@Devs- Stabilize your rear deflectors!

[MDVZ]

Strikes are pretty good mid-range damage dealers compared to most other classes. If a scout gets close, they lose and that's fine, if a gunship can keep away they lose, that's fine, and they're not a terrible counter to bombers on paper, in theory, but they take a really long time to kill them in practice, and that's a little less than fine.

 

I'd suggest baking a fire rate and/or accuracy increase and a lock on time decrease into the frame so they can make the most of their midrange windows of opportunity with higher DPS and pressure exertion.

 

I don't agree with buffs to turn rate. That just makes them even more into heavy scouts. Better boosting time would be welcome, and let them control the range of an engagement better, which they do need.

 

Oh, and I think that a strike buff is the only balance change we really *need*. I doubt anyone can disagree that they need a buff, and with that buff, whatever it may be, we can re-evaluate the dynamics of the classes and meta overall.

 

It should also help new players a little. A T1 scout is a pretty unforgiving starter ship for a new player, but it can become a beast. T1 strike, less so. If they were more potent out of the box, it would also help a little with entry to the game, and keep them in the game better at higher levels, given their lesser benefit from mastery than, I think, all other ships.

Edited February 3, 2015 by MDVZ

[MDVZ]

We can't outrun most land mammal predators but we can outwalk anything on the planet. It's as big of an evolutionary advantage as opposable thumbs. .

 

We evolved, in part, to be long distance, low(er) speed, high stamina runners. We're outrun in sprints by most animals, but we evolved (again, partially) to out-distance prey by running them down (not walking) till they were exhausted.

 

Say what you like about GSF, it's just a bit of fun, but get your bloody science right!

Edited February 3, 2015 by MDVZ

[Squatdog_nz]

Make the weapon icons larger than a fruit fly so you can actually see which one you have active at a glance. Preferably with the option to add it to the HUD.

 

Make the ship's mini-map icon more distinct so you can tell which way you're facing.

 

A small artificial horizon would be nice.

[Verain]

Make the weapon icons larger than a fruit fly

 

1- Open the tutorial (or be in GSF) (this step is optional)

2- Escape -> Interface Editor

3- Change the bar underneath "Global Scale" from "Main HUD" to "Galactic Starfighter"

4- Click on "GS Quickbar"

5- Increase the "Scale".

 

Now you don't have buttons for ants!

 

 

Make the ship's mini-map icon more distinct so you can tell which way you're facing.

 

Unlikely given the minimap and icon are the same as the main game. NOTE THAT WITH THE ABOVE TRICK YOU CAN MAKE THE MAP BIGGER TOO. I actually think it would be 100% fine if they could just....

 

A small artificial horizon would be nice.

 

The lack of this is so absurd. Especially given that we actually have a 2D universal-top-down map. It would be SO good.

[nyghtrunner]

Make the weapon icons larger than a fruit fly so you can actually see which one you have active at a glance. Preferably with the option to add it to the HUD.

 

Make the ship's mini-map icon more distinct so you can tell which way you're facing.

 

A small artificial horizon would be nice.

Just to note, for the weapon icons, you can actually change the size/placement of those (or any other UI element) in the UI Editor. From the Drop Down when you bring up the UI Editor, just choose "Galactic Starfighter", and it will give you the proxy places of everything. For fine tuning, it's better to actually be parked, and in a match, so you can actually see the UI elements in relation to the targeting circle, rather than rectangular representations of them with no circle, but you can absolutely change that stuff.

 

I didn't change the size, but made them slightly transparent, and put them just to the right of my targeting circles. That way, I'm not glancing very far away from the "action" to check my weapon and ammo states. I made the minimap slightly transparent, and moved it just underneath the weapon icons for the same reason. I'm not glancing too far away to get enemy positions, my position, etc.

 

And also, just to note, one of the issues with the map tracking your direction is that it's a 2D representation of 3D space. So if you are diving straight down in Kuat Mesas, for instance, there's not a good representation on the map for that, because you're effectively "drilling in" to the map. And in that situation, based on the x/y of the minimap, if you pitch slightly up, you're now actually moving in a direction in the map that can be displayed in terms of x/y. However, if you pitch the nose slightly back down (all while still "drilling in" to the map), the arrow depicting you will flip as though you just hit Snap Turn or something. You haven't, but because the difference is a very subtle one when the major direction of travel is in the Z axis, but in x/y terms, you've effectively reversed direction. Does that make sense? It's a limiting factor, and the map will always be an imperfect representation because it's a 2D representation of 3D space. The only way to make it better would be to turn it into a 3D map of some kind, possibly some kind of an off isometric view, but then you get into issues with distance looking distorted. I'm guessing that the map gets the arrow direction by calculating the current position vs the last reported position (probably at some kind of timer interval so it's not trying to recalculate everything for every frame). Doing that, you can get an accurate momentary "direction" in x/y terms, but because there's a Z plane of travel the map cannot represent, it's a very imperfect representation.

 

EDIT - Regarding the horizon line, while there isn't one, and it would be awesome if there were, if you are in a place where you can take a second or 2, you can hit "v" (at least, I think it's "v"), your ship will be moved into the right side up position, effectively staring at the horizon. It takes a second or so to actually do, and moving the ship around will interrupt it, but it can at the very least get you going right side up, towards a horizon, which makes the map "correct" for you. Again, not an ideal solution, because you can't really do it if you're in the middle of evading, but you can do it.

Edited February 3, 2015 by nyghtrunner

[Verain]

The 2D map is fine if we had any UI element that would tell us our location relative to the horizon.

 

Every GSF map is a rectangular prism. The map is a top down view of the prism. With an artificial horizon next to the map, we'd know our vector instantly. As it is, it's mostly just two skills, the first one being remembering what you did, the second one being map familiarity. Those two are all you need, but it's definitely brutal that there's no assist for this.

[nyghtrunner]

The 2D map is fine if we had any UI element that would tell us our location relative to the horizon.

 

Every GSF map is a rectangular prism. The map is a top down view of the prism. With an artificial horizon next to the map, we'd know our vector instantly. As it is, it's mostly just two skills, the first one being remembering what you did, the second one being map familiarity. Those two are all you need, but it's definitely brutal that there's no assist for this.

I agree with you, I'm just noting that the 2d map of a 3d environment is why those little direction arrows will never be a perfect representation of your (or anyone else's) direction.

Edited February 3, 2015 by nyghtrunner

[Verain]

Much simpler than an artificial horizon would be the little green arrow representing you becoming blue when you are upside down.

[Squatdog_nz]

1- Open the tutorial (or be in GSF) (this step is optional)

2- Escape -> Interface Editor

3- Change the bar underneath "Global Scale" from "Main HUD" to "Galactic Starfighter"

4- Click on "GS Quickbar"

5- Increase the "Scale".

 

Now you don't have buttons for ants!

 

 

Welp, I adjusted the Starfighter UI and it was a ridiculously fiddly chore, obviously tacked on as an afterthought when EA plagiarised Star Conflict.

 

Did I really need to constantly get pop-ups telling me how to move my character and jump by pressing spacebar?

 

 

 

Unlikely given the minimap and icon are the same as the main game. NOTE THAT WITH THE ABOVE TRICK YOU CAN MAKE THE MAP BIGGER TOO. I actually think it would be 100% fine if they could just....

 

 

 

The lack of this is so absurd. Especially given that we actually have a 2D universal-top-down map. It would be SO good.

 

A simple solution would just be to have a facing arrow, like the one World of Tanks added semi-recently.

 

Whenever I look at the mini-map, all I see is a floating triangle that can be pointing in one of three directions...

[Ryuku-sama]

Welp, I adjusted the Starfighter UI and it was a ridiculously fiddly chore, obviously tacked on as an afterthought when EA plagiarised Star Conflict.

 

Did I really need to constantly get pop-ups telling me how to move my character and jump by pressing spacebar.

 

Are you really complaining about the general preferances of this game??? If yu didn't disable the tutorial, it's your damn problem. The way to adjust the UI is the same since launch...

[Itkovian]

Speaking as a dedicated Strike pilot (particularly the T2), I think the following would be quite nice for strikes:

 

1- Improving boost energy efficiency (so strikes can boost longer).

 

2- Giving Strikes a native buff to accuracy. Not much, but enough to partly make up for our lack of active buff abilities.

 

Beyond that, reducing missile breaks in some way would be a good nice-to-have (and should be a necessary companion to any Cluster missile nerf, IMO). And I wouldn't be adverse to a Protorp buff (because blue booms are fun *grin*).

 

That said, concerning adding horizon or arrows or some such, let's not forget the purpose of this thread is to suggest changes that can be made simply by fiddling with values... any real additions will require us to make GSF significantly more popular and profitable before the devs would bother investing the manpower necessary to make it happen.

 

Thank you.

 

Overall though, this is an excellent thread.

[nyghtrunner]

Are you really complaining about the general preferances of this game??? If yu didn't disable the tutorial, it's your damn problem. The way to adjust the UI is the same since launch...

To be nitpicky, the UI editor wasn't in place at SWTOR launch. It came with an earlier expansion, somewhere between 1.2 and 1.5 (I think), but it definitely wasn't in place in the beginning. I think it came out around the same time they launched F2P and the Cartel Market, because I remember that was when they added the 5th and 6th ability bars for subs and preferred. But in terms of the GSF launch, you are correct, it has been there since launch.

[Verain]

Speaking as a dedicated Strike pilot (particularly the T2), I think the following would be quite nice for strikes:

 

1- Improving boost energy efficiency (so strikes can boost longer).

 

2- Giving Strikes a native buff to accuracy. Not much, but enough to partly make up for our lack of active buff abilities.

 

Yea, these would work. I remain of the opinion that almost any strike buff would be excellent, and which the devs actually implement sort of depends on whatever vision they have for strikes. But personally, I think strikes have more than enough hull and shield, enough that it's tiresome (but inevitable) to kill them on a gunship or bomber- so I wouldn't really vote for a buff to those directions, and when I play a strike I am constantly fighting to keep my breath up enough to move, and I feel that keeping targets undernose is just a lot harder than it should be. It's hard to hit a bomber if he's doing anything but RPing as a pinata halfway to A, it's super hard to hit a scout if he actually knows you are there (and his two button means that the pass you orchestrated needs to be replicated in the next 20 seconds, having cancelled your missile and made him immune to your blaster), and it's hard to threaten a gunship much if he has any LOS he can use, at any point- and the moment you swap off him, Railgun Roulette ensues...

 

...so a passive accuracy boost on strikes is a really smart solution. I think it has some similarities to the "give them increased range" idea- both result in more shots hitting and the front cone of a strike being actually a risk to go sit in. It's also worth pointing out that accuracy would really go well with the strike weapons- most strikes need heavy lasers, their only armor piercing blasters, famously terrible at deflection, and their iconic weapon, quads, suffer massively at deflection as well- in fact no strike weapon is actually decent at deflections, despite being forced to play from that position a lot. Accuracy fixes a great deal there.

 

 

 

 

Beyond that, reducing missile breaks in some way would be a good nice-to-have (and should be a necessary companion to any Cluster missile nerf, IMO). And I wouldn't be adverse to a Protorp buff (because blue booms are fun *grin*).

 

Agreed completely. I think a 30 second distortion field active (possibly with longer evasion duration, or passive buff if needed) would go a long way towards this. It's just so obviously stacked against you when your opponent isn't able to shake you and he can still cycle missile breaks 3-5 times, largely in part to the lowish cooldown of distortion. I didn't like the game at all when it had no missile break on disto, but there's so much space between that bugged world and the current one that is worth exploring. I also agree that this change would have the effect of a mild buff on the longer lockon missiles, and I definitely agree that clusters and disto are tied together- change one without the other and components can become trashbinned or super optimal.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Verain

[MDVZ]

most strikes need heavy lasers, their only armor piercing blasters, famously terrible at deflection, and their iconic weapon, quads, suffer massively at deflection as well- in fact no strike weapon is actually decent at deflections, despite being forced to play from that position a lot. Accuracy fixes a great deal there.

 

On that note, which I mentioned before along with a rate of fire increase in the strike frame (make them bloody STRIKEier), rather than flat accuracy, a tracking penalty bonus akin to BLCs and Slugs. Might need a rework of HLCs, or not as everyone takes AP, or just let it stack if taken.

 

That would make a heavies and quads strike a force to be reckoned with right out of the gate. Again, it would also help new players.

 

I'm actually very much in favour of laying on buffs to the strike frame such that the stock T1 is a bit of a monster. It doesn't benefit that much from mastery; it already starts comparatively strong, but it ends up being outstripped by every other ship save maybe the T2. If the frame had the right buffs in it, such that it starts off as effective as anything else half mastered and ends up still competitive when fully mastered, then that would keep the combat strikes in the game, and ease the way into it for new players.

 

Obviously that doesn't help the Nova, but so what? The nova benefits quite immensely from mastery, the strikes don't.

 

So, pile it on. Give strike frames +5% tracking, +5% base accuracy, +10% RoF, -10 lock time, 20% more engine pool, etc, etc, all or any combination of the above.

 

Then sit back and see how the meta looks when all those strikes that can get you in range, kill you while there, overcome evasion (moreso at least), field higher DPS at mid ranges (with AP and higher accuracy), and run when they need to. Then worry about where disto, BLC, TT, slug, etc sit.

 

Oh, and I think CP ought to have it's duration or DR increase, or both slashed. A razorpart with T2 CP, mastered deflection and DR crewperson is too little cost for the reward.

[Verain]

I didn't mention charged plating. It's metashattering to touch it.

 

I would personally prefer it be redesigned, and my thread to detailed stuff (linked in OP) says exactly that.

 

 

Changing the numbers on charged plating destroys the move. You could meaningfully reduce the duration by only a couple seconds before the move becomes very not powerful, and at the moment you change things like the shield bleedthrough, the granted armor, etc, you are redesigning the move. Charged Plating gets to its destination with numbers that add up to 99% or 95% damage reduction, essentially an immunity. Move those numbers to 85%, and the move is suddenly not the same thing, because it's the difference between "immune to mines" and "dies moderately slowly but is still hard counter by armor pen".

 

 

I feel charged plating is:

 

> Extremely punishing to new characters

> Rather punishing to new pilots

> Very boolean in its result

> Overcome by elements that are already too strong or default (heavy, burst, slug)

> Mostly interesting because it offers immunity to mines

> A trap on the type 1 strike (huge problem as it is a default ship) and the type 3 bomber (less of an issue as it is a wasted component)

> Too mathy (not all new players realize that you need to stack armor component, DR crewmember, and the ability itself, or it's a trashcan move, based entirely on adding a bunch of percents together)

> Meta defining

> The only solid counter to mines on nodes

 

 

What it does WELL:

> It is excellent that a boy bomber with charged plating can beat up other bombers on the node, while being much weaker to type 2 scouts and gunships of all flavors. This means that there is not one optimum minelayer.

> It is VERY interesting to have almost immunity to many weapons while being extremely vulnerable to others. Yea, they go too far with it, but it's certainly strategic.

> It feels powerful to be able to bathe in light lasers and eat mines like pacman.

> It feel interesting to be so vulnerable during the window with no plating (huge shield bleedthrough) and so undefended against weapons with armor/shield pen in any amount. This tradeoff with the previous point is fun.

> It is nice that something can solidly ignore mines.

> It is very nice that this component has value and is not on the scouts.

 

 

 

A numbers adjustment on plating is a new move. We could use that new move, of course, but nerfing it straight risks deleting it. I think it should be viable on every ship that has it, and not so ludicrously good against ships without armor pen.

 

I would say something like this:

> Upgraded duration should be less than now- likely half time at most.

> Shield bleedthrough only when active

> No bonus shielding or at least a smaller amount of bonus shielding

> Instead of adding to damage reduction, it should reduce damage taken to hull by some amount passively- say, 20%- and when active by more- say, 60%. This value needs to be MULTIPLICATIVE, not additive. Presumably armor ignore would still work on it.

> The above values would be 30% and 90% for mines.

 

This would leave the interesting mine countering parts, preserve vulnerability to armor piercing weapons while not making that vulnerability as full-on as it is currently, make the move valuable without an armor component, and not stack to 100% (essentially) in combination with those things.

 

A boy bomber with plating active on live has 20% (armor) + 9% (crewman) + 10% (bomber base value) + 60% (plating) = 99% damage reduction versus light lasers, cluster missiles, and mines (and a bunch of other stuff). Meanwhile, a slug railgun pierces 48% of his shielding, delivering 62% of its damage directly to hull.

 

With this change, the bomber would, while active, have 39% (armor, crew, base) reduction, followed by a 90% reduction, yielding about 94% net reduction to mine damage- more like a strike on live, and still solid. But versus light laser or cluster, this value would be about 75% damage reduction- a very solid reduction, but not outright immunity. Slug would continue to be very harsh.

 

...but the modified version would not be as vulnerable to slug when not using plating, taking the normal slug (or burst).

 

 

 

I think the only nerf you could do, numbers wise, to the current one would be to shave off about 3 seconds of the active, or add about that much to the cooldown. And this would still really hurt the builds that rely on it, while not offering them less of a hard counter in their hard counter cases.

[nyghtrunner]

Honestly, there's a part of me that wonders how much would change if you simply made armor pen less necessary. CP bombers might be a problem, but I'm almost convinced that the #1 reason to try to always have an armor pen weapon is the turrets in DOM. #1a or #2 would be the CP bombers.

 

But effectively, by making the armor pen so necessary, you nullify what would otherwise be a possible strength of the Strikes (I believe all of them can be outfitted with CP, and 2 of the 3 can have Deflection Armor). But BLCs, Heavies, and Gunships (Slug Rail) all completely nullify CP and Deflection armor by existing (And to a lesser degree Pods, but I only think the armor pen there is only really a big deal because of the pen on BLCs on a BLC/Pods build of the T2 Scout). I don't know about the overall effects, or exactly how I would change this, but doing something along the lines of halving the armor on turrets, and having a max armor pen for all weapons at something like 50% might very well open up a good amount of space.

 

I've long been intrigued with the idea of swapping my armor pen on BLCs (T4, Left) to Shield Piercing (T4, Right), and swapping the T5 from extra damage to shields to extra damage to hulls, but as a practical matter, it's not really an option, because I simply have to have the armor penetration for turrets, and to a slightly lesser degree, CP bombers (I will note in the case of Slug Rail, this isn't even an issue, because it gets both piercing and penetration). But the pervasiveness of armor penetration completely nullifies component options for several ships, and seemingly more to Strikes than other types of ships.

 

I guess in large part, if I were to try a balance pass, and wanted to inadvertently buff strikes while I was doing it, I'd look at:

1. Armor and armor penetration. As described above, I believe the meta itself is stifling possible Strike build strategies. To a lesser degree, scouts and gunners, but the RNG nature of evasiveness will probably always be better than a flat % reduction for taking any weapon damage outside of RFLs for those 2 classes.
   
2. Upping the booster power of Strikes (possibly to the level of having a T1 Rycer with Retro and the extra 20% engine power you get from the T3 right side Retro upgrade, just making it base, instead of tied to Retro. Retro can still add another 20%, but I think the base strike boost power needs a bit of a buff, if for no other reason than to make them slightly less dead to an Ion Rail).
   
3. Buff Ion Cannons a bit with regards to range (somewhere between 5-6km max range).
   
4. Try to lower the burst capabilities of the T2 Scout by giving a slight nerf to BLC power. I think revisiting armor pen and armor might do a lot of the work here, but the BLCs might still be slightly too bursty.
   
5. If scouts burst capabilities are reduced, we would probably need a slight nerf to Slug Railgun*, possibly Ion Rail. I'm not saying it's necessary, but I'd definitely look at it pretty closely. And it's quite possible that the CP side of the CP bomber would need a nerf of some kind.
   

 

Anyway, that's a short list of places I might look at first for a balance pass that (hopefully) wouldn't drastically alter the way the ships are flown. I think Disto could stand to be looked at, and it might be enough to increase the CD to 30s or so, as Verain suggested. That's actually an idea I like quite a bit.

 

*EDIT - This assumes that armor penetration is reworked, along with turret armor, since that alone would probably amount to a decent nerf of Slug railgun, in a similar way to BLCs. The only thing that it doesn't effectively nerf Slug Railgun for are Scouts, which might be OK, I just think that if you tweak BLC output to lessen it's burst, it's probably correct from a balance perspective to ding Slug a bit. I will note, however, that not nerfing Slug while nerfing BLC does begin to make a Quad/Pod T2 Scout look more attractive, but unless you're Scrabs or Tommm, that's probably a much more specialized build, and should be rewarded as a GS hunter.

Edited February 4, 2015 by nyghtrunner

[Squatdog_nz]

Are you really complaining about the general preferances of this game??? If yu didn't disable the tutorial, it's your damn problem. The way to adjust the UI is the same since launch...

 

Starfighter was playable on launch? Amazing!

 

Every time I adjusted the UI in the (hopelessly inadequate) Starfighter tutorial mode, I'd get a pop-up telling me how to use the spacebar to jump.

[nyghtrunner]

Starfighter was playable on launch? Amazing!

 

Every time I adjusted the UI in the (hopelessly inadequate) Starfighter tutorial mode, I'd get a pop-up telling me how to use the spacebar to jump.

The way to do it is either in a GSF match (at the beginning of a TDM, or if you've got nothing going on while you're defending a sat in a DOM), or when you're in the ground game, hanging out on fleet (thus no GSF UI visible, but you will still get representations of where the various elements are that you can move around, scale, and change the transparency for, etc.). And I assume you mean spacebar to hit the afterburners? If you're in the worthless thing they call a tutorial for GSF, there's no way to turn off those notifications and such that I know of, but you can disable the tutorial tips in the ground game in the preferences. I'm also not certain that anything you do in the GSF tutorial in relation to UI or keybinding will actually hold beyond the tutorial.

 

And the UI editor for GSF has been in place since the launch of GSF.

[Squatdog_nz]

The way to do it is either in a GSF match (at the beginning of a TDM, or if you've got nothing going on while you're defending a sat in a DOM), or when you're in the ground game, hanging out on fleet (thus no GSF UI visible, but you will still get representations of where the various elements are that you can move around, scale, and change the transparency for, etc.). And I assume you mean spacebar to hit the afterburners? If you're in the worthless thing they call a tutorial for GSF, there's no way to turn off those notifications and such that I know of, but you can disable the tutorial tips in the ground game in the preferences. I'm also not certain that anything you do in the GSF tutorial in relation to UI or keybinding will actually hold beyond the tutorial.

 

And the UI editor for GSF has been in place since the launch of GSF.

 

The new UI worked fine. The only difficulty was having to jump through hoops to be able to check it in relation to the HUD...and the constant 'press spacebar to jump' pop-ups that I couldn't disable.

[Ryuku-sama]

The new UI worked fine. The only difficulty was having to jump through hoops to be able to check it in relation to the HUD...and the constant 'press spacebar to jump' pop-ups that I couldn't disable.

 

You were in the tutorial -.- The tutorial WAS an afterthought. But the UI editor isn't the tutorial.

[Squatdog_nz]

You were in the tutorial -.- The tutorial WAS an afterthought. But the UI editor isn't the tutorial.

 

So I'm supposed to laboriously fix my UI in the middle of an actual game?

 

...or outside GSF where I can't even see my HUD?

[Ramalina]

In the UI editor one of the menu options controls the setting of the UI.

 

You can have it set for

Solo & small group PvE

Ops

Warzones

GSF

 

and maybe a few others, it's been a while since I last reconfigured my UI.

 

It shows the footprint of each UI element as a colored area on the screen, and if you select a UI element it will display the element name and the options in the UI editor will change to reflect the options available for that element.

 

It's not especially intuitive, but it's a lot easier than a lot of the third party UI mods for WoW used to be.

 

So you won't be able to see a ship in your target box for example, but there will be a red or blue or whatever square, and if you select it a label saying Target or something of that nature will appear, and then you can adjust it however you please.

 

The only major downfall is that when changing buff and debuff icons, it may not show what size they will be. I'm not sure though, as I said, it has been a while since I've done it.

 

It's not that hard, you should figure it out in a few minutes if you fool around with it a bit.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Ramalina

[Squatdog_nz]

In the UI editor one of the menu options controls the setting of the UI.

 

You can have it set for

Solo & small group PvE

Ops

Warzones

GSF

 

and maybe a few others, it's been a while since I last reconfigured my UI.

 

It shows the footprint of each UI element as a colored area on the screen, and if you select a UI element it will display the element name and the options in the UI editor will change to reflect the options available for that element.

 

It's not especially intuitive, but it's a lot easier than a lot of the third party UI mods for WoW used to be.

 

So you won't be able to see a ship in your target box for example, but there will be a red or blue or whatever square, and if you select it a label saying Target or something of that nature will appear, and then you can adjust it however you please.

 

The only major downfall is that when changing buff and debuff icons, it may not show what size they will be. I'm not sure though, as I said, it has been a while since I've done it.

 

It's not that hard, you should figure it out in a few minutes if you fool around with it a bit.

 

I realise this.

 

It may amaze you to know that on release, you couldn't customise the UI at all.

 

The basic system is the same as Bongos I was using on WoW back in 2005.

 

The problem with the Starfighter UI customisation is that I have to needlessly wade through multiple menus to get to it and can't see how it relates to my HUD unless I'm in a match or the hopelessly inadequate 'tutorial', where I get constant pop-ups telling me to use the spacebar for jumping.

[Ryuku-sama]

I realise this.

 

It may amaze you to know that on release, you couldn't customise the UI at all.

 

The basic system is the same as Bongos I was using on WoW back in 2005.

 

The problem with the Starfighter UI customisation is that I have to needlessly wade through multiple menus to get to it and can't see how it relates to my HUD unless I'm in a match or the hopelessly inadequate 'tutorial', where I get constant pop-ups telling me to use the spacebar for jumping.

 

Just do the whole tutorial... Then don't shoot the turret down... When i tutor new players, I send them in with these instructions and tell them to find a broken dreadnougth and fly through it... It teaches them to control their speed.

[Drakkolich]

Wow you guys are really harping on this guy, all he is saying is that there could be a more intuitive way to customize the UI lol. The fact that you have to play the tutorial and then not end it and after that customize your UI is a work around not how it was intended to work I'm sure.

 

Yes we've all figured out how to adjust the UI now and after bumbling even for a few minutes I'm sure most players could figure it out, but it definitely could be more intuitive.

 

Ryuku you really don't need to attack someone that says something could have been a bit better.

 

As for Squatdog I'm curious do you still play starfighter? How long did it take you to figure out all the UI stuff you wanted to change and change it anyways?