There have been people who claimed they reported me because I "hacked" their systems, firing missiles on them while I disabled their systems. They claimed they could always run their engine maneuvre but when I was around they couldn't. I told them remote slicing and emp field does that (which isn't used all that often). Anyways, to answer your question: Click under the sytem tab on Customer Service to create a ticket and then on "Report a Player". I would however advice you to ask here what is happening, if you can create a video we can check what is happening before reporting the player(s), chances are that the game is "working as intended".

The suggestion isn't exactly... on topic tbh

If such a system would be put into place, you need to be able to queue for more then 1 "role" which in gsf is replaced by ship class off course. The size of the hangar needs to be increased and yes, if you (solo) queue with just scout(s) or gunship(s) in your hangar you would sit in queue longer then you would sit in queue when you put just strike(s) in your hangar.

The thing with GSF is a certain type of ship very often counters another. As is mentioned often and also in this thread... Gunship counters Bomber, Bomber counters Scout, Scout counters Gunship and a mixture of Gunships and Bombers are countered by Gunships. The problem with the gamestyle is it limits the choice of the ship you like to fly if you are coming to win off course. If you go in your gunships against a pre-made team of 8 scouts, the scouts are going to like you But anyways, lets think about the limit of certain ships. In order for it to work we would need to have only 2 / 3 ships per type. This means that, if there is the usual 8 vs 8 match, you always fly with and against: 2 Bombers 2 Gunships 2 Scouts 2 Strikes In a 10 vs 10, yeah that would be a more difficult limit. It will be likely that there will be a limit of 3 of every class of ship so there is some variation in this type of match. In a 12 vs 12, thats easier again: 3 Bombers 3 Gunships 3 Scouts 3 Strikes I can say that I wouldn't be against this type of gsf.. however it would require a huge overhaul and it would probably require that ships are simply "standard". No more requisition being earned and spend, just having selections, like they are now, just all maxed out.

I'll respond to this directly. Is that all you got?! You make a thread title and you offer this as your "explanation"?! Sure, you might hate chapters and gsf but how does that influence your gameplay? GSF is popping again on JC and I am happy about that, otherwise I wouldn't be playing.

I got one addition for Bomber Domination Total Damage 3rd spot: Traesha - Warcarrier - Secforce Squadron - Jedi Covenant - 86,595 damage 0 deaths as well

Open pvp zone(s). I have suggested this before and other players response was "not going to happen" but it's an idea. You just fly in there and you'll see red dots or red and green dots (the last one is faction vs faction, the first one is free for all aka outlaw's den / Ilum pvp area). You fly there till you have a pop. It can be empty too but at least you can do something in space rather then on the ground.

Yeah, It also may be the case because I know what a bomber can do I have more succes in taking one out then a lot of others. You may have more succes at taking out gunships (also in other ships) then someone else does, because you know what they can do.

A no GS event looks indeed pretty cool and I'll be on the lookout for results / where it takes place. Other then that I agree that player skill is a big factor.

Just to clarify, I bring up Strike fighters vs bombers is a strategy that mostly works. I do that because a lot of times when a gs-thread pops up, people defend the gs and say if it didn't exist, then bombers would be overpowered which from my pov isn't true. Strikes may need a boost but they can allready be a pain for bombers.

I am kinda pissed at this kind of behaviour. To me, players aren't stating "facts", to each their own opinion and if my opinion is different, then it will normally stay different. Simple as that. Well, in most situations from my pov. The thing is, I don't fly gs's. Never really did, probably never will. Except if it is for some kind of event or so. And if you don't fly gs's... then you have less choice and I predict that your "most of us" fly both strikes and gunships. And I have seen a couple pilots who from pov just sucked in all kinds of strikes but are good pilots in their gunships. Yeah thats just it, the most common ships, basically the FOTM ships. All I was saying is you don't need gunships if the other side isn't using gunships. And blc scouts... let's keep that out of this thread, except that we may agree that bombers can counter them. Nothing to do with strikes. Well, it depends on the server you fly at. Fortunately, thanks to galactic command I presume most servers have frequent gsf pops, even if there isn't a bonus and who can be considered "good" on server A can be average on server B, again, like I mentioned.. imo you don't need gs's if you aren't facing any gs's. A CP Bomber "under a node" is from my pov going to loose from a strike if the strike fighter pilot knows what he/she is doing. A proton torpedo has a max range of 10.5k (I think), thats outside the range of a rampart/razorwire and the RSD from the warcarrier / legion is (obviously) taken out first and has a lllooooonnnnnggg cooldown. I thought you would know that. The blc scout... I just say that this thread isn't about the blc scout but they can be countered by mine bombers. I never said a strike was such a good ship. But, if more people would step out of their gunships, never pop it in their hangar then they need to get experience in the strikes and they will get better at it.

Well, we could go on and on and I stick to my point while you stick to yours. All I say, IMO you don't need gunships if the other team isn't using gunships, we are talking ion spam railgun here which is what the OP posted about. What I notice a lot is people don't leave their "comfort zone" and if everyone tells these people to use gunships to counter bombers, then some will not leave it either. And I agree using gunships vs bombers is the easiest way to do it. But if anyone wants a little harder but definately doable, then grab that strike and hunt down a bomber even if some discourage you to do that.

To each their own opinion. I see that most people would think that to "clear bombers" from sats you need gunships which imo is false. I also say that I have less problems with T3 gs's then with T1's since the T3 simply doesn't have ion rail. One example which... I didn't record on video but did happen yesterday was a Lost Shipyard TDM which was pretty equal in strenght, our team won with 50-43. There were 3 imp pilots I recognized and I noticed they went into bombers first to which I responded by selecting a clarion to remove the bombers. The Imp teams bombers got decimated quickly by one of our gs pilots and myself using protorps + quad lasers. After that happened, the imp pilots went into.... gunships. I got killed and switched to a (quad + pod) flashfire. Not many bombers around so a clear field to remove gunships. Then the imps again switched a bit, there were 2 bombers and 3 gunships while pub side (our team) were far ahead of the imps in score. They tried to get back but when I focussed on the bombers again (I got back into my clarion) some scouts from our team were busy with the gunships and thats when we won with 50-43 because they were too far behind. What I noticed from this match though was pilots with about equal skill was that removing bombers in a tdm weren't the biggest problem and I had little trouble with them when I was in my Clarion. So there we are, if ion rail didn't exist... people would definately complain about bombers here on the forums... like I admit now do about Ion Rail however they would also WIN matches in strikes, yes strikes when faced again multiple bombers. Since.. let's not forget that Strikes have the best shields AND charged plating which is a very effective defense against mines and the times that a railgun sentry drone killed a strike... in 1 (or even 2) hits are very rare and most likely to happen in a stock strike which isn't what I am talking about here. So here is an idea, 8 strikes vs 8 bombers.. I am counting on the 8 strikes to win that match, especially clarions / imperiums since they are quiet the tank loaded with maybe 1 or 2 emp missiles and the rest with protorps. If you disagree, thats fine but strikes... imo can counter bombers if the strike fighter pilots know what they are doing.

Well, I have seen posts where pilots advice to "use" 8 gunships vs gunship + bomber squad which isn't going to happen on a lot of servers (fortunately I might add). Also, a lot of gs pilots would prefer to stick close to mines and drones to stay safe from scouts. Anyways back to Ion railgun which imo can be overpowered since it also has area effect and the gs pilot(s) would simply spam his/her ion railgun at the defense turret hitting anyone within it's radius. To me, it isn't a problem if the area effect is removed. Not that it will happen but with all the other goodies the T1 gs gets: Barrel Roll Distortion field Burst Laser Cannon Slug Railgun It's no surprise that in the records thread 2 ships seem to appear most: The T1 Gunship The T2 Scout Aside from off course the class specific records

Now that is reliable advice. The thing about "get into a scout if you hate gunships" isn't working in a Lost Shipyard TDM where you go up against 4 or 5 gunships and 3 or 4 bombers which happens quiet a few times.

I hope Galactic Command will stay! I keep my sub because I hate to do Ops and I enjoy the fact that GSF now pops a lot again on Jedi Covenant, even when it's not bonussed, and hope it will stay that way. I like it that I can do heroics to gear up. I haven't done uprisings yet but intend to do so. Sure, some will be unlucky and don't get as much gear because of the randomness. So there you go Bioware, please keep Galactic Command. Improve it maybe but keep it in so we don't all have to do ops but actually do what we like and gear up in the mean time!

I think it would be ok to make +41: accuracy alacrity defense shield crystals to have more choices. Double stats though, thats something you shouldn't ask for. It is well known that they are going to screw it up and indeed make a +41 crit/defense crystal which off course is a joke crystal since a tank doesn't need crit and a dps doesn't need defense.

Just putting this out here, this time a not so much "shout-out", more like a message about a player who doesn't seem to like most of us. The players name is Rogue Trooper. This person is going to self-destruct the entire match like he does here and here He'll likely continue to do that until he is banned. I probably don't need to tell you to report him everytime he does this. He is on pub-side. If he rolls an imp, I'll probably refrain from shooting at you imps which... isn't what we like to do

I wonder... I think they will nerf the CXP Gain from gsf when they'll fix the xp and credit gain, which is... pretty sad if that happens.

I am kinda surprised you didn't put up this one Long time ago though. Anyways, I do feel good enough to play so I'll see you in game, hopefully. Waiting for a pop.

Just.. I am pretty upset about the fact that you are telling people, at least me to leave secforce. You know I can't accept that. I see you have edited your post. If you'll agree to no longer tell people to leave their guilds / secforce, or talk bad about secforce then I don't have a problem to let this thread die.

Well, thread is not deleted after a couple days and I do wish to say something about this. I personally don't have any problems with srw / the people in srw. Also, I do not agree with how Averann (OP) treats this as it caused a situation. However, this situation is IMO taken advantage of. A new guild is created, I understand the people who were (unfortuantely, I don't agree with it) kicked joined the new guild, I would probably do the same thing. What also happens though is false information is being spread about Secforce and people currently in Secforce squadron are actively being recruited by "new guild". I do post here to say that Secforce has, and probably always will have active gsf enthousiast and is certainly not in a bad position. If gsf picks up on JC, great. I'll probably be flying then. If it doesn't... well, that will be unfortunate. Guess we all find: A new server on SWtor Elite Dangerous or a bit later No Man's Sky Star Citizen Anyways, wish this new guild would have been created imp side / or this new guild would have been created sooner when there wasn't a situation or not at all. Hopefully this clears things up.

It's a not so original idea. New ships or some improved ships (strikes) maybe. Or like some open space sectors to hyperspace in with both a free pvp zone where everyone is red as well as a factional one where things are (obviously) unbalanced are the better idea. Off course (open) doesn't mean no obstacles / structures or asteroids, just... something to do when gsf doesn't pop and you want to be in space.

Thanks BK Well, I am not being "controlled" by anyone. I may respond later or maybe not but this I can say now at least

I just checked, 40 matches for me on TRE, 67.50% wins, so that 27/13 in the last couple of days. About the blc scouts on that server though.. yeah I had 1 match yesterday where there were 5 of those imp side. Didn't exactly work well for them but it's true Anyway, enough about TRE. Yesterday was great fun on JC. Saw some new faces in gsf (or they may be alts). Best time I had in a while. Regular pops, flying on Traesha and good competition. Keep it up.