Modest game balance suggestion limit advanced ship types

[General_Brass]

Prevent sides from fielding more advanced ships than the minimum available to either.

 

We keep seeing threads complaining about how bomber tactic X is OP or Gunship Y is unfair to noobs. Simple suggestion if team A has 2 bombers available and team B has 4 team B should not be able to take more than 2 bombers on to the field to counter. Same for gunships etc.

Edited May 28, 2014 by General_Brass

[Altheran]

Never mind.

Misread.

 

EDIT : ah, I knew something was wrong...

Guy X puts Gunships and Bombers only in the hangar. Ennemy team has none. Guy X can't play by those rules.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Altheran

[General_Brass]

Never mind.

Misread.

 

EDIT : ah, I knew something was wrong...

Guy X puts Gunships and Bombers only in the hangar. Ennemy team has none. Guy X can't play by those rules.

 

Would always have to keep at least one scout or strike on your bar. If it's desirable (don't really see it as being so, the people with more advanced ships will also more than likely have better upgraded ships) you can allow a limited differential of 1 or 2 of a type.

[Nemarus]

Prevent sides from fielding more advanced ships than the minimum available to either.

 

We keep seeing threads complaining about how bomber tactic X is OP or Gunship Y is unfair to noobs. Simple suggestion if team A has 2 bombers available and team B has 4 team B should not be able to take more than 2 bombers on to the field to counter. Same for gunships etc.

 

How in the world would you decide who gets to use the "advanced ship" slots?

 

And what defines an "advanced ship"? Pretty much the only ship builds that are unassailable from any "X is OP" criticism are the three Strikes and maybe the T3 Scout.

 

T1 and T2 Scouts have huge evasion and offensive cooldowns and burst damage potential.

 

Every Gunship can have at least a Slug Railgun.

 

Every Bomber has mines and/or drones.

 

So in a sense, what you're really asking for is Strike Night Which we do every Monday on The Ebon Hawk and is amazing fun

[DamascusAdontise]

I have toyed with the idea of main ships (strike scout) and support ships (bomber gunship) and limiting the amount of support that can be fielded. The obvious issue with this is that its bad form to dis-allow people from flying what they want to.

 

Imagine if you will, at the start of every match a race to see who can get into the ship they want, while the others that can't simply pound their keyboard with frustration. I think you would likely see a lot more people dropping from matches if something like this was implemented.

 

All in all I think this would add to frustration, especially for people attempting to level up their ships.

[Fractalsponge]

Um, no. Why would anyone on a team want to give up access to the more tactical classes? I for one wouldn't want to give one of 2 gunship/bomber/whatever slots (or whatever number, really) to someone who'll manage to completely suck in it and cost my team a win just because they selected it first in the lobby.

[General_Brass]

Um, no. Why would anyone on a team want to give up access to the more tactical classes? I for one wouldn't want to give one of 2 gunship/bomber/whatever slots (or whatever number, really) to someone who'll manage to completely suck in it and cost my team a win just because they selected it first in the lobby.

 

Sorry that's the wrong question to ask. The question is why would anyone want to go up against a team fielding 6 bombers or 5 gunships when their side can only field one or two ?

 

Nobody ever wants to give up an advantage, you have to ask just how much advantage can be allowed before the game gets bad, and how to best limit it. I personally don't like seeing ships nerfed when they are only overpowered in stacks.

 

As to the hard on people that want to level up their ships, I can see that and I certainly wouldn't appreciate it, but as things stand I don't like feeling forced to take ships now to carry the team, or to put it another, the opposing team can already dictate what needs to be taken against them, the motivation for this is to limit that a little.

Edited May 28, 2014 by General_Brass

[Fractalsponge]

Limiting ships in this way FORCES a lack of choice for all players. Being "forced" to take a ship to carry a team is an active choice.

 

Plus, as has been mentioned, some people only like to play certain ships. Freeze them out and it's a much more certain path to destroying the population than stacking ship types, which can at least be countered.

[SammyGStatus]

Ya I don't like this. Limiting players to play certain ships won't change the outcome. Newbs will still be newbs, and we will still be better than them. The vets are the Globo Gym in the Dodgeball world of SWTOR GSF

[General_Brass]

Interesting there seems to be lots of resistance to this even though it's a pretty common idea,

what would y'all say to new additional modes of play ?

 

Say an all scout game ? All Strike game ? Bombers and strikes for domination ? Scouts and gunships for death match ?

Edited May 29, 2014 by General_Brass

[Pilgrim_Grey]

Limiting ships in this way FORCES a lack of choice for all players. Being "forced" to take a ship to carry a team is an active choice.

 

Plus, as has been mentioned, some people only like to play certain ships. Freeze them out and it's a much more certain path to destroying the population than stacking ship types, which can at least be countered.

 

As you said, I can't see a more likely way to destroy population than this. And as you also said before, I want to be able to switch to any class I feel like at the time... just because we have three gunships, for instance, doesn't mean those three are any good. Heck, I often wonder in a match if we don't have good gunship support (because I'm getting sniped left and right), and it turns out we have three already. Sometimes that means I'll go gunship and try to even things out there, or I'll go gunship hunting more in my Strike or Scout.

 

But those are all choices I get to make and also makes the game more fun for me. Take away that choice and GSF loses an interesting facet to it.

[General_Brass]

As you said, I can't see a more likely way to destroy population than this. And as you also said before, I want to be able to switch to any class I feel like at the time... just because we have three gunships, for instance, doesn't mean those three are any good. Heck, I often wonder in a match if we don't have good gunship support (because I'm getting sniped left and right), and it turns out we have three already. Sometimes that means I'll go gunship and try to even things out there, or I'll go gunship hunting more in my Strike or Scout.

 

But those are all choices I get to make and also makes the game more fun for me. Take away that choice and GSF loses an interesting facet to it.

 

Interesting.

 

Being able to make the choice is fun for you, how would you feel about extending that fun to the other side that can't make those choices ?

 

So instead of say limiting your choice, if there was an imbalance in ship selections between the teams the team that was short ships would be temporarily be granted ships ?

[Braize]

My Quell is typically at the top of the leader board, or a close second. Or my Flashfire when I play Pub. Does that make these "advanced ships"? Come to think of it, I have yet to see another Quell on my team, and I can wreck more havoc than any Gunship could even try.

 

The problem with Gunships and Bombers, is that the majority of people don't know how to deal with them. When I first started playing GSF, I absolutely hated gunships. Now? They are free kills to me.

 

Bombers are still hard to deal with, mostly because of how tanky they are. But they can't do anything on their own, and a GOOD gunship pilot will wreck anything that a bomber tries to throw out on the field.

 

All in all, too many of these type a ships will not win your team any games. They are noob wreckers, yes I agree. But not overpowered or overabundant in any way

[Pilgrim_Grey]

Interesting.

 

Being able to make the choice is fun for you, how would you feel about extending that fun to the other side that can't make those choices ?

 

So instead of say limiting your choice, if there was an imbalance in ship selections between the teams the team that was short ships would be temporarily be granted ships ?

 

How would this system work, and how realistic would it be to implement? With your idea, the game would have to grant ships on the fly, and presumably with no components upgraded and stuck at the default, and the game currently doesn't let us alter loadouts once we're in the game (and as far as I can tell, they don't have a way to easily separate things once you're in the queue, or they would have done it already in ground or space pvp).

 

Really, I see it as more realistic for them to adjust the queue system (have a lowbie req level separated from a higher level), or improve on matchmaking before doing this.

 

I'm not against making it easier for lowbies, just not seeing how this is feasible... and it'd be kind of clunky in practice. I also don't know how it would make things better... unless one of my alts would get access to my preferred loadout for a gunship or type 2 scout (for instance), I'd be at the default or some combination that I don't like and would therefore not fly as well. Seriously... I will be fine with Koiogran but will probably crash into walls a lot if given Power Dive randomly.

 

And I'd still be doing better than a newbie that has never flown any of those ships. Skill level, again, will be the mitigating factor. Another reason that I feel like some type of lowbie bracket would be more helpful in the long run.

[Verain]

Prevent sides from fielding more advanced ships than the minimum available to either.

 

Terrible idea, and you knew that when you posted it.

 

I think we have enough threads where we all ask for easier access to ships. I think what we get is, double fleet req. Which, legitimately, is some concession.

 

 

Obviously, your terrible idea would break down because there's just ships, not "advanced ships", and the odds of the devs classifying them that way seem stupidly low, because it's a terrible idea.

[General_Brass]

Terrible idea, and you knew that when you posted it.

 

Actually I am pretty certain it would make the game much more interesting or at the very least give it an extra dimension. People keep complaining X is overpowered well X is usually fine when you don't have entire setups built around abusing it. Nobody goes around saying nerf rooks or bishops in chess. If you gave one side the ability to have all their pieces be rooks and the other could only have pawns and knights then you would have balance issues.

 

I think we have enough threads where we all ask for easier access to ships. I think what we get is, double fleet req. Which, legitimately, is some concession.

 

Honestly I don't know that having everyone have full access or even faster access to all the ships will improve the quality of the matches. I can easily see how it could be a very bad thing. It's not hard to see team death match being all scouts and gunships, domination being all bomber and scouts with the losing side switching to gunships.

 

Obviously, your terrible idea would break down because there's just ships, not "advanced ships", and the odds of the devs classifying them that way seem stupidly low, because it's a terrible idea.

 

There are ship types everyone has access to and ships not everyone has access to. I can completely understand that people enjoy picking the ship they want to fly but if you want better matches something has to give somewhere.

 

What would you be willing to give up to get more interesting balanced matches ? Or are you happy with with the situation we have now where blowouts are the rule and good hard fights are the exception ?

[Asbetos]

There are ship types everyone has access to and ships not everyone has access to.

 

Yes, and we worked and earned our right to use those ships and no one should be forbidding us to use them. In ground PvP, do the lvl 50 character and a lvl 40 character have the same spells? No, they don't, the lvl 45 earned and learned his spells and he should be (and is) able to use them.

 

Your idea MIGHT increase the newb population, but it would certainly kill the vet population as well as make many of those newbs quit as soon as they unlock some more ships and realize they're not allowed to use them (at least) half the time.

[General_Brass]

Yes, and we worked and earned our right to use those ships and no one should be forbidding us to use them. In ground PvP, do the lvl 50 character and a lvl 40 character have the same spells? No, they don't, the lvl 45 earned and learned his spells and he should be (and is) able to use them.

 

Your idea MIGHT increase the newb population, but it would certainly kill the vet population as well as make many of those newbs quit as soon as they unlock some more ships and realize they're not allowed to use them (at least) half the time.

 

Well let me see.

 

I own an automobile that I worked and earned the right to use, but it has an enormous number of restrictions and limitations on how and when I can use it. I really don't see those restrictions killing the veteran driver population. (If anything they are keeping them alive)

 

But I'll ask the simple and obviously implied question, what would you be willing to do to make the game better ?

[Asbetos]

I own an automobile that I worked and earned the right to use, but it has an enormous number of restrictions and limitations on how and when I can use it. I really don't see those restrictions killing the veteran driver population. (If anything they are keeping them alive)

 

WOW! Did you just compare something as complex as an entire traffic system with a simple game?

 

But I'll ask the simple and obviously implied question, what would you be willing to do to make the game better ?

 

Ground game rewards. Gear and pets to show off, crafting mats, more titles.... That would make people queue constantly increasing the population and, in return, let the matchmaker do it's job (if it works). Problem with this would be AFKers, but that's another discussion for another thread.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Asbetos

[General_Brass]

WOW! Did you just compare something as complex as an entire traffic system with a simple game?

 

I suspect whatever I compared it to, you wouldn't find the comparison good or adequate.

 

Ground game rewards. Gear and pets to show off, crafting mats, more titles.... That would make people queue constantly increasing the population and, in return, let the matchmaker do it's job (if it works). Problem with this would be AFKers, but that's another discussion for another thread.

 

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.

[Asbetos]

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.

 

That's the point: with a large enough player pool, the matchmaker would be able to do it's job (again, if it works) and no one would suffer, newbs would be playing against newbs, vets against vets.

 

I want? Not really, I couldn't care less about titles, pets etc, I played Freelancer for years with the same ship and the same loadout and it didn't get boring for me. But I do understand that that's the motivation for a lot of players.

[General_Brass]

That's the point: with a large enough player pool, the matchmaker would be able to do it's job (again, if it works) and no one would suffer, newbs would be playing against newbs, vets against vets.

 

I want? Not really, I couldn't care less about titles, pets etc, I played Freelancer for years with the same ship and the same loadout and it didn't get boring for me. But I do understand that that's the motivation for a lot of players.

 

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 ?

[Asbetos]

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.

 

Indeed, but that's not a reason to make changes to the ships or components, that's a reason to make changes to the matchmaker (though who knows, maybe it's designed to work with larger player pool so it acts quirky when it doesn't have that).

 

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.

 

Of course, but again, at this point that comes down to slight tune-ups and tune-downs like what happened with gunsheep or what's happening with minelayers with the next patch. It's not a reason to piss people off by forbidding them to use their ships.

[FridgeLM]

Pretty horrible idea for what should be obvious reasons, not least of which being how anti-fun it'd be for the game to tell you "sorry you can't play your favored ship type because of hurt feelings."

[General_Brass]

Pretty horrible idea for what should be obvious reasons, not least of which being how anti-fun it'd be for the game to tell you "sorry you can't play your favored ship type because of hurt feelings."

 

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.