The Ultimate Answer to Complains about gunships ?

[Armonddd]

If you guys are talking balance, then you need to bring flash fires into the conversation too. They're not exactly balanced either.

 

I think that's not quite right. BLCs are overpowered, but flashfires as a whole aren't so much. By that I mean, it's less that the flashfire as a whole is overpowered and more that a specific component (possibly two) is overpowered.

 

BLCs on their own provide a lot of burst damage. Since burst damage is generally what gets kills, BLCs are pretty dangerous. I wouldn't mind seeing them toned down a bit -- but at the same time, any scout build can bring a lot of burst with targeting telemetry or blaster overcharge, especially when combined with rocket pods. Really, the biggest benefit of BLCs is that you don't have to take an offensive cooldown to have good killing power, unlike, say, quads or medium cannons, which kind of suck unless combined with pods. Even then, a lot of targets will escape you if you don't use a cooldown (or two).

 

Of course, you can combine BLCs with cooldowns for massive burst potential... but I personally find that to be mostly unnecessary. Concentrated fire is enough for me, and comes with a significantly lower opportunity cost.

 

A lot of people also talk about the flashfire's mobility. It's true that you can build a flashfire for a lot of mobility -- but you'll never equal the mobility you get on a blackbolt or novadive. S/E converter provides even more engine power than booster recharge, while still allowing you to take an offensive cooldown. It takes more skill to pull off, but T1 scouts also get booster recharge and barrel roll if you're not comfortable with S/E converter. There's nothing the flash can do in this department that other scouts can't.

 

Finally, you can make the argument that the flashfire has no "bad" component slots -- every slot makes the flashfire better at what it's supposed to do. Even T1 gunships don't have that advantage (because lol, sensors). On the other hand, what the flashfire really gets out of that deal is +20% shield power... and 20% of not a lot is not a huge amount. Even with a reactor, scouts squish pretty easily; survivability comes from skilled flying more than it does stats.

 

The flashfire playstyle rewards skilled play (of a specific playstyle, even) more than it provides straight up advantages. While BLCs are a bit too powerful and do need to be toned down a touch, I think the ship as a whole is in a fairly good place.

[mattycutts]

last night in my gunship, I actually had 7 of 8 chasing me in a TDM finding it extremely hard to kill me, does this mean its coz of a OP ship? hell no means they were muppits that had no idea and no space awareness around them.

 

when im on a scout, fighter I don't struggle take out ya typical gunships, when u face top gs' and top any other class then its down to who hits a crit, who misses a shot who got the drop on who.

 

if you cant kill a GS then you really should either play one to understand them, or just quit.

[wvwraith]

Flash fires are the most broken ship in the game. They're classified as a scout, yet they have access to the two best laser cannons in the game, burst and quads. Not only that. they have access to double clusters, superior agility, speed, and superior turning ability. Let's not forget directional shields too. Its a supped up strike fighter. No other ship packs as much offensive/speed into one package. They can shred shields in mere seconds, and I'm talking about bomber shields like they were butter. Shields are basically useless against flash fires. I've seen these two shot people and they're still using bypass(change didn't help much.) Pop agility to head to head, bypass, burst, dead. Again full shields don't matter. Its not because of power-ups either.Scouts should never have that much offensive power. Strikes I thought were intended to be the heavy weapons dog fighters, at least they should anyways.

I'm glad some people see burst as being too powerful. Shields should play some kind of role in gsf, right now there's just too much stuff shredding shields/bypassing them. Nova dives are fine and I think they're balanced decent. I just don't think flash fires are. They're not balanced. Out of all the ships they're the least balanced, period.

[Pilgrim_Grey]

Flash fires are the most broken ship in the game. They're classified as a scout, yet they have access to the two best laser cannons in the game, burst and quads. Not only that. they have access to double clusters, superior agility, speed, and superior turning ability. Let's not forget directional shields too. Its a supped up strike fighter. No other ship packs as much offensive/speed into one package. They can shred shields in mere seconds, and I'm talking about bomber shields like they were butter. Shields are basically useless against flash fires. I've seen these two shot people and they're still using bypass(change didn't help much.) Pop agility to head to head, bypass, burst, dead. Again full shields don't matter. Its not because of power-ups either.Scouts should never have that much offensive power. Strikes I thought were intended to be the heavy weapons dog fighters, at least they should anyways.

I'm glad some people see burst as being too powerful. Shields should play some kind of role in gsf, right now there's just too much stuff shredding shields/bypassing them. Nova dives are fine and I think they're balanced decent. I just don't think flash fires are. They're not balanced. Out of all the ships they're the least balanced, period.

 

As Armondd said, BLC are probably a little overpowered and that's the majority of the problem. But your complaints are about what they do to bombers? Out in the open and not to their strengths, I suppose a battle scout will have fun with a bomber, but that's it. If you're a minelayer, you can drop a mine on their face for getting so close to you and it'll mostly kill them thanks to their weak hull and shields. If you drop a drone in the same position and go evasive, they're going to still have a hard time taking you out without taking a lot of damage.

 

And that's only in a true 1 vs 1, which is rare. The longer a scout has to slow down to take you out, the more likely you'll drop something out on them or a teammate will come and make their day bad. I don't like getting shot by gunships on my scouts, because they don't have the shields or armor to take those hits easily.

 

Also... while BLC are a lot of burst damage, a bomber has an insane amount of shields and armor. I don't run BLCs except on my gunships, and even on characters with scaled up weapons, it's not hard to run out of weapon power trying to punch through all that, even when you throw a concussion into the mix. That's partially being trigger happy if you aren't hitting the reticle, but it's also a testament to how many shields you do have. Seriously, a Bomber is a hard counter to the battle scout... not seeing where your complaints are coming from about the ship as a whole. If you're taking one on in a head to head and don't have mines or drones out, though, you're trying to give them a lot to one up you. Even then, your weapons alone should be doing a lot of damage to them (also... it's not like you have to take them on head to head... I'm wary of anyone who seems willing to try that maneuver and often refuse that type of encounter, since they obviously want it).

 

And as for Quads being the best lasers in the game... they're just workhorses and aren't all that different from the medium lasers. I use them a lot, but I don't see an issue with scouts getting them. I have more of an issue with BLC having shield piercing and being available to scouts and gunships, however.

[Armonddd]

Flash fires are the most broken ship in the game.

 

Please understand that I respect you as a cool dude, which is why I'm writing this post to correct you (and in some cases agree with you).

 

They're classified as a scout, yet they have access to the two best laser cannons in the game, burst and quads. Not only that. they have access to double clusters, superior agility, speed, and superior turning ability.

 

I think mobility and maneuverability are fine on a scout. That's the whole point of the class -- to be a more mobile and maneuverable fighter than the strike fighter, while sacrificing durability and versatility.

 

As for laser cannons... if you took them away, you'd be all but gutting the scout. In a game where gathering information is nearly meaningless due to a combination of small battlefields and enormous default sensor and communication ranges on every ship, the scout needs something to stand out. Scouts don't get the durability of a strike fighter, nor do they have access to heavy weaponry such as concussion missiles and proton torpedoes, so the devs decided to give them superior burst capabilities. While I think their current burst capabilities are too strong (at least in combination with their current mobility), I don't think the concept of a highly mobile, burst-centric fighter is inherently problematic.

 

Let's not forget directional shields too.

 

Actually, let's forget them.

 

Seriously, as long as distortion field both boosts evasion (even passively!) and provides a second missile break, directional shields have very little use. Distortion field specifically counters the two biggest threads to a scout -- high burst damage from lasers and high hull damage from missiles -- while directional shields only address one -- high incoming damage from e.g. a gunship or a target you're jousting with. Literally anything that directional shields do is done better by distortion field. Until something is done to change that, it's not worth balancing scouts around directional shields.

 

Its a supped up strike fighter. No other ship packs as much offensive/speed into one package.

 

Again, I don't see a problem with the concept here, just the implementation. Compared to scouts, everything has less mobility and maneuverability, but strikes get extra defense and unique weaponry; gunships get range, power and debuffs; and bombers get mines and drones (which essentially wall off an area from anything but highly coordinated assault) and healing/support capabilities.

 

They can shred shields in mere seconds, and I'm talking about bomber shields like they were butter. Shields are basically useless against flash fires.

 

Gunships do the same thing, but better. Type 1 strikes also get ion weapons to strip shields ridiculously fast. Bombers flat out ignore your shields with some of their weapons. GSF is, for better or for worse, a fast-paced, burst-centric game by design -- if I hit you once with BLC, you need to be on the ball and dodge before you get hit again. It's just that kind of a game.

 

With all the burst damage in the game, the thing that makes BLC stand out is its short cooldown compared to, say, slug railguns and concussion missiles. This obviously would be less of an issue if BLC did less damage per shot.

 

Also, in my experience bomber shields aren't quite butter, but then I use booster recharge.

 

I've seen these two shot people and they're still using bypass(change didn't help much.) Pop agility to head to head, bypass, burst, dead. Again full shields don't matter. Its not because of power-ups either.

 

Bypass is honestly the worst possible copilot ability a scout can bring to the table (except against really exceptionally skilled pilots -- like, there's only a half dozen or so pilots I've ever seen where I really wanted it). Scout weapons just don't get enough shield piercing that bypass will make literally any difference -- a two-shot with bypass will, in the majority of situations, be a two-shot without bypass.

 

Also, two-shotting targets is the exception, not the rule. In order to get any semblance of burst capabilities, BLCs need to be at very close range -- not more than about 2 km, ideally less. At that close range, almost any movement by the target will make a shot miss -- a slight juke is all that's needed to force me to readjust my aim. Even then, two-shots only happen against other scouts, and sometimes only happen with a crit. Against strikes, assuming no crits, I generally need three or four shots to land a kill. Gunships are similar. Bombers are extremely tricky to burst down, because you can't afford to get behind them (a single mine will take out something like 85% of your hull), you can't afford to be directly in front of them (heavy lasers will wreck you), and approaching from other angles makes it easy for them to get in front of you. Your best bet here is to stay a fair distance back and pelt them with clusters and spitballs, unless you know for sure that their mines are on cooldown or you can have someone distract them for you.

 

Scouts should never have that much offensive power. Strikes I thought were intended to be the heavy weapons dog fighters, at least they should anyways.

 

As above, the tradeoffs justify the increased blaster power (to a point).

 

I think strikes do fill the role of heavy weapons dogfighters. The range advantage on many missiles and, especially, their laser options is significant. Consider the advantage heavy lasers with range capacitor and concussion missiles have over burst cannons: you're looking at 6.9-7 km range vs ~2 km. That's an enormous difference, and that disadvantage kills the scout in a number of situations. Further, while clusters hold the advantage in lock-on and travel times, concs and torps have inherent shield piercing on levels scouts can only dream about. A conc or torp lock is always dangerous, and the answer is, in many cases, to completely sacrifice your position and abandon the fight; a cluster lock is only dangerous if you get hit again before your shields regen.

 

I'm glad some people see burst as being too powerful.

 

I think it could be significantly toned down by tightening the damage scaling. If you had to be within 1.5 km instead of 2 km before your accuracy and damage took a nosedive, I think they'd be more balanced.

 

Shields should play some kind of role in gsf, right now there's just too much stuff shredding shields/bypassing them.

 

A ship with no shields and enormous hull would not last very long in a dogfight, simply because it would have no way of repairing damage while every other ship repairs damage passively.

 

Quite honestly, most of my kills come from other people flat out not knowing what they're doing. I'll hit someone from range and take out half their shields, and they'll just... not do anything. They keep flying in the same direction as they were, towards whatever goal they have in mind, and not even pop a defensive cooldown.

 

If you get hit, move. It doesn't matter what you're doing or what goal you're || this close to, you need to go evasive immediately. You cannot afford to take another hit, especially if the first one came from a gunship or BLCs.

 

If more people understood that they're flying a small boat with five centimeters of durasteel between themselves and the vacuum, and only as much deflection shielding as their military could afford to cheaply fit in to the spare cargo space without sacrificing speeds above mach 2-3 before setting the engine into overcharge and tripling that speed, I would not get nearly as many kills as I do today.

 

Nova dives are fine and I think they're balanced decent.

 

Callem and Sevaerian are both at least as effective in their blackbolts as I am in my flashfire. The two ships are balanced about equally, really; they just support different playstyles. I'd say that the flashfire/sting is easier to pick up and figure out, but the blackbolt/novadive can be more rewarding (if only because it's less expected).

 

I just don't think flash fires are. They're not balanced. Out of all the ships they're the least balanced, period.

 

I'd give that honor to gunships and their "target foe loses 53 weapon power, 53 engine power, and all shields, and cannot regenerate power for 6 seconds" railgun, personally.

 

I have more of an issue with BLC having shield piercing and being available to scouts and gunships, however.

 

Agree with your post up to this -- almost no one uses shield piercing on BLC, because the armor penetration is such a big damage buff, especially against bombers. Shield piercing is really only good when the target is evasive enough that you're forced to wear him down with direct hull damage because you can only get off a shot or two before he gets away and regens shields. That's exceptionally rare in the matchups I've seen.

[Yndras]

Remember how before evasion was nerfed and bombers were introduced type 2 scouts and gunships seemed unstoppable.

 

With the introduction of bombers and changes to evasion problem with scouts was solved so I would like to speculate that when infiltrator class stealth ships are introduced they will be good against gunships in the way bombers are effective against scouts.

 

So maybe, just maybe, people should just wait until all ship types are out before making over 9000 threads about this & that ship being op and the neeed to remove it from game.

 

Any ideas ? Let the raging about OPships begin

 

You will be lucky to get to July when they release them at this rate. I'm sure it will happen, but i'm unsure how much people will be playing if the trend continues.

[Yndras]

If you guys are talking balance, then you need to bring flash fires into the conversation too. They're not exactly balanced either.

 

Its the TT/CF combo that makes scouts particularly lethal. Any scout has this option, and combined with rocket pods makes for great pain.

 

But you are right, these could probably use a small tweak.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Yndras

[NathanielStarr]

gunships not overpowered LOL

 

Your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me. I just hope the Devs aren't so weak willed to fall for it....sadly I think they are.

 

I'm sure if we got to see kill/death stats and wins/losses by ship type gunships would more than double the next highest ship.

[QuinMantha]

You know, Nate, you bring up a good point.

 

I'd be very interested to see any running tallies of kill/assist breakdowns between the four classes on a meta scale. Bombers will likely never be on top given how late they've been introduced.

 

You know Rhint, that neither of these are ship weaknesses...

 

...well, okay, look, NO ship has that small thermal exhaust port right behind the main port, if you get what I'm saying. We want to find the inherent flaw or weakness for Gunships, well, what are the flaws for Scouts and Strikes, eh?

 

Face facts, you do play the gunship a lot... and when you need to play to your fullest (vs a skilled team), you ALWAYS pick the gunship. That says a lot when an experienced pilot picks the same ship to "fall back to" when faced with tough opponents. Most "fall back" ships are T1 gunships, or T2 scouts. Which leads to the logical conclusion that they are the strongest.

 

Now, yes, I do fall back to my Gunship when I'm up against a skilled team. Why do I do this? Because...

 

No, it leads to the logical conclusion that those players are most comfortable with those ships.

 

...beat me to it. Yes, it just fits my playstyle for GSF. I perform at my best when I have the advantage of perspective on the fight. I don't dogfight well, because I can't keep track of enemy fighters while I'm in the mix.

 

Other pilots have their preferences. Phil (or Rephil, when he's Impside) is a pilot that I never see outside of a Gunship. Or Rainous, or Delphi, or lots of other really good Gunship pilots on Ebon Hawk. I don't think they do it because Kanonenboot über alles, I think it's just what's comfortable for them.

[Yndras]

Yes, it just fits my playstyle for GSF. I perform at my best when I have the advantage of perspective on the fight. I don't dogfight well, because I can't keep track of enemy fighters while I'm in the mix.

 

 

You know I hate to point this out, but i'm glad you were honest and said it, most gunship pilots probably share the same feeling. They don't dogfight well.

 

It's my opinion that many people switch to the gunship after doing poorly in strikes and scouts, and find hey, i can get a few kills here and rack up some decent damage.

 

Don't get me wrong i understand this above concept. The flight aspect and target tracking can be a bit daunting at first.

 

The problem is people who do not do so well dogfighting are given a ship that requires little movement or tracking, and provides great damage from a safe distance. This gives those people struggling with the turning battles and crowded skirmishes an opportunity to contribute and participate. I get that.(This is a very politically correct approach). What has happened tho is that the people now flying the strikes and the scouts have now found that there are sacrificing their enjoyment for those that play gunships. Gunships, shooting from a far, break up dogfights by popping them off mid skirmish, thus focusing the match around gunship control. the best class at controlling gunships, are other gunships as they force the enemy gunships to focus on them. The more gunships, the more are needed to control the other gunships. This is a self defeating loop and terrible design.

 

And that's about the guts of the gunships are overpowered argument.

 

Don't get me wrong, a number of bombers are insanely hard to displace from nodes in domination matches, and gunships in this case are helpful to help displace them. But the range of gunships and the damage they provide is far too great that they are clearly breaking the matches.

 

Bombers can be displaced by scouts and strikes, but they have to do so carefully, and it takes a good co-ordinated strike on the node. This is a great thing, and I actually like this aspect. But when your strikes and scouts spend all their time chasing gunships with endless engine pools, it removes the aspect of the game these people signed up to play. I/We(if anyone agrees) don't play strikes or scouts to play against an enemy teams with a gunship gauntlet placing bets who can make the Kuat mesa run in less than 15 parsecs. But honestly that is how it feels for me.(Its wise to note parsecs are a measure of distance)

 

And if you do manage to get on one of them, your only hunted by it for the rest of the match, killed while on the tail of your challenging opponent, unless you choose to dedicate the match to one of tick tack toe, vengeance or avoidance, is this seriously bioware's intention for GSF gameplay?(A Dev response to this would be wonderful, however doubtfull)

 

Lets forgo the advertised intensive dogfighting action and have the kuat mesa run, and the tick tack toe match. until this changes, i see little future for this aspect of the game(Dogfighting), and all tho that may be just my opinion, time will show whether its actually fact or not.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Yndras

[SammyGStatus]

Sammy you've said yourself that you can't put up the numbers in other ships that you can in a gunship. That's an obvious indication of the class being unbalanced. Ion rail needs to be tuned down and the ability for gunships to run away from scouts almost indefinitely needs to be removed. Currently gunships don't have any pronounced weaknesses and that's not right. Every ship should have a weakness. Where is the gunship's?

 

You're correct - I have said I can't put the same numbers up BECAUSE my other ships are no where near upgraded as my mastered GS. I'm easily able to consistently pull out high teens into the 30s on my GS, but I've put over 2 days of play into it and have everything maxed. If I spent 2 full days with another ship, I bet I could pull off better numbers than the low teens I'm getting (but still have very little deaths).

 

I'm going to reitterate my real world understanding of things and put them into a video game. There are 10 swordsmen, who're all equally skilled but utilize different styles. One must be considered "The best" among them. You know the saying "There's always a bigger fish".... it applies in this instance too. No matter who you are (or what abilities you have), there will always be someone out their better at either a different build, or the same build but a different play style.

 

True balance can only be attained by having everyone fly the same ship, and that's not fun.

 

If you're getting blown out of the water by gunships, understand where they come from - learn to be positionally aware of everything on the battlefield - I'm constantly checking my minimap, coordinating with teammates, and communicating the location of the gunships so that a scout ally of mine can harrass the GS, then draw him in so I can pop an ion/slug, and he's gone. A scout was never meant to take on a GS head on (at least in my interpretation) - that's like an ant fighting an ant-eater. Because we're not limited to only two classes though, you're able to mix it up and construct a strategy that suits the situation best.

 

Best way to beat me is to have 2 scouts / strikes chasing me, with a gunship following them to take me out. I'm not saying that you have to do this for every GS, but with GOOD pilots, you'll need to coordinate the attack better (like LOSing on your approach and not letting me hit you). If you can get in close, and distract me enough, chances are I'll make a mistake and be obliterated.

 

I can understand strikes / scouts being upset that they need to have more ability then SCOPE, AIM, CHARGE, FIRE, but the SW universe didn't only have strikes and scouts. Since I don't see us getting battle cruisers, the GS is essentially a class that is capable of mass destruction, but I go down pretty quick (assuming you can hit me, because of my 23% evasion + whatever the % inc from DS + the % inc from the evasion copilot ability). It's not easy, but I've taken out GSes on my Quell before. All about tactics, evaluating the battlefield, and making the most of your situation. THERE SHOULD NEVER BE A GAME WHERE YOU DONT HAVE AT LEAST 1 OF EVERY CLASS (imo). Diversity brings the most success.

 

Oh, and my HP is only like 1250 with no boosts to armor or anything. There's my weakness - I die quick if I'm hit, hence my evasion build

Edited March 24, 2014 by SammyGStatus

[Armonddd]

True balance can only be attained by having everyone fly the same ship, and that's not fun.

 

I disagree with that, actually. Not the part where that wouldn't be fun -- that's entirely true -- but I think it would possible to balance the game very nicely if a few major fundamental changes were made. For example, gating people's options of ships and upgrades makes it significantly harder to bring counters to the table, which negatively affects balance.

 

I can understand strikes / scouts being upset that they need to have more ability then SCOPE, AIM, CHARGE, FIRE, but the SW universe didn't only have strikes and scouts.

 

Definitely agree. There's probably a lot more to gunships than a lot of us realize because we simply don't play them.

 

That said, railguns absolutely did not exist in Star Wars space combat and are kind of silly.

 

THERE SHOULD NEVER BE A GAME WHERE YOU DONT HAVE AT LEAST 1 OF EVERY CLASS (imo). Diversity brings the most success.

 

Yep! See my above comment. Also, diversity is improved when everyone's ships are mastered, because you have more options for the "choice tier" upgrades. Also, many weapons and abilities simply change their functionality with more upgrades -- EMP field and Sabotage Probe are prime examples of this.

[QuinMantha]

That said, railguns absolutely did not exist in Star Wars space combat and are kind of silly.

 

ORLY?

 

YARLY.

 

And you only think they're silly because I say "Whappy-daffy!" every time I blow somebody up with them.

[Yndras]

ORLY?

 

YARLY.

 

And you only think they're silly because I say "Whappy-daffy!" every time I blow somebody up with them.

 

Your first reference is to hand held rail guns, and the citations in the link refer to them first being used in "the Old republic" which hardly justify's your position.

 

The second reference does not have any relevance at all. Magnetic Railguns are not what the railguns we are equiping are. Further to the point the Death star represented the most advancced weaponary of its time. If magnetic railguns were only just being used here, then Ion, slug and plasma railguns would be out of place so far in the past. Further searches for railguns in wookiepedia only shows references to galactic starfighter ships.

 

Your provided evidence is flaky at best.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Yndras

[QuinMantha]

*shrugs*

 

Proof of concept, followed by proof of space-based use.

 

Also, yes, it does put them in TOR, but it also lists other sources they were found in before that, for precedent.

Edited March 25, 2014 by QuinMantha

[Armonddd]

Your first reference is to hand held rail guns, and the citations in the link refer to them first being used in "the Old republic" which hardly justify's your position.

 

Actually, the citation with the (first appearance) tag is a Sean Stewart novel about Yoda and Dooku in the Clone Wars. You could derive a space railgun from that, but no one's ever done so before BioWare, because they're silly and don't fit the Star Wars theme.

 

Magnetic railguns are simply a retcon of turbolaser encampments and similar point defenses. There was really no need for their invention, ever. It's just silly.

 

Also, yes, it does put them in TOR, but it also lists other sources they were found in before that, for precedent.

 

One source novel per railgun... among all the novels of the EU. They're just not popular, and thus don't mesh with the idea the vast majority of people have of Star Wars.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Armonddd

[Zoom_VI]

a better source, would be for a mass-driver cannon, however such weapons are listen to top out at 6 km/s which means that your railgun needs a lead indicator.

 

Also there is no source for such weapons ever existing in the old republic era. Also all reference I can find for railguns in star wars have them listed as rare exotic weapons, not something your run of the mill two-man starfighter is going to have.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Zoom_VI

[Kuciwalker]

That said, railguns absolutely did not exist in Star Wars space combat and are kind of silly.

 

I agree with this, but Star Wars video games have pretty much always taken creative license with lore when it comes to gameplay details. Railguns are un-Star-Warsy but are interesting enough mechanically that I give them a pass.

[Kuciwalker]

a better source, would be for a mass-driver cannon, however such weapons are listen to top out at 6 km/s which means that your railgun needs a lead indicator.

 

Oh FFS get off the damn lead indicator thing. The actual target area is the same size for every gun. Even if you added lead indicators to railguns it wouldn't have much of an effect (except possible to make them stronger by letting them hit targets before the targets exit cover).

 

Additionally, numbers like 6 km/s are completely absurd. You basically cannot take any kind of reported numbers on Star Wars ships at face value because the lore is completely incoherent on this point.

[SammyGStatus]

I know it wasn't the old republic, but Star Wars: Jedi Knight, Jedi Academy had a railgun in it. Pretty sure Jedi Outcast did too, as well as JK Dark Forces II (not positive about that last one... I was playing that game at like 7 so memories from that time are eh). Still puts them i the star wars universe, albeit not The Old Republic timeline

[Zoom_VI]

Oh FFS get off the damn lead indicator thing. The actual target area is the same size for every gun. Even if you added lead indicators to railguns it wouldn't have much of an effect (except possible to make them stronger by letting them hit targets before the targets exit cover).

 

Except the massive advantage of lead indicators is in order for me to not get shot all I have to do is get my lead indicator out of your firing arc, which basically entails moving my ship so that I'm roughly perpendicular to you and letting the lead indicator do the rest. That's why getting kills in dogfighting is best done head-to-tail as its nearly impossible to land hits with any kind of regularity on a target moving crosswise to you. (head-to-head is just as good as H-to-T but it also means exposing yourself to your target's guns)

 

With railguns you can hit pretty much any target regardless of orientation as long as that target is within your firing arc, and at 12km range dat firing arc is a pretty huge area.

[Altheran]

Except the massive advantage of lead indicators is in order for me to not get shot all I have to do is get my lead indicator out of your firing arc, which basically entails moving my ship so that I'm roughly perpendicular to you and letting the lead indicator do the rest. That's why getting kills in dogfighting is best done head-to-tail as its nearly impossible to land hits with any kind of regularity on a target moving crosswise to you. (head-to-head is just as good as H-to-T but it also means exposing yourself to your target's guns)

 

With railguns you can hit pretty much any target regardless of orientation as long as that target is within your firing arc, and at 12km range dat firing arc is a pretty huge area.

 

And it allows to fire at someone without giving him indication he's been aimed at.

 

Select whoever random guy on the battlefield, and just aim at other's squares. Your target (the real one not the one you faked), when hit, if he use the "who shot me" button, will see you, but will see another name than his in the target's target. He'll believe you're focusing someone else and not aware of him and the hit he took was a mistake or AoE. What he doesn't know is that the next hit is still for him, and his confindence will only cause his death.

 

That's what a guy I face constantly do on my server. It's annoying. When he's here, if you're not paranoid and do not ignore the info given by UI, you're dead.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Altheran

[Kuciwalker]

Except the massive advantage of lead indicators is in order for me to not get shot all I have to do is get my lead indicator out of your firing arc, which basically entails moving my ship so that I'm roughly perpendicular to you and letting the lead indicator do the rest. That's why getting kills in dogfighting is best done head-to-tail as its nearly impossible to land hits with any kind of regularity on a target moving crosswise to you. (head-to-head is just as good as H-to-T but it also means exposing yourself to your target's guns)

 

Or I could just point my ship in the right direction. It's not that hard. For every configuration in which the lead indicator makes you leave my cone of fire early, there is another configuration in which it makes you enter my cone of fire early.

 

With railguns you can hit pretty much any target regardless of orientation as long as that target is within your firing arc, and at 12km range dat firing arc is a pretty huge area.

 

Thank you for demonstrating why the lead indicator issue is irrelevant.

[SammyGStatus]

^ Agreed

[Zoom_VI]

Or I could just point my ship in the right direction. It's not that hard. For every configuration in which the lead indicator makes you leave my cone of fire early, there is another configuration in which it makes you enter my cone of fire early.

Yeah, except since its even out there is no situation where you could ever actually get your target in a prime killing area for more than a second or less.

There are reasons why I have not been shot down by any scout or strike in almost a month, because the with the standard primary weapons its way easier to evade then it is to track

 

Thank you for demonstrating why the lead indicator issue is irrelevant.

Your also forgetting something. The lead indicator gets farther out with range, so the massive area covered by the firing arc at 12km is counter by the massive lead indicator.

 

Another thing lead indicators do is the exacerbate the motions of your ship. In a dogfight I might make a tight turn that causes my ship to move a inch on a observer's screen, however my lead indicator will probably get swung a good three to four inches across the observer's screen.