GSF WISHLIST: Post your top 5 things that you'd like to see added or "tweaked"

[Ryuku-sama]

L2P, seriously? Learn to read before you post insults.

 

I did say ion cannons were almost useless. You mentioned two complete loadouts for close fighting in a T1 strike, which can be accomplished by more balanced loadouts that have options for longer range, but to each his own. Extending the range does not negate your point... has nothing to do with L2P.

 

As for Charged Plating... the other options are still better for specializing your ships for particular purposes. I would still argue that overall, they are useless compared to other options available on each ship that has them... still a subjective argument and not a L2P issue.

 

You said :

 

they (Ion Cannons) are almost useless.

Charged plating? whats the point?... these need to be overhauled... lower the bleed through by alot and lower the shield boost to compensate... and maybe, maybe they may have a purpose for certain builds.

 

So you said that those two components weren't useful in their current state. Problem is they're actually very useful.

Charged Plating T1 Bomber are probably the best assault ship. Just go straight to the sat don't worry about being killed if your team did its job and killed gunships around or forced them on the sat.

Charged Plating T3 Strike is the most sturdy ship ever. You can actually heal from the few weapons with the potential to kill you and ignore the remaining.

Ion Cannon against any bomber not fielding Charged Plating is simply deadly. A burst scout will all CD up will do as much DPS as Ion Cannon on a shield. Just switch for quad after and you are behind a burst scout by about 2 seconds instead of the 5 to 8 more seconds it would take with quad only.

Ione Cannon + Cluster in a joust are just dangerous. It's almost impossible to avoid a cluster in a joust and ion will strips shield too fast.

 

The simple fact you're saying these components are almost useless (Ion Cannons) and would maybe be useful without bleedthrough (Charged Plating) proves a) your lack of skill b) your lack of understanding of the game's current meta.

[Verain]

Ryuku is definitely correct about charged plating being massively useful. Charged Plating is a defining move, especially on a type 1 bomber.

 

He's also correct about ion cannons having a role, but I wouldn't use the same superlatives he does. It's certainly true that the move simply erases shields like nothing else, but the situations where it is good are not THAT common. Still, it can be very powerful.

[PavelH]

1) Cross-server matches

2) ranked GSF (or any GSF without 2-ship F2Ps that end up with just a few hundred dmg at the end of the match)

3) fully premade GSF (related to 2)

4) shared hangar (faction-wide), or at least legacy-shared fleet req

 

Basically the most troubling issue is the low amount of people playing (hence long time to pop), even lower amount of people with actual brains (2 per match on each side, on average), and the hurdle of not being able to wait in queue with all my fine-tunes ships while doing quests on a new character

[Ramalina]

7) Ion Cannons.... what the point... if I can't fire them before I get into range to fire another cannon... they are almost useless. Make them have a 7k range... I'd be for tweaking the hull damage lower... but they mostly only do damage on shields to begin with... not worth switching or taking.

 

Ion cannons are superb on a T1 strike if the pilot is skilled and flies to take advantage of them. The vast majority of damage done in GSF is shield damage, and Ion Cannons are fantastic at doing that. It's better than LLCs by more than 50% at medium range! Personally I prefer using a HLC-Ion-HLC approach, but a lot of people don't like using HLCs at point blank range so Quads and/or cluster missiles would be more typical for finishing off the target's hull.

 

Ion cannons are even better when teamwork is used. If you don't waste time swapping weapons it's possible to strip the shields from a lot of ships in a very short period of time. If there's a good scout or gunship pilot taking advantage of this it's sort of like giving them 100% uptime on offensive cooldowns or Damage Overcharge power-ups. You'll get assists and they'll get kills, but the joint score for the two ships could be grotesquely high.

 

Either approach takes some practice to get really proficient at, but ion cannon is not at all useless. It's just a bit tricky to combine with other weapons sometimes. They're also very underappreciated. I'd take stock Ion cannons over mastered Quads or RFLs on a T1 strike.

 

Given the damage fall off rate of Ion Cannons past medium range they'd only be good out to a max of about 5500 m in any case. You'd still have 87% accuracy at 7 km, but shield DPS would be around 3 without the T5 bonus shield drain and about 93 DPS with it.

[TRFWesVos]

1) Significant nerf to bombers and gunships when more than one of each are present in a match. So long as that is implemented, nerf BLCs. The only reason they're needed as is right now is to smash gunships.

2) Add more scout and strike types. There's always more you can do with scouts and strikes.

3) Add more maps.

4) More gameplay styles, particularly a capital ship assault. Included in this would be allowing a queued group to select to, instead of flying, man a small corvette-type ship, with each group member getting a different station.

5) Legacy Requisition, maybe at 1/5 of Fleet Requisition, and with CC conversion available.

[Ryuku-sama]

1) Significant nerf to bombers and gunships when more than one of each are present in a match. So long as that is implemented, nerf BLCs. The only reason they're needed as is right now is to smash gunships.

 

So much misinformation here. Killing two bombers is easy with the right build... More make it even easier. Killing a Sheep wall can be hard. But it can be done with some coordination and skills.

 

2) Add more scout and strike types. There's always more you can do with scouts and strikes.

 

It could be fun, but I'm wary of what type of scout/type you could create after the three we already have.

 

3) Add more maps.

4) More gameplay styles, particularly a capital ship assault. Included in this would be allowing a queued group to select to, instead of flying, man a small corvette-type ship, with each group member getting a different station.

5) Legacy Requisition, maybe at 1/5 of Fleet Requisition, and with CC conversion available.

 

Yes. So much yes.

[TRFWesVos]

So much misinformation here. Killing two bombers is easy with the right build... More make it even easier. Killing a Sheep wall can be hard. But it can be done with some coordination and skills.

 

I'm interested to discover how to kill a Sheep wall without creating your own Sheep wall. I refuse to participate in those.

 

That said, I'm going to expand on #3 of my post (just in case the devs do read this):

 

Map 1 & 2: TDM over Coruscant/Dromund Kaas. Obstacles would be capital ships and space debris, like Denon, but with the planet in the background and (if possible) turrets scattered either on the capital ships or on stationary satellites (non-capturable). They'd be low-accuracy, bad tracking, but high damage (about half a standard slug railgun hit) to make them an actual threat. You could even add in points for killing turrets.

 

Map 3 & 4: Combined with the fleet assault idea, make a fleet assault map for Korriban/Dromund Kaas as well.

Edited September 29, 2014 by TRFWesVos

[jcurri]

Updated OP to reflect the consensus of the 1st 4 pages.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

2) Add more scout and strike types. There's always more you can do with scouts and strikes.

 

Strikes are my favorite ship type followed closely by scouts. But I don't think it would make sense to add more strike types (except for CM alt skins). Mainly because existing strikes need a little work to really make them shine and it won't do much good to add new models when existing ones still need balancing.

 

For example replacing sensor component on Clarions with thrusters OR adding sensor types that improve blaster accuracy or missile lock times would be great (I'd be in favor of adding both types for more build flexibility and to avoid a "you must take sensor component X because it is the only one of value on a strike frame"). Overall the Clarion is a remarkable ship but it has some components that hold it back from reaching it's full potential. The same could be said for T1s and T2s that would be very decent ships save for some design flaws in their component options.

 

Plus I agree with this:

 

It could be fun, but I'm wary of what type of scout/type you could create after the three we already have.

[Ryuku-sama]

I'm interested to discover how to kill a Sheep wall without creating your own Sheep wall. I refuse to participate in those.

 

I said it many times.

Take an assault bomber. LoS and dive in.. Pop your mines. Watch the GS scatters while your scouts are free to pick them off.

Take as many scout as there is gunships and chase them through the whole map.

Problem is simple. PuG can't coordinate that kind of tactics. And most lack the basic skills to make those possible. It isn't a nerf-GS problem, it's a L2P problem.

[IvanIronsword]

1. Joystick support

2. PVE Content (including adding GSF elements to NEW Flashpoints and Operations)

3. Training Ground/Open starfighter playground

4. Upgrades to companions

5. did I mention Joystick support?

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I said it many times.

Take an assault bomber. LoS and dive in.. Pop your mines. Watch the GS scatters while your scouts are free to pick them off.

Take as many scout as there is gunships and chase them through the whole map.

Problem is simple. PuG can't coordinate that kind of tactics. And most lack the basic skills to make those possible. It isn't a nerf-GS problem, it's a L2P problem.

 

To some degree I agree it's a L2P but it also strikes me as a case where the counter requires more skill/coordination to pull off than the GS wall tactic it is countering. That being said I'm not sure how one could solve it without nerfing GS into the ground which is also not desirable.

 

I've been in matches where my team was able to draw the enemy GS out of position by retreating and then using scouts/strikers as a defensive screen while allied GS picked off the enemy GS. Trouble is while that tactic can work with pugs the striker/scout screen is likely to get non-contributor at least once since that game moves very slow and most targets will be beyond their weapons range. Which I think encourages players to engage the wall to avoid taking a hit to their req for the match even if that will be counterproductive to your team winning.

 

Now obviously in dom you just go to a sat every now and again to reset the timer but in TDM there's no way to do that short of shooting somebody. Maybe if there was some way other than combat in TDM to reset that timer it would make gunship walls more manageable since it wouldn't be encouraging/forcing strikers/scouts to make banzai charges against a GS wall?

[TRFWesVos]

I said it many times.

Take an assault bomber. LoS and dive in.. Pop your mines. Watch the GS scatters while your scouts are free to pick them off.

Take as many scout as there is gunships and chase them through the whole map.

Problem is simple. PuG can't coordinate that kind of tactics. And most lack the basic skills to make those possible. It isn't a nerf-GS problem, it's a L2P problem.

 

Tactic 1 requires a bomber, which is just about as undesirable as a gunship.

 

Tactic 2 requires a great deal of coordination, particularly from a PuG without voice, whereas a gunship wall requires next to no coordination - everyone just jumps in their gunships and starts blasting.

 

Still waiting for Tactic 3.

 

To some degree I agree it's a L2P but it also strikes me as a case where the counter requires more skill/coordination to pull off than the GS wall tactic it is countering. That being said I'm not sure how one could solve it without nerfing GS into the ground which is also not desirable.

 

Wait, nerfing GS into the ground isn't desirable? I beg to differ.

 

I've been in matches where my team was able to draw the enemy GS out of position by retreating and then using scouts/strikers as a defensive screen while allied GS picked off the enemy GS. Trouble is while that tactic can work with pugs the striker/scout screen is likely to get non-contributor at least once since that game moves very slow and most targets will be beyond their weapons range. Which I think encourages players to engage the wall to avoid taking a hit to their req for the match even if that will be counterproductive to your team winning.

 

A sound tactic, but again it requires a good deal of coordination as well as a team made up completely of veterans - one or two newbs kills it because they simply rush into the wall, and the GS just stay back and shoot. Also, non-contributing is a problem.

 

Now obviously in dom you just go to a sat every now and again to reset the timer but in TDM there's no way to do that short of shooting somebody. Maybe if there was some way other than combat in TDM to reset that timer it would make gunship walls more manageable since it wouldn't be encouraging/forcing strikers/scouts to make banzai charges against a GS wall?

 

You can pick up boosts, but that creates its own problems (namely, finding them and flying between them while also trying to run a screen & retreat game.

[Ryuku-sama]

Tactic 1 requires a bomber, which is just about as undesirable as a gunship.

Wait, nerfing GS into the ground isn't desirable? I beg to differ..

 

Thank you for proving yourself to be a troll.

[Whizzer_]

I've been in matches where my team was able to draw the enemy GS out of position by retreating and then using scouts/strikers as a defensive screen while allied GS picked off the enemy GS. Trouble is while that tactic can work with pugs the striker/scout screen is likely to get non-contributor at least once since that game moves very slow and most targets will be beyond their weapons range. Which I think encourages players to engage the wall to avoid taking a hit to their req for the match even if that will be counterproductive to your team winning.

 

That is one of the things which I find very annoying about the whole ship req calculation.

There are situations in TDM where the best thing is to stay close to your gunships and wait, not to fly into the maws of the enemy, trying to get a kill on those 4 enemy gunsheep parking between two asteroids.

Strangly you get rewarded with more reg for flying to your doom...

[wvwraith]

More component options on ships.

More maps/different scenario.

 

 

Idea for map: Protect the bombers on a run map(randomly selected team must protect their actual bombers(not our minelayers) on their mission while the other team must destroy all their bombers. Winner is team that either completes bombing run or team that destroys all their bombers. Bombers would be on AI. Would be a fun one. All kinds of elements would be in this one. If something like this could be implemented of course.

 

Destroy the flagship of course too.

 

 

If there would be a nerf to distortion I'd like to see gunships at least with another defense option. Our defenses are mostly tissue paper anyway. Railguns I wouldn't mind a small drop in power for faster recharge.

[jcurri]

More component options on ships.

More maps/different scenario.

 

 

Idea for map: Protect the bombers on a run map(randomly selected team must protect their actual bombers(not our minelayers) on their mission while the other team must destroy all their bombers. Winner is team that either completes bombing run or team that destroys all their bombers. Bombers would be on AI. Would be a fun one. All kinds of elements would be in this one. If something like this could be implemented of course.

 

Destroy the flagship of course too.

 

 

If there would be a nerf to distortion I'd like to see gunships at least with another defense option. Our defenses are mostly tissue paper anyway. Railguns I wouldn't mind a small drop in power for faster recharge.

 

I think we'd all like to see some sort of cooperative PvE content like they so easily implemented for the ground game. I'm just not so sure they're willing to go the mile to write all the script for it.

[mandoforlife]

1) Capital Ship Assault style gamemode.

2) Legacy Requisition.

3) GSF Reputation Faction.

4) Add components to existing ships.

5) Infiltrator. It's sad to know it was in the works and has been seemingly dropped.

[jcurri]

Updated OP

[Costello]

In no particular order as all are probably as unlikely as each other.

 

1) PvE space combat.

 

I just had a match of 8, 5 advanced ship (ie no starter ship) Aces against 6, 2 start ship rookies who pretty much just gave up the moment they saw the line up. And I can't blame them they never stood a chance if it was fun for them they must love to lose. And this is pretty much what GSF has to offer if all it can offer is PvP mis matched teams. Least with PvE there would be something to do other than wait ages for a match and then find your either ganking or getting ganked.

 

2) More Ships

 

More so for the empire side but my god the ship design is bad. All the fighters are the same and they look bad, the scouts can be made to look stupid if you put certain guns on the. At least the republic ships look kind of classic stat wars who knows what the designers were thinking when bringing in the empire ships. And when they add a new ship want to guess what the description will say 'Once the empire find an ugly *** design they keep it. Enjoy!'

 

3) Ground based reward

 

It can't be stress enough that GSF is a stand alone mini game that offers requisition that can only be used in GSFs and thereby is so far removed from the rest of the experience as to be meaningless as part of the biggest experience. It may as well have been released as that flight shooter that EA scraped. Even the flight deck on the fleet is such a static environment as to bring nothing to it. Even X-Wing and Tie Fighter would have ships taking off in the back ground. There is ultimately nothing to connect the ground game with space. It would have been nice if there had been a commander version for GSF as there is for ground PvP. But there needs to be cross over.

 

4) Better UI and joystick Support

 

The current state of the controls and UI is nothing special. It feels more like a web based browser fp2 game than a tripple A MMO.

 

5) More customization with weapons and components.

 

Take a look at SWG JTL for how this really helped crafting. But more than that it made peoples ships feel special much like Han saying he had made so special modifications himself, you could feel connected to your ship. It was just a lame flight sim experience.

 

All in all I am amazed GSF has done as well as it has. Personally this maybe down to nothing else to do so I fly a match and its the easiest way to get conquest points win or lose long as I sit through the match I get points. But with luck will be done with conquest soon, that the work to get a new corridor on the guild ship ain't work the grind. And then the devs can either listen to the players and try and fix it or just take a shovel and put GSF out of its misery.

[toeri]

Would like to se a long range torp with 15k-20k range with a target lock, this torpedo is not ment to change path if target move and target lock timer can be hig. would reckomend that It should not give a player Hud Warning only have the Visual part of something flying at you.