, and level with her. Killing things as a healer is painfully, painfully slow, even with a companion set to DPS and at max affection. So group, and let someone else do the killing. The social aspect will make play more fun in general, and it also solves the drawbacks of trying to level as a healer, which is probably the slowest and most grindy way to level, even more than as a tank. Plus someone who knows the game mechanics in general can ease a lot of frustrations where things are easy enough if you know them, but hard if you don't. I find sage/sorc to be a fairly easy heal style, but that's been my main since 1.0, and I picked it based on similarity to druid healing in WoW which was my raiding main there, so I have so much bias on this front that you should probably ask someone else about specifically which healer to pick. All three work.

I was going to offer some criticism of tone and content of your posts Dayshadow, but I found that someone has already done it, at least as well as I could, possibly better, so I'll let them have at it: They also offer some decent advice: Everyone who has replied to you so far is an experienced GSF player who has offered respectful and insightful commentary on GSF mechanics in the past. They've also all read plenty of posts from unskilled players who are: whining about Burst Laser Cannons, whining about Proton Torpedoes, whining about Distortion Field, whining about Cluster Missiles, whining about Ion Railgun, whining about Remote Slicing, whining about Slug Railgun, whining about Seeker Mines, whining about Battlescouts, whining about Bombers, whining about Gunships, whining about Strike fighters. Based on that experience it's not that hard to tell the difference between serious posts about GSF mechanics and stuff that's just a roundabout complaint about getting beaten by players with more experience. Whiners, typically do not understand basic elements of GSF's game mechanics *cough* how missiles work *cough*, and make suggestions for radical changes to a ship or component that they don't like (because they don't know how to fight it) that usually are not remotely balanced suggestions, and frequently that don't even solve the problem that they say they want to solve. Unfortunately after many years of this sort of thing the GSF geezers don't have as much patience for gently coddling these sorts of posters as maybe we should. So if someone posts a whiny post, and is abrasive and rude to responses that point out the gaping flaws in their suggestions using a fairly neutral tone, the responses later in the thread tend to have a bit of a hard edge to them. We should probably try to be nicer, being unnecessarily nice isn't a bad thing after all. I apologize for making my responses (including parts of this one which I'm too tired to go back and edit right now) more grumpy and dismissive than was called for. I'll also apologize generically on behalf the GSF community which usually prides itself on being an oasis of friendliness and civility as far as online PvP computer gaming communities go. Most of us don't hold grudges about this sort of thing. If you want to take a look at the tone of your posts and maybe start exercising a bit more politeness, and learn enough about the mechanics of GSF to have well grounded critiques of them, you should find that the reception to your posts gets a lot better. Keep in mind that your tone is probably more important than knowledge here. Just about everyone who has replied to you has a documented history of walking new players step by step through the basics of "How to GSF." We just no longer have the patience to do that for people who are posting to rant about a component/ship that they lose to because they don't know how to play against it, and have no interest in learning how to play against it, or making constructive balance suggestions, because really they just want to vent about their inability to win. It's a free internet of course, so if you want to vent, go ahead and have at it. Just don't expect anyone here to take it for, or treat it as, constructive commentary on GSF gameplay. If after venting you feel a bit better, and want to learn more about how GSF works, the history of how balance has evolved to where it is now (if you hate gunships now, you would have really hated them before 5.5), or have constructive discussions about GSF game mechanics, folks will be happy to engage with you here. If you're interested in any of that, just let us know when you're done venting and ready to converse. Also, because I am at times a mischievous imp, I have a challenge for you Dayshadow, take a low skill gunship that's any build you please of a Jurgoran or Condor, and in a TDM match get a TDM scoreboard result of better than: 20 kills, 15 assists, less than 5 deaths, 120000+ damage, and 74% or better accuracy. Then come back here and tell us how many games it took you to learn to use an easy mode gunship that well. It can be a lopsided farm game where your team stomps, that's ok. For extra credit, keep playing and tell us how many more games it takes for you to build your easy mode skills to the point where you can still post those numbers in a TDM where your team loses by at least 15 points. At that point you should be a fairly well known gunship ace, and people will take what you say about gunships seriously even if what you're saying seems odd at first glance. I'm working on the first part of that challenge myself right now (I'm traditionally primarily a strike pilot), and after two months of doing the GSF weekly every week on 5 alts, I'm still not there yet. But maybe I'm just unusually bad at gunships, so I'm interested to see how long a talented person takes to master easy skills.

I'm in the same boat. SWTOR was working fine last night, Steam edition, and today it hangs indefinitely on the splash screen. Checked file integrity, deleted AppData, Deleted Assets, Deleted movies, redownloaded all that stuff, checked again. Repair tool always says things are fine. Uninstalled PTS build. Didn't help. Only thing I can think of is that I had a Windows 10 update last night, and maybe that broke things somehow? Edit: So finally did a forced full shutdown of Win 10, followed by a Restart, and that maybe resolved it for me. SWTOR is working again, but not really clear what caused it to weird out, or what got it back up again.

It is doable, and easily doable. There exists a weighting system. There exists a sorting algorithm that sorts into teams mathematically with the goal of having team weights as close to equal as possible. The problem is that by doing the sort as a set of "blind" steps from a constantly changing input set, a correct sort at step n, can turn into an incorrect sort on step n+1 because the inputs changed between steps. I'm saying that after step where the sum of the number of players =16, take that set of player groups and resort. That way if something changed at step n+1 that turned step n into a bad choice by the algorithm's standards, it gets to redo the sort. It doesn't make the sorting algorithm better, it just catches mismatches that are bad by the sorting algorithm's own standards. It's a sort of error checking. The drawback is that you can't start loading in until at least 16 players have clicked accept, because to do it you have to freeze the input list before teams are finalized.

Actually, there's a step that could help massively if they implemented it. Call it a sanity check step. If you pick 16 players queued in a fluctuating queue of many more than that, and the initial matchmaker picking algorithm (what's live now) take 2 groups of 4 and 8 solo players, what is the expected outcome? Well if the player data indicates that one of the groups of 4 are all really weak players, and 3 of the solo players are really excellent, maybe you get a 4 + 4 vs 8 solo match. What the SWTOR matchmaker likes to do is in the case where it's 2 groups of 4 strong players and 8 weak solo players, is due to whatever the priority system is for picking from the queue, end up putting both strong groups against the 8 weak players. Then the match is started. If there were a sanity check step, you'd catch that with this same selection of players, you could have a much more balanced match by putting the two groups on opposite teams instead of the same team. The lack of a "check your calculations" step creates a higher rate of obviously avoidable poorly balanced matches. I find this style of "could have had the same players but so much better balanced," match much more grating than lopsided matches that are just a byproduct of a sparse queue. In a sparse queue, sometimes no algorithm will do much for balance. When the algorithm just does a bad job of sorting, when a much better sort is clearly available, that's annoying.

So the easiest solution to implement is to stop caring about individual PvP match outcomes and about overall win rate. I have done this. It works great. In GSF there was a compromise approach that capped group size at 4. In theory this should cap team imbalance for groups at +4 if there are an odd number of groups of 4 in the queue, and balance things nicely if there are an even number. Or at least it would if the initial matchmaker selection weren't terrible at balancing, and the second sanity check step after the pool of players is selected weren't non-existent. In practice, with bad initial matchmaking, and no step for going back and reviewing team balance after teams have been selected from the queue, it would routinely generate 4+ 4 vs all solo teams. Yay, Bioware. There was at least a chance that it might be 4+ solos vs 4+ solos, though. Small, but it was slightly better than nothing.

I'm trying to find the logic, if there is any, in your complaints. As far as I can tell, your argument is that you like dogfighting as a playstyle, and dislike sniping as a playstyle. Correct me if that is wrong. If dislike of sniping playstyle is your central position then your arguments don't make much sense. Your solution to gunships having too much sniping and not enough dogfighting, is to completely remove dogfighting from gunships, and to give a missile equivalent of sniping to all other ships. If you like dogfighting and hate sniping, this is about the worst possible solution one could propose. Just outright deleting gunships, would be more logical if I'm interpreting your playstyle likes and dislikes correctly. Deleting gunships is probably a non-starter for the devs, so I assume that's why you're not suggesting it, but if there are other reasons, feel free to list them. However, instead of suggestions that make the sniping situation worse than it already is, if you want dev action, a better alternative would be to come up with: A distinct gunship playstyle that is significantly different than bomber, strike, and scout styles, that does not involve any sniping. It's still an absurdly low probability outcome, because it would require far more time, effort, money, and skill than the Devs have to allocate to GSF, but if the game design argument looked good and actually did anything to solve sniping then there's a chance that it might get onto their "if we ever have time," to do list. With respect to your argument that gunships are unbalanced, no they're not. At least not if the players on both sides are skilled players. A gunship is my third choice for taking on gunships. First choice is a strike fighter, second is a scout, third is a gunship. Technically scouts might be a bit better than strikes, but I prefer the mid range weapons and tend to do better with them personally. If you know how to close on a gunship without letting them hit you a few times on the way in (which is most of what non-gunship vs gunship success consists of), then beating gunships consistently is not hard. You force them into a dogfight, because in a dogfight, given moderate to advanced skill from both pilots, the gunship will lose most of the time if not rescued by a teammate. You can try going gunship vs gunship, but in that case you need a skill gap in your favor in order to win. With a strike or scout you can reliably win a contest of even skill, if you know how to force the dogfight. Knowing how to force the dogfight is a moderate to advanced level skill, if you don't know it, then gunships will be very OP against you. If you do know it, they are at worst moderately annoying. Gunships are really excellent at killing ships that are not paying attention to them. They are bad at killing ships that are paying attention to them. They are terrified of ships that are paying attention to killing gunships. Consistent focused pressure can drop the output of a gunship ace to the point where they look like a noob on the scoreboard. Beginner players ignore gunships, don't know how to close the gap, and aren't good at keeping up pressure or closing the kill on a gunship. Result is that to beginners gunships are OP, especially in TDM. Similarly bombers are OP against beginners in Domination, because beginners don't know how to neutralize mines and drones faster than a big group of bombers can put them out. Not knowing how to execute the counter to a tactic doesn't make the tactic unbalanced. The counter not existing is what makes it unbalanced. Gunships have a counter, and that counter is close range combat combined with use of cover. There aren't always ways to counter noobs on your team getting slaughtered by gunships to the point that you lose a TDM, but that holds for noobs getting slaughtered by scouts, strikes, and bombers too, it's not unique to gunships. Given an all gunship team at high skill levels, you're looking at an almost guaranteed loss for the gunship team in Domination matches. Scouts and bombers have too much of an advantage on the satellites, and only Lost Shipyards comes even close to offering enough cover to keep gunships from getting eaten alive by strikes if other ship classes aren't supporting the gunships. In deathmatch an extreme gunship team isn't as far behind the curve as in Domination, but having at least one or two good scouts or strikes give a huge advantage because they can force opposing gunships to run which will open up shot opportunities for friendly gunships even if the scout or strike doesn't score the kill themselves. Ship balance was tested extensively on closed PTS in the run-up to the 5.5 GSF patch and going all in on a single ship type turned out to never be a consistently winning strategy. Mixed teams are stronger, because the different ship classes have non-overlapping weaknesses, and so a team that goes single class ends up very vulnerable to a tailored counter-composition. Gunships and bombers both absolutely do stack better in big groups than strikes and scouts do against low skill teams. Their mechanics make them both easy to use with less skills learned than strikes or scouts. Their mechanics are also particularly devastating against players with lesser defensive skills. That makes gunships and bombers the ideal ships for new players that want to beat up on other new players. At higher skill levels that advantage goes away and other ships hold their own, except bombers which struggle somewhat in TDM. If you want to beat up noobs, strike and scout are ultimately probably better once you have the skills to make it work. If under pressure it's much easier to rampage a bloody path through noobs in a scout or strike than it is in a gunship. Your argument so far has basically boiled down to: "I don't like gunships, so they should be turned from dangerous opponents into free kills." It's not a new argument, and it's not a very good argument. "GSF would be so much more fun if there were no sniping," is a good argument. But it does require either the deletion of gunships or a non-sniping job for gunships to do that is somehow different from scouts(short range blaster and missile combat), strikes (medium range blaster and missile combat), and bombers (area defense near objectives close to cover). If you have good arguments to make in this direction, I encourage you to make them. I doubt anything would come of it, but who knows, sometimes the devs surprise us. Edit: For other players that know what they're doing, I'm not saying that I endorse removing gunships, I'm just saying that as a game playstyle design argument it's not necessarily an argument that's entirely without merit. You could make a GSF-like pure dogfighting game if you wanted to.

Given that a gunship isn't going to outrun anything other than a bomber, and shouldn't out dogfight anything other than another gunship or maybe a bomber in some cases, how is gunship dogfighting a problem? If they do it they're trading a tactic that you apparently don't like where they have an advantage (sniping) for a tactic that you do like where the gunship is at a significant disadvantage. Shouldn't you be cheerleading gunships dogfighting as much as possible? Even for the Condor/Jurgoran, the most dogfighty gunship, getting into dogfights is generally a losing proposition. The goal is to run and hope that either someone shoots the pursuer off your tail or that you create enough of a gap to turn and railgun them. If you stand and fight as a gunship pilot it should either be a result of bad mistakes that left you out of position and out of fuel so a fight with a small chance of winning is better than retreating with no chance of surviving, or because you recognize that the attacker is low on shields, health, and fuel which means they're probably also low on skill, and with all of those advantages you might win a dogfight despite being in a gunship. Even then it's not ideal. Winning dogfights against close enemies will be much less productive than railgunning distant targets. Sure, dogfight to hold a satellite in a Dom game if no one else is there, but the goal should be for your team to get a good short range ship there so the gunship can get back out to range where it is happy. Learning to fight groups of gunships can be hard and unpleasant if learning on your own, but it is solvable once you figure it out and get some practice in. There are guides and links to guides on this forum if you want to mostly skip the figuring out and just read the how tos so you can get directly to the practicing. If a non-gunship is consistently losing dogfights to gunships the problem is in the skill level of the pilot of the non-gunship, not the game mechanics of the gunship.

Surprised to hear this, since I use a Steam install and connect with WTFast 5.4.2. Note, under my settings, in the list for default configs there's an option for SWTOR, and another for SWTOR(Steam). Not sure if this is a default thing, or if these are custom configs I made so long ago that I no longer remember making them. Edit: Of course I say that it's no problem for me, and then try to log into SWTOR only to get constant connection timeouts whether I use WTFast or try a direct connection. Le Sigh.

This is mostly a TLDR recap of what others have said, plus a few gaps filled in. Hard counters, the T3F is unable to use slicing on you even if it wants to: Fly a ship that is not: a gunship, a bomber, or a T3F, and stay at least 5001 meters away from the T3F with slicing. *May require wise engine pool management and countering them picking up an engine power up by picking up an engine power up of your own. Keep at least one LOS blocking terrain object between you and the T3F if the range between you and the T3F is 5001 meters or less. Use a weapon with a range of more than 5000 meters to kill the T3F before it gets within 5000 meters of you. Slice the T3F with slicing before it slices you Use EMP field on the T3F before it slices you Use EMP missile AOE on the T3F before it slices you Semi-soft counters, didn't quite fit the hard counter or soft counter criteria: Ion railgun the snot out of the T3F so it can't ever boost anywhere *It will probably start devoting all it's attention to trying to slice you if you do this Soft counters, the T3F sliced you successfully, but you're not going to let them, or anyone else, profit from that: Break LOS with a terrain object before anyone completes locking a missile/torp on you. Stay out of the firing arcs of any ships that are trying to lock missiles/torps on you. They can't start locking if you're not in front of their ship's nose. *May be impractical if multiple opponents are targeting you. Have enough engine reserve to boost out of range before a lock can be completed on you. Kill whatever is trying to lock a missile/torp on you before it can finish the lock. Heal through a hit with hydrospanner, repair drone, or repair probes. *Requires adequate pre-hit hull health, unlikely to work for multiple hits. All of the options require some degree of skill. They're also generally preventative rather than reactionary, so it helps a great deal to be able to identify which ships can carry engine disabling components: Remote Slicing, EMP Field, EMP Missile. Observe the match board at start of match to see who has or is flying those ships, and then after the match starts observe them to see if they appear to be using builds with disables or not. If they appear to be using disables, then defend accordingly. There's a lot you can do, but you mostly have to do it before they've sliced you and launched a torpedo into your ship.

It seems to me like the design motto for 7.x has been, "Embrace the bugs, embrace the grind." I came back for a one time sub because I was hearing some good things about 7.2 content, and after Ruhnuk I'd say, "That was nice in a lot of ways, but, never again." I'm normally a rep grinder, but it really seemed like it was taking all the worst grind aspects from 1.0-6.0 and distilling them into one repellent experience. Map builders did the nicest job they've done since, I don't know, 3.0, 1.0? Ruhnuk is really nice looking. But dear god, the grind. I leveled my main through it, and I think that was enough for me. What does this have to do with credit sinks though? Grind sucks as a play experience. It's poor game design, but there are practicalities that sort of force you to do it. There's an opportunity here though. Credit sink shortcuts. I think I spent more on Galactic Seasons catchups in one week than I've put into other in game credit sinks in the last five years. Yeah, I don't spend a lot. It worked really well though. I dumped over 100 million credits, and I was happy about doing it. That's what you should be shooting for. Making players happy to unload heaps of credits. The 250 k companion gifts on Odessan are another good example. More expensive than the companion gifts on fleet, but so much quicker. Plus of course the quickest option is via Cartel Coins. Yeah, this sort of opens up pay to win criticism, but that's already built in with the current F2P system, and strictly speaking, it's pay-to-avoid-miserably-boring-soul-sucking-unfun-time-sinks. Sure avoiding that is a win, figuratively, but not by in game metrics. Things like the kingpin event would also be a good credit bypass option. Instead of standing on a location on Nar Shadaa for hours clicking a button, give the option to buy for maybe 750 million credits, a, "slot slicing data-spike," that changes the RNG chance of a win from some absurdly low number to say 10-20%. Spending unreasonably large amounts of credits to bypass unreasonably small RNG chances seems like a pretty decent trade from a player perspective. I'm finally starting to hit credit caps on my characters, and it's taken so long because I'm not super interested in playing the GTN markets. That said, the reason I'm not credit depleted, is because there's not much to buy for credits that I want in game. The good cosmetics are almost all CC gated, and I have plenty of CC from ages of subscription. Strongholds were a decent sink, but I'm at the stronghold bonus cap, have been since a month or two after that came out, so no real reason to keep investing in them. But avoiding pointless grind? Totally worth it to me. Honestly, if you could pay to raise the weekly reputation caps, I'd pay for that. I'd pay for reputation items too. If you give me opportunities to trade in game currency, which is basically worthless to me in game right now, to bypass pointless grinds put in because the rate of content production for SWTOR is glacial, then the in game currency has in game worth, because I get to edit out some of the stuff in SWTOR that I'd rather not do, and spend it queuing for GSF matches instead. Win-win. If there were really consistent "pay in game currency to avoid grind," structures, I also might reconsider whether to re-sub. As it stands, for me, a SWTOR subscription is a pay-to-grind experience. I'm not willing to pay for that. I buy games to have fun. If though, I get to skip the grind, or a least a lot of it by spending in game credits, then I'm more motivated both to spend in game currency and to spend real currency on a subscription instead of using SWTOR as a F2P GSF lobby. FWIW, when I let my sub lapse after 7.0 came out, it was mostly about in game QoL issues. If you revert a decade's worth of QoL improvements, then why should I pay for SWTOR when there's already a F2P option that's basically, "SWTOR minus in game QoL features"? If I can get back QoL via in game currency expenditure, then it changes the value proposition of SWTOR in my entertainment budget pretty significantly.

Six or more bombers split between two satellites will generally do the job against your average random team in a Domination match. You need at least a couple of people who know what they're doing working together to clean the bombers off of the sats faster than they can respawn. Especially if the bombers have any skill. Long ago swarms of battlescouts could also really swing matches, but it required greater pilot skill and the mechanics to support it got changed so they're not really viable for that anymore.

It's not. Non-contribute and vote kick for GSF do not appear to have changed. Players have to take a break from flying and vote to kick you. However, the penalties for getting kicked from or abandoning a PvP match have changed. So lockouts are longer and ramp up much more harshly than previously. GSF matchmaking, vote kick, non-participation, and the penalty structure are all built on top of the PvP code for those things, so changes to ground PvP code can bleed through to GSF. For example GSF medals disappearing. Honestly, I think most of what people are seeing is that Conquest and Seasons are incentivizing people to do GSF, and some of them are AFKing or throwing matches on the basis that they can get the fly [insert] ship class for 5 matches by having all classes on their hangar bar and then dying at least three times so one match gets all four ship classes checked off, and then hoping to lose the match after that as quickly and effortlessly as possible. I think that's a bit stupid, since the reward for the GSF Weekly goes twice as fast if you win, but then I can influence winning in a positive way, and maybe these people feel they can't. At any rate, some people really resent the afkers and throwers, and are really agitating to vote kick anyone who can be vote kicked as soon as they can be vote kicked. I find the time better spent shooting targets, but to each their own. In conclusion: assuming you can fly within control zone of a satellite in Dom, and shoot and hit something fairly quickly in Deathmatch, staying contributing really isn't hard. Even in a bomber. If you can't hit things when you feel like hitting things, yeah, it can be problematic in Deathmatch. Penalties are pretty harsh now. You can lobby devs for reducing them, even reducing them specifically for GSF. Penalty value reductions are probably an easier lobby then code changes. Code changes require skill, editing values requires knowing where the numberpad and Backspace key are on your keyboard. Best approach though, is probably using the chat before the match starts. Type "Hello everyone, happy flying." or something of that nature to establish that you're maybe a nice person and not a jerk. If you're a bit lacking in skill, you might type something like, "Any tips on what I should do here?" which establishes noobness and willingness to learn, which means people are more likely to cut you slack. If more skilled, try a brief discussion of strategy. If you type, "Dronelayer dropping repair w/ ammo refill and rail drone near center DO spawn," then people know you're doing useful stuff, or at least trying to. Positive social interaction, even if really minimal, drastically reduces your chances of getting kicked. If you aren't reliably getting above 70% you have room to tweak your style. I know because mine needs tweaking. More hitting and less missing I think.

Really it's only a small handful of abilities. Honestly, not even enough to achieve the goals of: Make system simpler for new players to learn. Prevent cheesing past intended PvE encounter mechanics. Reduce frustration of people who are "always" stunned, rooted, or slowed in PvP Make character progression choices significantly more "meaningful." Significantly reduce difficulty of maintenance and balancing on back end. It' just a classic Bioware "Reinvent the wheel as we're driving down the road, cause square wheels are gonna be great," case of redoing a system that already worked to make it work not quite as well as it used to. It's going to make leveling new characters suck a bit, because abilities are so spaced out it feels kinda lame progression wise, and if a healer or tank you don't get the minimum needed tools for your role until way later than you should. Honestly given the number of abilities, and the number of levels they're spread across, it probably would have been smarter to just grant weak versions of most or all abilities very early, and then as you level up give successive "power boosts" to 1 ability every 2 or 3 levels until they're all at full power at level 80. It would be a much better experience in terms of starting weak and growing strong, and it's the sort of system that accommodates future level cap increases gracefully. Eh, they're really only making a minor tweak to the existing system. With Outfits they decoupled character appearance and character stats. The way the system is meant to work at this point, in game, Live, is that you get your GTN space Barbie outfit pieces, leave them empty, make an outfit, put the doll clothes in storage, and then just slot whatever gear drops from the content you're doing onto your character sheet for the stats. Yeah, it's annoying that the weapon outfitter isn't going to work at first, but until they release some content that actually has any challenge to it, you can almost certainly get by ok just keeping your 306 weapon(s) for a while. Four to eight months. They're pretty consistent. Depending on the degree to which they've bit off more than they can chew, if it's not ready by seven months they'll just push it out buggy, and Live will go to a late alpha/early beta build state for a while until they put out sub-patches that gradually hotfix the worst problems. I agree with your general sentiment that it's a very unimpressive and uninspiring expansion, that overall will make the SWTOR play experience moderately worse for six months to a year. That said, for the most part it's just the logical extension of things they were already doing in game design, and things that will be worse than live won't really be all that much worse. I mean, really, that could be their anniversary expac motto: "7.0, not that much worse than 6.0"

There's a sort of bounty hunting you're forgetting. Standing bounties. Ones that don't cover a specific individual, but a general class. Wolf, coyote, bear, mountain lion, are all typical historical examples. So are: scalp of British soldier, scalp of French soldier, scalp of colonial militiaman, scalp of hostile Indian warrior. So are scalp, ear or other reasonably portable dismembered body part of man, woman or child of any age, of pesky people living on top of the land you want to steal. There's definitely a historical basis for a blurry spectrum that spans from law enforcement to market hunter to mercenary to murderer for hire. It hasn't really strayed outside of the bounds of what encompass a bounty hunter. Real life, especially over long spans of history, tends to be complicated, messy, and sometimes very ugly. Now if you make a case that Lucas was going for a very John Wayne style Hollywood movie bounty hunter, then yeah, maybe you could argue it has strayed a bit. A bit of an odd contention given that Boba worked for Jabba in the original trilogy. Even Vader, though officially an authority figure in the Empire, wasn't exactly the righteous employer you'd expect for a John Wayne bounty hunter, unless your bounty hunter is going to switch sides by the end of the story. For that matter, thinking of Westerns in general, the "hired gun," is often an antagonistic figure doing the dirty work of some powerful and unethical character. So I'm not quite sure where you're getting the "more or less good guy," stereotype from for Bounty Hunters. Sure, there's space for a bounty hunter that definitely is a good guy. There's just not much of an expectation that you can assume they're a good guy in pop culture stereotypes.

For Heroics, at least if you mean the H2 quests from the Alliance terminal, the problem they're trying to solve is GTN credit inflation. If you have a stealth class, and with 7.0 every character is potentially a stealth class, and know which heroics to run, you can pull in between 1 and 3 million credits per hour. Caveat, that this is if you're smart about selling the companion gifts on the GTN, so not all of that really contributes to inflation, maybe only a few hundred thousand credits, but it does add up if a lot of people do it multiple days per week. Same idea as behind slowing Conquest, they're trying to slow the rate at which the game issues new credits. They could dial rewards down, instead of limiting play time in a particular mode, but if you're a developer and are hoping for player retention you might think you can nudge people to play other parts of the game and avoid getting bored or burn-out. Not saying that that works, just that it's something the developers might be hoping for. For groupfinder queues, it is targeted at people spamming the perceived easiest FPs for easy gearing. For starters, 7.0 doesn't have much in the way of content, so the devs need players to just recycle the old content. Then there's a clear focus on making 7.0 a long slow gear grind, because there's really nothing else to do (see lack of content). So to avoid player burnout due to repetition, and to reduce the rate at which people can gear by doing quick FPs, you force them to pick from a small random sub-set of FPs. Why not just add loot to entice players to enter less played content? Refer to the deliberate intent to make gearing a slow miserable grind, and to fight inflation. Basically, having significant in game rewards for playing the game is something they are trying to avoid, hence they're not willing to bribe people into content. There's also the consideration that there's a fraction of players that will just do the easy FPs regardless of reward. They might be trying to prod those players into playing other FPs. TLDR: Trying to solve: credit inflation, player burnout from repetitious content, making end game gearing more grindy to try to disguise lack of new playable content. Not saying these are good solutions, but they are trying to solve real problems from the developers' standpoint.

As a healer looking at your numbers, I'd say calling it 1/3 of a healer is a lot more accurate than 1/2 of a healer. It's also strictly AOE/raid healing, so the extent to which it's really unbalanced depends a lot on the ability of the other characters in the group to mitigate spike damage with DCDs. The range on it, which I don't know because Sent is my least played class, is also a consideration. I haven't healed a group of 3-4 sents in challenging conditions on PTS, because class stacking is usually hard to find in groupfinder, so I can't comment on the extent to which their healing compares with the damage mitigation and healing from a mixed class group. Haven't really noticed any exceptional problems in mixed groups though, so I wouldn't anticipate healers asking all the DPS to bring sents to a raid for the healing. As to the broader questions: Do the Devs look at the PTS forums for information about class balance? Yes. Then they ignore it because they have some cool ideas about class mechanics that they want to try, and they are after all, professionals (so it should work right?). Will we go live with 7.0 with the current PTS class balance? For the most part yes. If there are classes that the style specific threads give overwhelming feedback on that something is badly broken, there might be a small fix. Think of the changes from the early PTS versions to current for Guardian/Warrior styles. Other than that, what you see now is what you should expect to see on live for 7.0.

This seems pretty unreasonable to me. Sure, if it's a guild run, expect people to wait for you, provided your guild isn't a really driven progression group with people on waiting lists for Ops slots. If you're joining someone else's PUG though, HAVE YOUR ACT TOGETHER BEFORE YOU ASK FOR THE INVITE! A specialization/combat style swap is fine if you have the field respec. perk unlocked. Needing to log and get a re-invite, or extended travel to fleet to grab a respec, really is not. PUGs often take forever and a day to put together, and if you make everyone else wait even longer because you don't even have gear on your character, you richly deserve to be booted from the Op. Probably not blacklisted though. After all, if you're noobing it up that hard, it's probably just lack of experience right? Not callous disregard for common courtesy to other players. At 50 classes had all the tools they needed for Ops. Or they did, until Bioware for 4 expansions in a row gave players, "Powerful new max level abilities," by taking away the top tier spec defining ability (or two) and then giving it back at the new level cap. With 7.0, well, let's just say that if you used to level by doing HM FPs a lot, you should probably come up with a new game plan for alts, especially if in heal or tank specs. For SM ops though, yeah, it won't matter.

Your camera, your gun origin points, and your ship hitbox are three separate entities. Just because your camera and guns don't have line of sight to something doesn't mean that your hitbox doesn't have line of sight to something. Usually people using cover are deep enough into cover so that these differences don't matter, but if you're trying to be sneaky, or push right up to the edge, you need to be very precisely aware of all three locations (camera, guns, hitbox) work for the individual ship you're in, in order to avoid precisely this sort of event. Mastering this is one of the challenging elements of top level gunship-chess strafing duels.