Let's talk about Strike Fighters

[caederon]

Not a predominant meta full of the sames ships, of the same components, of the same gameplays, flyed by the same try-hard carried by the same ships, of the same insta-death for the non viable ships.

There's a whole other thread talking about basically this exact thing. I don't think many pilots want a stagnant meta, and just as few want less diversity.

 

Improving the least used, least powerful components would help both strikes and other edge-case ships.

 

If LLC and RFL were viable primary weapon choices, it would definitely help the T1 strike, T3 strike, and T3 scout. It'd even give the T3 bomber a short range option.

 

If EMP and Ion Missiles were viable secondary weapon choices, it would offer considerable help to the T2 strike, T3 strike, and T3 scout.

 

If Concussion Missiles were a little easier to land, it would be a big boost to the offensive output of the T1 strike, T2 strike, and T3 bomber.

 

All of these things could be improved considerably with a few tweaks to the various attributes of the components.

 

It's always seemed natural, too, that the T1 strike should have access to every laser (including BLC and LLC) and the T2 strike should have access to every missile (including Interdiction Missile and in my view, Rocket Pods). Just adding those weapons to the arsenal would improve strike fighters considerably. In the case of giving BLC to the T1 strike, it would be an exceptional improvement.

 

There are other junk components like Interdiction Drive, Weapon Power Converter, Combat Command, and Remote Slicing that could be re-evaluated to give them a place.

 

Make these things that are flawed designs better. Don't hurt things that work and are good designs in order to bring them on par with the junk.

 

Despon

[Jazyra]

There's a whole other thread talking about basically this exact thing. I don't think many pilots want a stagnant meta, and just as few want less diversity.

 

Improving the least used, least powerful components would help both strikes and other edge-case ships.

 

If LLC and RFL were viable primary weapon choices, it would definitely help the T1 strike, T3 strike, and T3 scout. It'd even give the T3 bomber a short range option.

 

If EMP and Ion Missiles were viable secondary weapon choices, it would offer considerable help to the T2 strike, T3 strike, and T3 scout.

 

If Concussion Missiles were a little easier to land, it would be a big boost to the offensive output of the T1 strike, T2 strike, and T3 bomber.

 

All of these things could be improved considerably with a few tweaks to the various attributes of the components.

 

It's always seemed natural, too, that the T1 strike should have access to every laser (including BLC and LLC) and the T2 strike should have access to every missile (including Interdiction Missile and in my view, Rocket Pods). Just adding those weapons to the arsenal would improve strike fighters considerably. In the case of giving BLC to the T1 strike, it would be an exceptional improvement.

 

There are other junk components like Interdiction Drive, Weapon Power Converter, Combat Command, and Remote Slicing that could be re-evaluated to give them a place.

 

Make these things that are flawed designs better. Don't hurt things that work and are good designs in order to bring them on par with the junk.

 

Despon

 

This thread is... retarded, we want more ships, not less.

 

You can buff all missiles by 500%, won't change the problem, you can't land them on a target with DF missiles breaks+ engine break.

 

I'm 100% agreed to buff crap component.

 

Don't think i want flashfire/mangler nerfed to the ground as like suggest you're last sentence

 

Imo BLC & slug deserve a 30% damage nerf, T5 ion replaced by something else & engine & weapon power burning 50 %nerf, DF T3 missile break remplaced. Maybe more maybe less, don't forget those changes will also apply to others ships.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Jazyra

[ALaggyGrunt]

Despon is half-right.

 

Most of the META components are so overused because they have very few weaknesses:

 

Slug rail doesn't make you choose between "I hate evasion" (accuracy) and "I hate damage reduction" (piercing). You take both.

Same with burst lasers: they put out the best raw damage output in any real-world fight. The ignore-armor talent makes them too good.

These two components are the reason you don't see charged plating in open space unless it's a noob bash. These components are also part of the reason the game is un-fun for newbies-getting instamelted just isn't very fun gameplay.

 

Ion rail is painful to everything. A ship without energy is a ship in trouble. There are a few things which could counter it:

1: A missile boat (missiles don't depend on power pool). That doesn't work in practice because missiles aren't lethal enough, and most gunships take lock break distortion field. See also: BR -> LoS.

2: Distortion field. Turn it on, and it's rare to get hit by it.

3: A gun with an ammo pool instead of energy. This doesn't exist in the game. It would go nicely on the T1 strike fighter. See also: why neuting out Minmatar doesn't make them quit firing.

 

We would be taking interdiction mines on our bombers even if they didn't do any damage at all, because the snare is just that powerful. There's just no serious build counter to it. Interdiction drive is halfway there, but it's just too weak. Interdiction drive would be a good build counter, because it gives up its lock break to work.

 

Distortion field has the weakness of health vs. missiles. It's not a very serious weakness, because almost all ships with it have another lock break + mobility to get to cover. At upgrade level 3, it becomes insanely good. The only things which seriously threaten it are mines, drones, and feedback shield. This component is the number one reason everyone's favorite offensive cooldowns are Targeting Telemetry and Wingman.

 

And Targeting Telemetry: it gives accuracy and critical strike chance + damage boost. It's used so much because it's so powerful against everything. Its battlescout exclusive cousin (blaster overcharge) is only interesting against things without evasion stacking, meaning the rare fortress shield gunship and bombers.

 

Regeneration thrusters. They provide the same stamina boost as power thrusters, with the bonus of being able to regenerate engine power. See also: the magazine components.

Efficiency crew talents vs. power pool crew talents.

If the power pool talents and components gained resistance to leech effects, or were just much stronger, they would be worth taking. If a ship with power thrusters could burn 50% longer than a ship without them, it would make a more interesting build choice between being able to outdistance someone once or being ready to burn hard again several seconds faster. Or the ability to keep firing/boosting through ion rail.

 

The shield power pool talents. The emphasis on burst damage makes extra health the number one secondary upgrade. Shield regeneration rate and delay don't factor into most serious fights, because of the game's emphasis on being able to burn someone down before they can blink. That's not so much an issue with the component as the core mechanics: turning radius on ships is very tight, so keeping someone under short-range guns for very long is hard without retros.

[caederon]

You can buff all missiles by 500%, won't change the problem, you can't land them on a target with DF missiles breaks+ engine break.

I disagree.

 

First of all, EMP missile isn't going to frequently be shot at anything other than bombers, unless you're shooting at a mine or a turret or something stationary, and none of those things (with the exception of T3 bomber) have missile breaks. It could be a very useful and viable weapon that would have serious applications against a number of tactics... if it was better. Longer range, shorter lock time, definitely a much quicker reload. I haven't really looked into its damage output, which at a glance seems fine. The issue is that when a bomber is LOSing around the node it's very hard to lock, and if you're locking onto mines you're probably within range of them or will be shortly. It'd be a big boost to the usefulness of every ship that carries it if EMP Missile was a reliable way to break up bomber nests.

 

Fixing the short range lasers would dramatically help the T1 strike, T3 strike, and T3 scout. You wouldn't be in an offensively deficient ship if you had better weapon selections. The T1 strike is not good at fighting on a node compared to other choices because it lacks punch at short range. Same for the T3 strike. Both of them can be remarkably durable, but they can't do enough damage in close quarters to reliably kill anything.

 

You don't need to nerf down the meta ships and components to make the ones outside of it viable and interesting choices.

 

Despon

[NeverEvar]

If you nerf, Slug,Ion and BLC you would for most ships slow up the game. BUT it would not help strikes.

 

There are so many things that easily kill strikes but are not as common as all favorite BLC.

 

For example. Quad/pod. or HLC/Conc(available on both t2 and t3 bombers)

 

And lets bring a bit math to it shall we?

 

a typical t1(CP) bomber has 2550 shields and 2000 hp

 

so you would need 4 fully charged Slugs to take it down, and a competent bomber would no allow 4 slugs from one GS to hit it, so we have t3 GS out of game.

 

But what about t1? it still has ion? it`s 1850 dmg for shields? Still it`s 4 shots

 

Basically it`s time wise nerfing slugs to the level of proton torp.

 

Cutting down BLC dmg by 30% would only prolong the fight since BLC streath is its accuracy and tracing in relative safe zone of any other gun. also it would nerf the only cqc weapon GS`s have vs any other ships.

 

So basically it`s a huge nerf to Gunships, crippling scouts vs bombers even more, which translates to bombers buff(which need nerf IF any class needs one)

 

So in meta it would mean. Less scouts and GS=more bombers. Not more strikes.

[Archonitek]

First of all, EMP missile isn't going to frequently be shot at anything other than bombers, unless you're shooting at a mine or a turret or something stationary, and none of those things (with the exception of T3 bomber) have missile breaks. It could be a very useful and viable weapon that would have serious applications against a number of tactics... if it was better. Longer range, shorter lock time, definitely a much quicker reload. I haven't really looked into its damage output, which at a glance seems fine. The issue is that when a bomber is LOSing around the node it's very hard to lock, and if you're locking onto mines you're probably within range of them or will be shortly. It'd be a big boost to the usefulness of every ship that carries it if EMP Missile was a reliable way to break up bomber nests.

 

Not a strike buff but specifically an emp missile buff. Ships hit by emp missiles aren't able to use secondary weapons for period of time (15 sec is what the current timer for shield/engine abilities). Or ship is completely disabled so no maneuvering, no shooting, no abilities, no boosting (maybe?) for 6-8 seconds. Basically sab probe, emp missile and rolled into one.

[tunewalker]

I just want to make a reminder to people real quick, for those that havent thought about it. But T1 strikes with Ion's and clusters can often feel very much like a Burst laser Clusters scout in terms of damage, their primary problem is keeping up with their targets though, because their engine costs and speeds are closer to gunships then they are to Scouts, making any 4k or under weapon difficult to use for a Strike fighter unless you buff engines.

 

Also buffing missiles isnt just about damage, its about lock times mostly. They take to long to lock on, and dont reward enough when they DO hit, if they were shorter lock times alone you would see a lot more viability in them.

 

Also I really do like the idea of "anti-armor weapons vs anti-evasion weapons vs anti-health weapons" To me the light laser and Rapid fires have so much capability to be "anti-evasion" especially the Rapid fires, just drop their rate of fire, increase their base accuracy and drop their tracking penalties, same with Light lasers, but they would be more regulated to "anti-health" having slightly less accuracy, slightly less rate of fire (more damage per hit), slightly more dps, and slightly more tracking penalty. But this is just my opinion. They could buff Ion laser canon's with increased range, and or even increased power drain to make it more on par with Ion rail guns. or so much other stuff, but remember its not just tracking and accuracy a strike has problems with, its the fact that they have to keep their targets relatively close just like a scout, but unlike a scout they dont have the engine power to do so.

 

Every ship save the Strike has a means to avoid damage and deliver damage from "relative safety". Bombers can deliver damage while at the same time LoSing, and flying evasively against opponents, allowing them to both be relatively safe, and still effective. Gunships can deliver their damage from out of range of most opponents allowing them to be able to deliver THEIR offense from relative safety. Scouts can deliver their damage under tons of evasion and have more engine efficiency then any one else, allowing them to choose to engage or disengage at will, again allowing them to deliver THEIR offensive with relative safety. All 3 of these can deliver their damage while still having means to keep themselves largely safe. A strike doesnt, he has to get in almost as close as a scout thus having none of the safety the gunship likes, with out the scouts evasion CD's OR their engine power and ability to chase or flee that the scout enjoys, and he has to stay in LoS of a target for extended periods of time, making him vunerable to all sorts of counter attacks from team mates, unlike the defenses the bomber enjoys.

 

For me the primary solution, is not to neccisarily give the strikes a means to deliver their goods from relative safety, though that is one solution, my thought is to allow them to deliver their goods in a manner that undercuts the relative safety of other ships. Making them still vulnerable, but while also making others vulnerable to them. High risk High reward playstyle maybe?

Edited February 9, 2016 by tunewalker

[Kinsha]

If I am reading this right, this would make the strike.. average vs all targets and strong vs one specific type tunewalker. That sounds like a good idea to me as the strike would currently is average to poor vs most things now. The target the strike would counter would be tied to their weapon of choice. This seems like it would mostly apply to just the T1 strike though.

[tunewalker]

If I am reading this right, this would make the strike.. average vs all targets and strong vs one specific type tunewalker. That sounds like a good idea to me as the strike would currently is average to poor vs most things now. The target the strike would counter would be tied to their weapon of choice. This seems like it would mostly apply to just the T1 strike though.

 

This would entirely depend on HOW they did their changes, changing missiles (such as lock times as well as damage range and or reloads and effect, depending on the missiels) would have just as profound affect on the T2 strike, and the T2 strike still does have access to light lasers and quads, and T3 strike has access to a couple utility missiles and lghts and rapids as well, so theoretically depending on what they do it could help all strikes, but yes the idea would be they were "pretty strong" against 1 targest, while "average" against other targets they arent specialized for.

 

Like I said though my main issue is that every one else can deliver their power from Relative Safety, and the strike cant, and if it remains unable to then it needs to be able to bypass the safety of others, whether that be their range, their ability to easily LoS, or their high evasion, high mobility. Other wise, they to need a way to RELIABLY deliver their damage with relative safety, just like everyone else, what ever that safety means/ how ever that reliability is achieved.

Edited February 11, 2016 by tunewalker

[ALaggyGrunt]

We're back to needing a hull buff to strikes' offensive capability, or needing to rethink the scout offensive cooldowns.

 

Without system-ability cooldowns, the T1 can't be a proper gunfighter. Better missiles would help it, but it seriously needs guns which hurt. Improved RFL/LLC/QLC/MLC would help this ship out, but it would still help a scout which fit them more.

Whatever gun you put on that ship, a scout will be able to hit harder and more accurately with.

 

There was a Verain post about how it felt like a strike was lifted out of a flight sim. What if we made it fly more like something out of a flight sim?

The ships in ye olde Star Wars flight sims never ran out of engine power. That and the ability to do serious, semi-reliable damage (+range, +accuracy/damage) with their weapons while at boost speeds would give them a unique playstyle: strafe something, lob a missile at it, come back around, repeat.

 

More:

Strikes could have a very small engine power pool (25), but effectively unlimited boost (drains at 0.001/sec or so). The cost to start boosting could still be high (5/6 power), but the small power pool and very slow drain mean an ion rail would still stop it dead, and the extremely limited number of stop/start boosts before having to recharge would mean serious problems with precision range control.

Edited February 12, 2016 by ALaggyGrunt

[JasonSzeremi]

My basic theory is strikes need a boost to damage output, enough to kill things in front of it in it's kill range... it's too slow to chase anything with good cool downs forever without running into trouble, tougher in theory then scouts but not in practice when evasion is factored in. It has some firepower but it needs to out gun recon fighters since it can't out run or out defend them. Long range missiles that did something worth while would make them good ships for less experienced pilots. Blasters that hit targets that are using their evasion cool downs if not for amazing damage but more then now... would make them more able to be fighters. Right now the strike fighter has to choose it's targets like a scout is supposed to, and one scout can barrel into the middle of the fray and slug it out, like a strike is supposed to. The roles have reversed due to over attention paid to the scout's capabilities and not enough to the strikes.

Somewhere between my internet connection and my reflexes I can't perform in a T2 scout at the level as some of these equally experienced pilots so it's the strike fighter (or gunship) for me, I wouldn't mind having a fighting chance in the crate I can fly best that isn't a gunship. One less gunship in gsf sounds like an improvement to me...

Edited February 11, 2016 by JasonSzeremi

[Soljier]

I am pretty sure this has been beat to death, and I am going to be supporting what others have said, but I think offensively a couple of small things could have a large impact on the strike fighter viability and uniqueness. First off, I think strike fighter need an increased 5% accuracy rating over all other classes of ship. This would give them some counter to evasion stacking ships making them both viable and unique. Secondly, they need to have a base lower missile lock-on time. So, cluster missiles 0.5 sec lower, concussion 1 second lower and proton 1.5 second lower etc. The time decrease off course probably would need a lot of PTR time to tweak, but you get the idea. Again, I believe this would lend credence to the uniqueness and viability augment. I would like to add one more, I believe strong reason to add the accuracy upgrade. Every new player comes in and wants to fly the star fighter. I know I did. I still remember the iconic space battles in a new hope. Who doesn't wanna take the role of Luke Skywalker making his trench run or Darth Vader in his prototype tie fighter trying to shoot him down? Most of us play this game because we are fan-boys and girls of star wars. So, who isn't gonna wanna jump into SWTOR's versions of those ships and try their hand. So, let's help them out a bit and make the strike fighters have a higher accuracy. I believe it is both needed and doesn't break the bank as far as being exceedingly invasive.

[ALaggyGrunt]

The exact numbers listed would make strikes mostly missile boats. Bombers wouldn't be able to laugh as they LoS torps any more-they'd have to scramble hard and call for support in a cold sweat. And the scouts who blew all their DCD wouldn't be able to just LoS a conc as easily.

 

The "Luke strafing the Death Star" idea doesn't really belong in a multiplayer game, though. I think Rogue Squadron might have had a Death Star trench run after you cleared everything with gold medals, but the last one where they made it a front-and-center feature was... a while ago. They didn't even get the AI right: the TIE Fighters would try to chase you as you flew between the bridge and main hull of an Imp star destroyer, and they'd wreck.

Balancing that kind of fight so player-controlled swarms of imps could have fun swarming outnumbered-and-outgunned Rebels (and the Rebels would have fun and an actual chance to win) would be crazy hard.

--

 

More stuff:

Protorps need to be seriously threatening to... something. That could be a charged plating bomber, a minefield, a gunship.

The way everything is set right now, it takes two-and-change protorps to kill a charged plating bomber. Scouts have less than half the health of a bomber, so making it take two or 1-and-change protorps to kill a bomber would make it an instakill weapon to scouts.

One thing to do with the protorp could be to make it deal more damage as a target's damage reduction increased: if something has 99% DR, a protorp would deal not 100% damage, but 199% damage.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ALaggyGrunt

[JasonSzeremi]

The problem many strike fighter pilots are discovering with the x-wing vs tie fighter scenario, is we are the tie fighters.

an x-wing can shoot down a tie fighter in one pass, a tie fighter has to harry an x-wing for several minutes to take one out.

Several ships can take out a strike fighter with one pass or 3 shots, strike fighters have to harry most targets for several minutes to take them out.

our firepower is unreliable, speed is bellow average, defense are bellow average.

I would kill to see these replaced with reliable, above average, and above average.

[Deavastro]

To quote a certain politician "HUGE" engine. I'm not an ace pilot or play the meta too much, but I have had no trouble with killing stuff flying my rycer/star guard. Nor surviving enemy fire long enough to LOS an enemy ship and wait for backup. What does piss me off are enemy gunships and scouts invading our territory who manage to out run me when I start hounding them. I wouldn't mind if my strikes a were a bit slower in comparison to scouts if my engines allowed me to chase them to the ends of the earth (as long as I fly well). This may make strikes a viable counter to ion railgun walls. Never done this test before but I would expect in a race between a scout and a strike, the strike should be able to travel a significantly greater distance than a scout by the time strike runs out of engine power(before any engine upgrades on either ship).

To reiterate I'm not an ace, nor have I read much of the posts in this thread so if there's a reason why bigger engines are a dumb idea would appreciate it if you could direct me to a post explaining why.

[JasonSzeremi]

... I wouldn't mind if my strikes a were a bit slower in comparison to scouts if my engines allowed me to chase them to the ends of the earth ... in a race between a scout and a strike, the strike should be able to travel a significantly greater distance than a scout ...

To reiterate I'm not an ace, nor have I read much of the posts in this thread so if there's a reason why bigger engines are a dumb idea would appreciate it if you could direct me to a post explaining why.

 

Actually, the shoe is on the other foot. The theory behind scouts and strikes, was that strikes were the 'normal' fighter, and scouts were, smaller, could go faster or further, and turn faster. They were also supposed to be less well armed to compensate for all their advantages (the T1 and T3 scout resemble that theory). The T2 scout is better armed at close ranges then... anything else in space. Probably because it was supposed to destroy gunships.

 

Scouts currently fly further and faster then anything else in space, which would make sense if they were supposed to scout.

[JasonSzeremi]

Here's what is bound to be an unpopular idea. If scouts are meant to scout, the targeting telemetry buff should give it's bonus to allied ships near the scout, and not to the scout itself. Turning that cool down into a support function. Because scout is not the code word for killing machine, but for reconnaissance support ship. It might even give ships who stick close to the scout a chance to deal some dps, that includes strike fighters and other scouts (course a two man scout wing-man team might have similar results one does now but it won't be a one ship killing squad)

 

You're thinking "You can't be serious!" well... partly, I'm not, I doubt such a change would ever be approved, it's a nerf in a sense and I agreed not to talk about nerfs but if scouts are ment to scout, then their cool downs should help other ships on their team, not help them be better killers. Perhaps the scouts buffs could also give other ships on their side... like say strikes, their advantage... it is called 'targeting TELEMETRY' as in transmitted data to another ship or base. If it only affected strike fighters... that might be interesting, useful, and complicated. If it ever affected rail-guns we would all be doomed.

Edited March 21, 2016 by JasonSzeremi

[caederon]

Perhaps the scouts buffs could also give other ships on their side... like say strikes, their advantage... it is called 'targeting TELEMETRY' as in transmitted data to another ship or base.

You're basically describing a version of Combat Command that doesn't work on the ship that activates the ability. CC at its maximum upgrade gives +20% accuracy to the Primary Weapons (no railgun bonus) of all allies within 5000m for 20s. Nobody uses it. The reason nobody uses it is that there are better options. Its main detriment is that being within 5000m of enough allies to make it worth using is tough to engineer, except in the case of a big scrum at a satellite in dom... but even then, 5000m is not that big a radius. Despite the fact that it also improves weapon pool size and adds regen, It's just not that useful.

 

It'd be kind of nice if Scouts actually had a reason to scout, and Strikes had something to strike at. We will never know the developers full intentions for GSF, I think they had a lot more ideas than they ever got the opportunity to put into play. The version of GSF that exists now is incomplete. That said, strikes can be improved with some simple tweaks if they ever let an intern hack at the XML files.

 

In an ideal world, Scouts wouldn't be murder machines. Strikes would be the backbone of an offensive attack. Gunships would support them and Bombers would play area denial like they do now. Three of the four things work, one doesn't. Hopefully someone, someday, gets to make strikes more playable.

 

Despon

[Kinsha]

Here's what is bound to be an unpopular idea. If scouts are meant to scout, the targeting telemetry buff should give it's bonus to allied ships near the scout, and not to the scout itself. Turning that cool down into a support function. Because scout is not the code word for killing machine, but for reconnaissance support ship. It might even give ships who stick close to the scout a chance to deal some dps, that includes strike fighters and other scouts (course a two man scout wing-man team might have similar results one does now but it won't be a one ship killing squad)

 

You're thinking "You can't be serious!" well... partly, I'm not, I doubt such a change would ever be approved, it's a nerf in a sense and I agreed not to talk about nerfs but if scouts are ment to scout, then their cool downs should help other ships on their team, not help them be better killers. Perhaps the scouts buffs could also give other ships on their side... like say strikes, their advantage... it is called 'targeting TELEMETRY' as in transmitted data to another ship or base. If it only affected strike fighters... that might be interesting, useful, and complicated. If it ever affected rail-guns we would all be doomed.

 

I threw out an idea along similar thinking to some GSF buddies once. I had imagined it would be a sort of "target painting" cooldown. IE: Targetting telemetry: All Fire at the selected target receives a 10% accuracy bonus, +15% crit chance and +25% crit dmg. Target will glow bright red to all allies. That would allow scouts to still reap the benefits of using TT without letting them go on a murderous rampage while it's active since it's a target debuff instead of a self buff.

[Voiddweller]

I really hate guided missile target lock mechanics.Give me some unguided missiles to slap on it)

[Kinsha]

I really hate guided missile target lock mechanics.Give me some unguided missiles to slap on it)

 

I'd totally fly a quell with rocket pods with the 30% extra ammo.

[MDVZ]

I'd totally fly a quell with rocket pods with the 30% extra ammo.

 

HLC/Clusters/Pods/Directionals/Barrel and a ton of ammo?

 

Do want.

[aakrea]

I was thinking one way to give strikes a Buff against gunships is give them something like pods as a primary and it could overheat rather than run out of energy.

[JasonSzeremi]

There's hardly a weapon system that screams 'strike' more then rocket pods... and it gets around the missile lock issue. The only downside is pilots like me would need to practice our gunnery more. A larger ammo rack for strikes might be a cheep way to buff them without major code changes.

[JasonSzeremi]

this one's slightly off topic but I think strike fighters benefit from having a gsf to play so it affects us too.

I was just overhearing another game's 'changes' for it's pvp coding: If a player sabotages pvp events repeatedly (it keeps a tally) by 1. leaving the battle early or 2. not doing anything (I think for us that means not dealing damage, getting objective points, or even locking and firing missiles) they lose all rewards for events (if guilds are farming gsf for conquest perhaps they should lose all conquest points for a week or something) until they start participating.

On a similar subject, I think locking and firing missiles should be participating, you can't do that without having a target in range, and doing something to help your team... and making the other guy blow a missile break is contributing. Just because a battle scout or gunship blows up your target before the missile hits, doesn't mean you aren't trying. I also think taking damage is participating... still it would avoid penalizing new players as long as ramming asteroids doesn't count.

 

Leachers (players who only farm gsf for conquest or other reasons) have made gsf nearly die out on my home server, because fewer and fewer players cue for matches knowing one or more people are going to lazily drift across the map or when they know they are being voted.... slam their ships repeatedly into asteroids to end the match early and punish us for trying to stop them. Several good players told me they were leaving our server for that reason, and cues have slowed down to one every few hours for lack of willing pilots.

Edited March 24, 2016 by JasonSzeremi