No need to be you weren't in that. This thread really isn't about premades, it's about what concessions can be made to prevent the game from being a horrible experience for either side. Just how much advantage can there be for one side or the other before the game becomes a poor experience. I think the 8 bomber thread demonstrates perfectly well that the current rules allow the players to go to far.

I had to switch servers because on Pot5 we had double premades rolling all the time. They made the game impossible for anyone not in their pre-mades to enjoy. Turns out they left the server after I did, complaining there weren't enough pops.

Derp, the people that whine about my posts field 8 man premades and act like entitled sociopaths. You threaten me, and then have the gall to call me hateful ?

You should of played on prophecy of the five it used to be double premades 24-7.

LOL another armchair warrior. It's not war it's a game so the question needs to be not is the tactic effective but is it too annoying to allow,

Well aside from being an argument for not allowing premades to queue against pugs, I hardly see any point here. You need to make the point that the game wouldn't have been any better for them if that wasn't 8 bombers and the odds are much in favor that if it wasn't 8 bombers the match would have been more even.

LOL no wonder you hated the idea of balancing team composition so much.

The soul purpose of that poster and the others comments were ridiculous assertions meant to promote anger not discussion. I repeatedly gave their posts far more courtesy than they deserved, is it too much to just stop and call childish behavior childish ? Every suggestion for rank queues, any kind of balancing of the actual matches gets the same kind of response what my very modest suggestion has gotten here. "I can't use ships I have earned" my lord how whiny can you get. You already can't use all the ships you can earn all the time. [quit] I HATE people that quit or give up in ground PVP. Who does that help? [/quit] Today I saw the person who is arguably the best scout pilot on the particular server quit a match in frustration. Really can't say I blame him after that match I had to take break from GSF for a bit myself. I can't speak for him but quitting the match when I first realized it was going to be complete rubbish would probably have helped my composure, The noobs on the team likely wouldn't have had a horrible impression of GSF if they had of left early. Reality begs to differ. Overwhelmingly people queue solo and you certainly can't expect new players to come in as a part of a group that is going to bring them up to speed. Overwhelmingly the groups I see consist of players who are better than average to far better than average. Letting them queue as a group against a random queue is just letting them stack a deck in their favor. You may feel it's important to promote groups, but allowing them to decimate pugs hardly seems appropriate or even particularly sane. Funny you should mention TF2 http://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Standard_competitive_lineup#Overview It's pretty basic that with a game that allows the large battles that GSF does you want to limit things. If units provide even a small force multiplier that can get to be an insanely large advantage in a 12 v 12 Edit: I just noticed this thread http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=744815 ROFL why do I get the feeling that some of the people complaining about this just didn't like their advantage being looked at closely.

Well I am pretty deadly in a type 1 scout/ type 1 strike as well (little more map dependent). The rub is, if everyone on the team were just as deadly, and we all took those ships, there wouldn't be nearly as much synergy against the other team. End of the day, bot teams can get kills even a really bad team can attrit down pilots without hydrospanner on the other team. You throw that same team against an equally skilled team stacking gunships and bombers and its not a contest anymore. Now imagine that stacked gunship bomber team going up against a team of two shippers (legitimate two shippers not vets on alts).

@OP you're a minnow These people are whales http://www.gamesbrief.com/2011/11/bigpoint-sells-2000-spaceship-drones-for-1000-euros-each-in-just-four-days/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropia_Universe#Significant_events_and_virtual_property_sales You need to be a much bigger fish or the game needs to be much more popular.

Child you didn't say much of anything

I am sorry and don't take my disagreeing with you as an attack, but every thread suggesting separate queues, or even the possibility that people would be able to opt out of unbalanced matches receives a violent reaction. Hell Verrain has characterized my suggestion of allowing people to opt out of matches with premade groups as punishing good players. I don't know how you can read that as anything else but he feels entitled to bring an advantage against people who by definition don't have it, and doesn't really care just how bad it makes the game for other people. Just look at this thread You would think there was never an online game that limited team composition. That having well defined team composition in a game ruins games for people, and anyone who thinks otherwise is bad. Occams scalpel here , the only type of solution they come up with is bribing people with items that can only be obtained through this game, to play something they wouldn't otherwise. What do you make of that ? Personally I see it as indicating that "good fights" really aren't their purpose but they are perfectly willing to fight people who are just their for the loot and probably afk.

Nobody finishes me quickly, unless I am deliberately playing goofy to give the other side a chance. Nice try though.

37) Speccing so much turn rate on a ship it makes you dizzy.

ROFL. Come now, Somebody says they don't like not having a choice when they wouldn't be doing much of anything anyway is hardly an indictment of any proposal anyone has ever made anywhere. All it does is impeach the idea that limiting their choice would spoil the fun they weren't having.

Well if you wanted to demonstrate that you don't deal well with any viewpoint but your own, you have succeeded. Overall where on the scale of confusing would you rank this ? Above or below Being 1 shot by ships Being shot by ships halfway across the map Having ship types that can't get to the action without running out of gas ? Everything has a confusion element when you don't understand what is going on. Having items grayed out is hardly a new experience for anyone who uses a computer. The majority of all games ever made limit what you can use as equipment, who can be on the teams, when team players can be switched. This does not make them "BAD" rather it makes them very very good. Well seeing as a gunship was the first ship I mastered and a bomber the second, I think you might have a tiny bit better luck claiming I hate scouts and strikes, a person not trying to be polite might claim you need an enema. Have to break this up a bit, Any change to ship stats, system stats, anything that alters the game balance is bait and switch. Right now we get nerfs based on groups of players driving things to worst case scenarios. The no safe spawn in deathmatch is a prime example of nerf because of allowing an imbalance in team composition. I read this and I can only think you are very insecure in your ability to do well in this game. Just makes me sad. So you think that without the greater ship options, your "good" players wouldn't be able to win ? And it would be funny for me because I wouldn't be able to use all the 20 ship options I have ? Balance gets built into the soul of a game one way or another Games that are well balanced are fun for the vast majority of players, games that aren't well aren't. Somehow I got the impression from these forums that good players were good in any ship. Most of "My ideas" are borrowed from successful games. Usually games considerably more successful than GSF. As much as I would like to claim them as my own, I am just repeating what works very very well.

I.E. no difference.

If Bioware is willing to put aside their profits from selling cartel market ships I am all for it. Edit: If they want a real money maker, better and more distinctive paint jobs that you could buy across your ships might be incredible. When I kill people I want them to now I was there, I hunted them and they were killed by me.

So you are broadcasting matches of exactly how pathetic your competition is, and you think that demonstrates you aren't out to rub it in their face ? I gotta ask though how is it less fun to be doing nothing in a ship you "like to fly" vs actually fighting in another ship ?

So far you are the only one who as attacked a person in this thread.

I thought you were just the consolidator of these suggestions not their originator. But the point still stands nerfing BLC is a big nerf to the close in play style. I think you are protesting far too much here ,especially since 4 out of 6 of your "Suggestions" are aimed quite squarely at one class. But if you could please tell me who these suggestions improve the game for and how they do it ?

I read all of these as, some jerk in a scout is able to get on my rear at less than 500 meters and kill my gunship please stop him so I can go back to sniping noobs, or jeez I am such a horrible bomber pilot someone was able to kill my sats turrets and me by themselves. Didn't comment on the thread about this, because I don't see it happening but there are plenty of reasons not to do this. Not the least is not everyone plays in premades and having a secondary weapon they can actually use in a one on one or one on two is important. So what I read this as is we were double teaming someone and had him spinning to try and shoot the bait but he was actually able to kill one of us with his weapons and then was able to go on and kill the chaser please stop that. This isn't a big thing, but I have to ask, it's already more than easy enough to knock a bomber off a satellite just why should it be easier ?

Wow what an amazing statement. Well I guess if your goal in games is to hurt the other player's feelings and make them not want to play the game it does make sense. Of course the usual upshot of that are threads like this http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=744365 personally I much prefer having my bombers and scouts fly and fight well when I do fly them then seeing them nerfed to benefit someone's play style.

It's a given that better matchmaking would improve the game, but as things stand there's threads dedicated to the matchmaker not doing its job when it should of been able to. Even with better matchmaking you still have to admit, there will be the dominant compositions for given matches. Bomber stacking for domination, gunship walls for deathmatch and I am sure things I have not thought of. The usual way that kind of thing gets dealt with is by nerfing whatever unit types make it possible. The question then comes down to would you prefer having unlimited freedom to play ships that have been pounded into uniformity, or have less freedom to play ships that are still distinctive and different in how they play ?

I suspect whatever I compared it to, you wouldn't find the comparison good or adequate. Well aside from the fact that none of those things are "What are you willing to do", they are in fact all things you would like bioware to do. They change none of the dynamics of gameplay but appeal to people to suffer through something they otherwise wouldn't so they can get the shiny.