If you REALLY want to draw players in.....

[LordArtemis]

This is the proposed list of changes that we might see with 3.0...

 

Fleet and Ship Requisition Increased

 

In-Match Reward Calculations

• Fleet Requisition Multiplier increased by 50% (0.1->0.15)
  
• Requisition Objective Control Attacking Multiplier increased by 50% (60->90)
  
• Requisition Objective Control Defense Multiplier increased by 50% (0.2->0.3)
  
• Requisition Objective Destroy Defense Multiplier increased by 50% (0.3->0.4)
  
• Requisition Participation Multiplier increased by 50% (0.15->0.2)

Quest Rewards

• Major Fleet Requisition Grant increased by 400% (1000->5000)
  
• Fleet Requisition Grant increased by 25% (500->625)
  
• Minor Fleet Requisition Grant increased by ~25% (250->313)
  
• Major Ship Requisition Grant increased by 25% (2500->3125)
  
• Minor Ship Requisition Grant increased by ~25% (750->938)
  

 

This is not the solution to get more players involved IMO, though I do believe it will help in a limited fashion. I still strongly believe the following changes NEED to happen...

 

1) Reduced reticule size and joystick ability added (more twitchy, skill based)

2) Reduced effect of higher level equipment to level out playing field (mild to strong nerf on equipment upgrades)

3) Single PVE map to allow players to practice OR open combat map with no objective (but limited amount of players allowed naturally)

 

Just making those three changes, IMO, would vastly increase the appeal of the feature. Even with the increased rewards new players are still going to drop out of the feature early on. They need a fighting chance...better controls and practice can and will provide that.

Edited October 8, 2014 by LordArtemis

[Arkerus]

This is the proposed list of changes that we might see with 3.0...

 

 

 

This is not the solution to get more players involved IMO, though I do believe it will help in a limited fashion. I still strongly believe the following changes NEED to happen...

 

1) Reduced reticule size and joystick ability added (more twitchy, skill based)

2) Reduced effect of higher level equipment to level out playing field (mild to strong nerf on equipment upgrades)

3) Single PVE map to allow players to practice OR open combat map with no objective (but limited amount of players allowed naturally)

 

Just making those three changes, IMO, would vastly increase the appeal of the feature. Even with the increased rewards new players are still going to drop out of the feature early on. They need a fighting chance...better controls and practice can and will provide that.

 

I am neutral on all of those.

 

Number 1 will probably never happen. Its an underlying change to the core of the game structure. It was never designed for joystick and probably won't ever work in that manner.

 

Number 2 is KIND OF fixed by giving everyone a massive REQ boost. This was long needed. I don't disagree that equipment should have mattered less, but at this point it appears Bioware is solving it by making REQ fall from the sky.

 

Number 3. Sure. I agree. Chances of it happening? 1% or less.

[LordArtemis]

I am neutral on all of those.

 

Number 1 will probably never happen. Its an underlying change to the core of the game structure. It was never designed for joystick and probably won't ever work in that manner.

 

Number 2 is KIND OF fixed by giving everyone a massive REQ boost. This was long needed. I don't disagree that equipment should have mattered less, but at this point it appears Bioware is solving it by making REQ fall from the sky.

 

Number 3. Sure. I agree. Chances of it happening? 1% or less.

 

Fair enough. Do you really feel that number one is that unlikely? Reducing the reticule size, IMO, would make joystick compatibility possible. Right now the turning is just not responsive enough to use a joystick, so it's not possible. However, if that reticule was reduced in size dramatically, the ship would respond to turns much quicker, and that would allow joystick control.

 

The plus would be, even for keyboard users, quicker turning response....more twitchy.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Number 2 is KIND OF fixed by giving everyone a massive REQ boost. This was long needed. I don't disagree that equipment should have mattered less, but at this point it appears Bioware is solving it by making REQ fall from the sky.

 

I agree, and I think the remainder would be solved with balance tweaking to components. I think some of the equipment disparity between aces and rookies is caused by some components just being vastly superior to others (DField) or outright traps (RFLs). I think if we got a good balance pass that would resolve a lot of the problems encountered between rookies and vets equipment wise.

[Verain]

This is the proposed list of changes that we might see with 3.0...

 

This is not the solution to get more players involved IMO, though I do believe it will help in a limited fashion.

 

These changes are massive and will seriously help new players approach the game, and veterans play the different ships and builds available. They will DEFINITELY help. I'm normally down on "free XP" as a concept, but this game is rather punishing and requires planning ahead too much: this will address that without tearing down what has been earned or rendering it meaningless. Great change.

 

I still strongly believe the following changes NEED to happen...

 

Sigh.

 

1) Reduced reticule size and joystick ability added (more twitchy, skill based)

 

There is no issue with a reticule. The accuracy rates on many players are already sub 10 percent, the last thing we need is to bring pixel perfect nonsense into a game that can't handle it. I have no idea why you would think that making the controls worse would be good, let alone "NEED".

 

The joystick thing would need to work like this: you can have a joystick that controls your ship, and a hat that controls your reticule. Sounds better than a mouse? That's because it is. Joysticks are vastly superior to mice at controlling a game like this. Given the market and the audience, I am ABSOLUTELY certain we will see no joystick support added. Yes, it would be great. But it would make the foodships even more foodlike, and could you imagine the whines of the nubbles walking in here and being like I CANNOT AFFORD A JOYSTICK OH WOE IS ME OCCUPY KUAT CLASS WARFARE GUNSHIPS PRIVLEDGE STACK

 

Goodness, no!

 

2) Reduced effect of higher level equipment to level out playing field (mild to strong nerf on equipment upgrades)

 

So your first thing that "NEED"s to happen for this game is a full redesign on input to make it harder and "more skill based" , for a game where over half of pilots across all servers routinely strike asteroids, plus support for a class of hardware Bioware doesn't have a test lab for or a budget to buy, plus addition to input/output for a game that otherwise has no need of that, plus code that would be dragged along and only support GSF for the two hundred guys like me that are waiting to use a ThrustMonger PeenPuncher Prostick to eat foodships EVEN HARDER. That doesn't seem self serving at all....

 

But your SECOND thing that "NEED"s to happen is a redesign on the tier 4 and 5 talents of all hundred or something components, which would amount to a full redesign of the game. Also, this would change the real meta, which is played by solid pilots on full mastered ships, while leaving the stubblyships unchanged. Why would this be good? If you really did want to collapse, you would need to make the upgrades cheaper, but definitely not nerf them in any way. The real game is played with a ship with every component you field mastered- that's what is tested, that's what we are playing most of the time, and that's the actual game. Asking for a full redesign around the mid-mastered ships that no one plays is also absurd, but I bet you are asking for my ships to look like yours. Again, self interested much? I guess we NEED that...

 

 

3) Single PVE map to allow players to practice OR open combat map with no objective (but limited amount of players allowed naturally)

 

I have no idea how a good idea somehow happened in here, but focus on it.

[Arkerus]

Fair enough. Do you really feel that number one is that unlikely? Reducing the reticule size, IMO, would make joystick compatibility possible. Right now the turning is just not responsive enough to use a joystick, so it's not possible. However, if that reticule was reduced in size dramatically, the ship would respond to turns much quicker, and that would allow joystick control.

 

The plus would be, even for keyboard users, quicker turning response....more twitchy.

 

With the way the game is programmed (aka, chase the aiming reticule) I feel it is highly unlikely. The UI would have to be changed to support a joystick "look and feel". It was squarely designed to allow free movement in the aiming zone even if the ship in question isn't headed in the same direction.

 

They could slop some joystick support in but if they half-*** it, why even bother? It would be far inferior to the accuracy of chasing the target circle with your aiming circle, with a mouse.

[LordArtemis]

These changes are massive and will seriously help new players approach the game, and veterans play the different ships and builds available. They will DEFINITELY help. I'm normally down on "free XP" as a concept, but this game is rather punishing and requires planning ahead too much: this will address that without tearing down what has been earned or rendering it meaningless. Great change.

 

Fair enough. Obviously I disagree.

 

Sigh.

 

I agree. At least based on the majority of your response.

 

There is no issue with a reticule. The accuracy rates on many players are already sub 10 percent, the last thing we need is to bring pixel perfect nonsense into a game that can't handle it. I have no idea why you would think that making the controls worse would be good, let alone "NEED".

 

There is an issue with the reticule IMO. It is too large, therefore ships do not respond to directional movement right away, therefore a joystick is not a viable option. Reducing the reticule size would solve that.

 

The joystick thing would need to work like this: you can have a joystick that controls your ship, and a hat that controls your reticule. Sounds better than a mouse? That's because it is. Joysticks are vastly superior to mice at controlling a game like this. Given the market and the audience, I am ABSOLUTELY certain we will see no joystick support added. Yes, it would be great. But it would make the foodships even more foodlike, and could you imagine the whines of the nubbles walking in here and being like I CANNOT AFFORD A JOYSTICK OH WOE IS ME OCCUPY KUAT CLASS WARFARE GUNSHIPS PRIVLEDGE STACK

 

The joystick thing would work exactly as I layed it out IF what I suggested was implemented. What you propose is something completely different.

 

 

So your first thing that "NEED"s to happen for this game is a full redesign on input to make it harder and "more skill based" , for a game where over half of pilots across all servers routinely strike asteroids, plus support for a class of hardware Bioware doesn't have a test lab for or a budget to buy, plus addition to input/output for a game that otherwise has no need of that, plus code that would be dragged along and only support GSF for the two hundred guys like me that are waiting to use a ThrustMonger PeenPuncher Prostick to eat foodships EVEN HARDER. That doesn't seem self serving at all....

 

I'm not positive, but I think you might have just contended that my suggestion is somehow self serving.

 

Now THAT deserves a sigh all to itself if that is the case. My suggestion serves the idea that I would like to see GSF as more than simply a "niche" part of the game that is likely NOT performing the way Bioware intended or wishes. The proposed changes stand in evidence.

 

But your SECOND thing that "NEED"s to happen is a redesign on the tier 4 and 5 talents of all hundred or something components, which would amount to a full redesign of the game. Also, this would change the real meta, which is played by solid pilots on full mastered ships, while leaving the stubblyships unchanged. Why would this be good? If you really did want to collapse, you would need to make the upgrades cheaper, but definitely not nerf them in any way. The real game is played with a ship with every component you field mastered- that's what is tested, that's what we are playing most of the time, and that's the actual game. Asking for a full redesign around the mid-mastered ships that no one plays is also absurd, but I bet you are asking for my ships to look like yours. Again, self interested much? I guess we NEED that...

 

This would be good because upper tier talents are overpowered IMO. They need to be nerfed to make the curve lower, allowing new players a chance to compete. To cling to obviously overpowered talents in a desperate attempt to keep the status quo so the turkey shoot can continue IS absurd...IMO of course. Naturally you may not have intended to give that impression, so that point must be made in fairness.

 

Again, with the self interest. My post history stands in evidence to the contrary.

 

I have no idea how a good idea somehow happened in here, but focus on it.

 

If you think that is a good idea, perhaps I should take another look. Because I think the opposite is likely.

 

This is exactly the kind of opinion that represents everything that is wrong with GSF at present IMO, everything that made the current iteration of GSF the niche product that I believe it is. Therefore ANYTHING supported by this type of view or platform would be suspect IMO.

 

Naturally it is just that....my opinion. Which means next to nothing naturally. It often amazes me how many folks find my opinion represents some kind of threat...

Edited October 8, 2014 by LordArtemis

[LordArtemis]

With the way the game is programmed (aka, chase the aiming reticule) I feel it is highly unlikely. The UI would have to be changed to support a joystick "look and feel". It was squarely designed to allow free movement in the aiming zone even if the ship in question isn't headed in the same direction.

 

They could slop some joystick support in but if they half-*** it, why even bother? It would be far inferior to the accuracy of chasing the target circle with your aiming circle, with a mouse.

 

I see your point...aiming with the cursor instead of the ship. My suggestion was to change that to require more of a chase, less of a reticule aim, to make it more twitchy.

 

Naturally that would likely be a major change, and also it would not be one that could be made for gunships, which require reticule aiming without movement of the ship...or at least a larger reticule.

[SammyGStatus]

Artemis, how is the reticle size making you unable to turn? I out turn scouts in turn battles on a GS (unless they take turning too in which case I can only match them on a condor) but reticle size doesn't seem to impact me.

 

What we REALLY NEED is our devs to keep aware of the issues until such a time where they can make changes

[LordArtemis]

Artemis, how is the reticle size making you unable to turn? I out turn scouts in turn battles on a GS (unless they take turning too in which case I can only match them on a condor) but reticle size doesn't seem to impact me.

 

I didnt mean to give that impression, if I did I apologize. I only meant to point out, IMO of course, that joystick compatibility should be added, and that the current reticule does not support this. There is too much dead pan before movement to support joystick control....one of the reasons I expect it was not implemented.

 

What we REALLY NEED is our devs to keep aware of the issues until such a time where they can make changes

 

Fair enough. I will concede there is plenty of work to do, and plenty of well thought changes, fixes and adjustments by the community that should be addressed before anything as major as what I suggested should even be considered, if at all.

[StrixHiraeth]

1) Reduced reticule size and joystick ability added (more twitchy, skill based)

2) Reduced effect of higher level equipment to level out playing field (mild to strong nerf on equipment upgrades)

3) Single PVE map to allow players to practice OR open combat map with no objective (but limited amount of players allowed naturally)

 

1) I don't think this would attract new players. I think it would make it even more difficult for your average player to get into GSF. If joystick support were added, it would likely mean that either joystick users or mouse users would have an advantage over the other. Even if this advantage were only perceived, it would further fragment players with regard to GSF.

 

2) I disagree. Gear differential is a natural part of the SWTOR (and most RPG's I know of). It's the reward for grinding... grinding... grinding... I think this *might* bring in some new players, but it would also cause just as many, if not more, players to lose interest when their time spent earning requisition is not rewarded proportionately.

 

3) I agree. I'd like to see the "open combat map"... the chance to practice without pressure would help ease the intimidation new pilots feel.

 

I would like to see GSF as more than simply a "niche" part of the game

 

I believe that GSF will always be "niche", simply because only certain people are interested in dogfighting in spaceships; the experience only appeals to some players, no matter how polished it is.

 

So, how do we draw players in, then? For the immediate future, the Conquest rewards for GSF need to be comparable to those of other activities. Speaking anecdotally, of course, it seems like most players are focussed on Conquest events or on using the 12x XP bonus right now. ...For the long term, I think if the attitude of GSF pilots could change to be more welcoming and encouraging to new pilots, that would do more to bring people into the fold than anything else could.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Ymris

[LordArtemis]

1) I don't think this would attract new players. I think it would make it even more difficult for your average player to get into GSF. If joystick support were added, it would likely mean that either joystick users or mouse users would have an advantage over the other. Even if this advantage were only perceived, it would further fragment players with regard to GSF.

 

2) I disagree. Gear differential is a natural part of the SWTOR (and most RPG's I know of). It's the reward for grinding... grinding... grinding... I think this *might* bring in some new players, but it would also cause just as many, if not more, players to lose interest when their time spent earning requisition is not rewarded proportionately.

 

3) I agree. I'd like to see the "open combat map"... the chance to practice without pressure would help ease the intimidation new pilots feel.

 

 

 

I believe that GSF will always be "niche", simply because only certain people are interested in dogfighting in spaceships; the experience only appeals to some players, no matter how polished it is.

 

So, how do we draw players in, then? For the immediate future, the Conquest rewards for GSF need to be comparable to those of other activities. Speaking anecdotally, of course, it seems like most players are focussed on Conquest events or on using the 12x XP bonus right now. ...For the long term, I think if the attitude of GSF pilots could change to be more welcoming and encouraging to new pilots, that would do more to bring people into the fold than anything else could.

 

Fair enough, I think boosting conquest rewards to better match the rest of the game is a good idea.

[zaskar]

1. GSF is not a simulator. Nothing is simulated, there are no physics, just script that mimics star wars physics. You need simulator code to support a more advanced control model. Do you stop at the stick? HOTAS owners would be pissed. Please go read about how Star Citizen has spend MILLIONS on HOTAS support and it's still a mess. If you can justify their experience in this mini game in a mmo then bring this back up.

 

2. Adding more conquest rewards would only invite more people to spawn, crash into the carrier, repeat.

[ALaggyGrunt]

Add conquest rewards for winning and MVPing in something. Even if your team does get wiped out, you can still do the most damage, get the most kills/assists, repair the most, clear the most mines.

 

Heh, make an MVP vote system like in ground PvP while we're here.

[LordArtemis]

I don't know, I still think that conquest rewards was a good idea.

[MiaowZedong]

I don't know, I still think that conquest rewards was a good idea.

 

Conquest rewards for GSF should work like for WZ, with a base value of 250 for participating and a bonus of 500 for winning (so a total of 750 for winning). If you're a casual player with a win rate hovering around 50%, then you'll overall gain the same ammount of conquest as you do now, but for a hardcore GSF guild running premades GSF would pay out noticeably more points.

 

The conquest goal that paid out conquest for every 50 medals should also be made a regular fixture in all events, it rewarded actual contributions to the team whether the game was won or lost.

 

However, please don't institute an MVP voting system and especially do not tie it into conquest or else we'll see premades of bad players rushing to vote for one of themselves, just to get that conquest goal.

Edited October 9, 2014 by MiaowZedong

[Costello]

I know their current plan isn't going to save it. People will max out their ships and still be ganked by better pilots and groups using team speak so it will be just as bad and since requisition has become worthless as they have maxed out their ship see no point in playing other than to be ganked. And you have to be a fairly sad person to want to spend your time being two shot by gunships firing in unison.

 

By far and away the best thing to improve it would be an experience closer to JTL and joystick control. Which I suspect BW does not have close to the budget for.

 

After that would be some way to make GSF have some impact on the rest of the game so its just just a mini game to grind requisition (which will be vastly reduced) and ganking noobs who rage quit reguardless of how easy requisition is to get. Tie it into offering buffs or additional group based options and you may just increase interest in it.

[Alefiend]

For joysticks:

 

1. License X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter or X-Wing Alliance

2. Upgrade graphics

3. ?

4. PROFIT

[zaskar]

For joysticks:

 

1. License X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter or X-Wing Alliance

2. Upgrade graphics

3. ?

4. PROFIT

 

So.

 

1. Buy 1973 Ford Pinto

2. Upgrade the Naughyde Interior to cheetah pattern plush crush velvet with gold tassels

3.?

4. PROFIT

 

see the problem?

[Alefiend]

So.

 

1. Buy 1973 Ford Pinto

2. Upgrade the Naughyde Interior to cheetah pattern plush crush velvet with gold tassels

3.?

4. PROFIT

 

see the problem?

 

Fair enough on XvT, but XWA is more than pretty enough to serve as a GSF replacement, and was extremely smooth-playing as well.

[ALaggyGrunt]

XWA's free-flight mode works on Wine, if native 64-bit Windows won't behave itself.

 

If you want to run the campaign, you're kind of out of luck because of some keyboard interface Microsoft made a mess of in DirectInput.

[LordArtemis]

Well, It is just my opinion, but I would have designed this feature closer to Battlefront 2. I would not have had anywhere near as many upgrades, so brand new players would have still posed a challenge for top level players with fully outfitted ships. The upgrades would have applied to your avatars instead of your ships, improving the ships performance.

 

I would have designed a few things differently....

 

1) The battlegrounds would have mostly been persistent.

Although there would have been a few progression maps, most of the battlegrounds would have been open and persistent with phases. You would see the spot on the galactic map, fly to it, and get into combat. Open maps would have been phase limited to 12-16 players depending on how the game performed.

 

Scoring on persistent maps would have been based on total kills and control of key points, but hangars would have been off limits to control. In match maps hangars would be controllable....once a particular team controls an entire capital ship the hanger is also controlled, and that is a loss of a spawn point for the opposing team.

 

2) Capital ship combat and on-foot combat.

There would have been capital ships in the persistent maps that fought each other, and you would have had on-foot combat as well using generic avatars. You would have had the ability to capture key points in the capital ships, or man turrets to defend them and attack enemy players.

 

3) Ship use would have been open, you would have chosen your ship from a universal hanger and launched.

Your respawn point would have been in a friendly capital ship hangar.

 

4) Two types of upgrades....kill streaks and avatar kits

You would get upgrades to your skills, and special weapons granted to you as you play based on a kill streak or control of capital ship key points. You would also get unlockable kits to improve your avatar performance based on your overall performance and time invested in the feature.

 

5) There would have been NPC fighters and avatars involved in the battle on every map, and one single PVE map for practice.

 

This is how I would have structured this addition, and I expect it would have had a much higher adoption rate had this been the design used.

Edited October 11, 2014 by LordArtemis

[Sintuner]

This is the proposed list of changes that we might see with 3.0...

 

 

 

This is not the solution to get more players involved IMO, though I do believe it will help in a limited fashion. I still strongly believe the following changes NEED to happen...

 

1) Reduced reticule size and joystick ability added (more twitchy, skill based)

2) Reduced effect of higher level equipment to level out playing field (mild to strong nerf on equipment upgrades)

3) Single PVE map to allow players to practice OR open combat map with no objective (but limited amount of players allowed naturally)

 

Just making those three changes, IMO, would vastly increase the appeal of the feature. Even with the increased rewards new players are still going to drop out of the feature early on. They need a fighting chance...better controls and practice can and will provide that.

 

1) This thought appears appealing to a very small niche who like as not are doing GSF already anyway. Imho even they are misguided in missing it. I think majority of Joystick's appeal in arcade is about immersion. IMHO it'd take a cocpit to " take you there". Some kind of a bird's eye to ship with joystick feels..not bad, but completely unnecessary. I miss Joystick like I'd miss a wheel when playing some motorbike sim. ie not much. Significant portion of playerbase hasn't even seen a joystick in their lives. Hardly anyone owns em anymore.

I much enjoy GSF flight engine. I really can't see how they'd throw in a proper joystick support while keeping mouse an appealing, relevant and enjoyable option.

 

2) Naah. Never nerf anything unless you absolutely must. People who worked hard enough for their ships one day wake up to find they've been turned to ****? No. Always a bad call. Giving more people an easier and faster access to good stuffs is much better.

 

3) 100% Agree on this. Maybe turn it into a waiting lobby or such for the games while at it. Ie, when you enter queue you have an option to go there, if you like. Not necessary to be in queue to access it. No opposing faction. Just nodes or something to target and shoot at. Pref. something moving too.

 

Best way to increase it's appeal, beyond obvious stuff like making it more rewarding (Credits,Fleet reqs, tokens, Wz tokens, etc), would have to be in -and through- integration. Small, atmospheric things that make it a firmer part of what you do in the game.

 

- Integrate GSF daily&weekly to number of small, repeatable,spoken quest chains. Cause for some reason, majority of ppl playing this game seem to think dialogue wheels and talking heads are best things since ever. Don't ask me why.

 

- Throw in cutscenes or animations for leaving/arriving to and from battle.

 

- Actual, literal hangar. Maybe a Stronghold you can buy for fleet reqs or tokens. Ship and equipment you earn appears there. You - see - your Sting in the corner. You - see - the quad lasers in your armory. You can admire medasl/achis you've earned. Stats on the walls.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Sintuner

[Asbetos]

Well, It is just my opinion, but I would have designed this feature closer to Battlefront 2. I would not have had anywhere near as many upgrades, so brand new players would have still posed a challenge for top level players with fully outfitted ships. The upgrades would have applied to your avatars instead of your ships, improving the ships performance.

 

I would have designed a few things differently....

 

1) The battlegrounds would have mostly been persistent.

Although there would have been a few progression maps, most of the battlegrounds would have been open and persistent with phases. You would see the spot on the galactic map, fly to it, and get into combat. Open maps would have been phase limited to 12-16 players depending on how the game performed.

 

Scoring on persistent maps would have been based on total kills and control of key points, but hangars would have been off limits to control. In match maps hangars would be controllable....once a particular team controls an entire capital ship the hanger is also controlled, and that is a loss of a spawn point for the opposing team.

 

2) Capital ship combat and on-foot combat.

There would have been capital ships in the persistent maps that fought each other, and you would have had on-foot combat as well using generic avatars. You would have had the ability to capture key points in the capital ships, or man turrets to defend them and attack enemy players.

 

3) Ship use would have been open, you would have chosen your ship from a universal hanger and launched.

Your respawn point would have been in a friendly capital ship hangar.

 

4) Two types of upgrades....kill streaks and avatar kits

You would get upgrades to your skills, and special weapons granted to you as you play based on a kill streak or control of capital ship key points. You would also get unlockable kits to improve your avatar performance based on your overall performance and time invested in the feature.

 

5) There would have been NPC fighters and avatars involved in the battle on every map, and one single PVE map for practice.

 

This is how I would have structured this addition, and I expect it would have had a much higher adoption rate had this been the design used.

 

I'm sure many people would love this (not me personally though), but I highly doubt the engine can handle that. It can't even handle properly updating positions, such a huge amount of calculations would probably make GSF unplayable.

[MaximusRex]

As much as I support Joystick Support, and think GSF should have launched with it, I also have to admit at this point they aren't going to ever do it.

 

That said they need to add better support options for adjusting mouse sensitivity just for GSF. I asked about it once in a Livestream, and Musco's suggestion to get a gaming mouse and keep having to adjust settings manually for different parts of TOR left a sour taste in my mouth, especially considering the "people shouldn't have to buy joysticks/gamepads" attitude we've gotten over asking for that to work, with the "we really want a strong keyboard/mouse experience". Well, then fix the issues with your mouse support.

 

The biggest problem GSF faces is getting new players into the game, its just too punishing for players who aren't used to the controls, which are horribly documented and not well taught, many keymaps being totally overlooked in the tutorial entirely, it's a very frustrating experience to pop in as a new player, blow up instantly, and often times it comes out of nowhere when a geared gunship one shots your noob starter scout. Some of the Dev suggested changes might help a new player who does some research beforehand, but most players don't, and none of the suggested changed address these core issues with GSF.

Edited October 11, 2014 by MaximusRex