Ship Crew

[StoneClaw_]

Well, I haven't seen this topic on forums since the updates, so here it is.

 

As some of you may know, crew members aren't mirrored across factions. This means that you might not be able to get the same crew passives on both factions if you want a specific co-pilot ability.

 

Fixing this would entail making the factions' crew mirror each other in terms of passives and co-pilot skills.

 

This issue has existed for a long time (understatement), and although it's not the worst thing to ever exist (e.g. interdiction drive), it might be worth considering.

 

That's basically it. There's some bonus crew selection issues to consider below. Thanks for reading.

 

Other things to consider alongside this are:

 

- Some crew have combinations of passives that make them much more desirable over other crew members. This limits the selection of co-pilot abilities (esp often offensive ones), unless the player is willing to sacrifice those ideal passives.

 

- Blizz

 

- Many crew members are companions that are now available to both faction via the newer expansions. It may be interesting to allow players to unlock and use such companions as ship crew. Not very important but, could be fun.

 

Tl:dr - Stuff

[Shiyoni]

I wish we could pick the crew based on the voice line, and pick the buffs and skills as completely another option. It would look way neater in my opinion. 1 of the people I often have gsf matches, hates as much as me certain crew member, just because of his voice line that doesn't fit the ship. There's so much room to improve in gsf, but in the end I agree with you.

[phalczen]

I feel the same about weapon and engine art. Weapon Power Converer looks awesome (imoofc) on the Quarrel (rep T1G), but despite its improvements in 5.5 I still prefer barrel roll playstyle wise. I dislike the BLC art on the Sting. I'd love to see cartel market kits, and kits paid for with requisition or fleet comms, that can change artwork of ship components to something of our choosing. I wouldn't mind buying "copilot modules" to change them as well for the same rationale.

 

EDIT: I am aware that isn't what StoneClaw was asking for. They are looking for parity between co pilot choices so that pub and imp are mirrors. The devs could do that... or they could sell copilot modules that let you customize your crew.

 

EDIT2: and what Drako said below me

Edited January 26, 2018 by phalczen

[Drakkolich]

This was actually brought up rather recently and is currently pushed back to the 3rd page on the forums which is why you might have missed it. Here's a link to the other thread if you'd like to look at it.

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=934981

[Verain]

I always post in these threads to remind everyone that I disagree with them completely.

 

I very badly want Empire and Republic to be different. Currently, this is only true in GSF, and only when it comes to the choice of certain active/passive combinations. These minor differences make the experience of playing on both factions unique, even if only a little bit.

 

Changing this isn't "fixing" this, it is actively homogenizing the minor differences away in a quest to be sure that the game is narrower than today. It will ultimately remove interesting choices that players make today. It would be bad if crew members were homogenized across factions, it would be much worse if you just picked a pile of passives and actives and then applied your favorite voice over. There is nothing I like about any of these suggestions: all make GSF narrower.

 

I also hate the idea of allowing players to customize their engine, blaster, or missile components separate from the actual effects of this. Not only does this homogenize stuff further, it also prevents you from knowing the components of the enemy by looking at their ship- right now, targeting an enemy provides information about what they will be shooting you with, or how they will be evading you, if you are accustomed to the looks of these things. There could be other ways to offer this information, but the current one rewards you for learning about the game.

 

Changing any of these would, IMO, make the game worse.

[DakhathKilrathi]

I always post in these threads to remind everyone that I disagree with them completely.

 

I very badly want Empire and Republic to be different. Currently, this is only true in GSF, and only when it comes to the choice of certain active/passive combinations. These minor differences make the experience of playing on both factions unique, even if only a little bit.

 

That would be fine if it wasn't a PVP game. It is, though, and if the factions aren't mirrored then one is going to have the advantage over the other, and that's just not good design. Period. There's no way around that one.

[Verain]

if the factions aren't mirrored then one is going to have the advantage over the other,

 

There's ways to balance games besides exactly mirroring stuff. The fact that the maps are not mirrors should already prove that GSF is kinda serious about having some real but minor factional differences. Warhammer was a solid game that had actually serious differences between factions, and it was overall balanced enough- GSF doesn't nearly bite off that big of a bite to chew on. Even WoW offers real factional differences in pvp. It's not unprecedented to have a fun game where things aren't the exact same on each side.

 

Mirroring stuff and totally obliterating nuance does technically create balance, but it gets there the most annoying way possible.

 

As long as whatever differences don't imbalance the game enough that you would be hoping for one faction in a controlled 8v8, I think we're just fine. Honestly, the occasional complaints I hear about faction imbalance are more a result of some of the copilot abilities and crew passives needing some nudging. I don't think GSF needs careful mirroring, and I really don't want it.

 

There's no way around that one.

 

The most successful game in this genre doesn't have mirrored factions. There's realm versus realm games in the future and past that avoid this flavorless hammer in design choices as well. There's plenty of ways around this, and there's plenty of balanced games without mirroring.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Verain

[phalczen]

That would be fine if it wasn't a PVP game. It is, though, and if the factions aren't mirrored then one is going to have the advantage over the other, and that's just not good design. Period. There's no way around that one.

 

As Zyreias says, It isn't completely inconsequential that imperials can have hydrospanner without sacrificing firing arc, engine pool, and engine efficiency. I mean that wasn't really much of an issue before 5.5 but now with hydrospanner being more viable especially for strikes I think it's more relevant. That isn't the only example, but it is the biggest.

 

I'd prefer they balance it by allowing us to use the companions we earn through KOTFE/KOTET as crew members. Even if they only make it companions who already have a profile in the GSF crew passive database. That way, everyone could have access to Blizz and a some of the balance issues would be resolved. That being said, I know Musco said during on of the bad feeling Podcast q&a sessions that KOTFE/KOTET companions are different digitially than their original vanilla versions. Hence, why when you get them back in the story they don't automatically re-unlock in GSF, forcing you to spend fleet req to unlock them again.

[Verain]

As Zyreias says, It isn't completely inconsequential that imperials can have hydrospanner without sacrificing firing arc, engine pool, and engine efficiency.

 

I feel you are missing some "or" in there, and instead used "and". You can, for instance, give up extra arc on pubside. Alternatively, you can take the decent firing efficiency and the awful extra blaster power instead of the peerless engine efficiency and the good extra engine and get it that way. I go for the first option. Why is this a problem? Is it because the factions aren't mirrored? Or is it because the double weapons engineering guy is terrible passive combination, and these passives should be different?

 

I mean that wasn't really much of an issue before 5.5 but now with hydrospanner being more viable especially for strikes I think it's more relevant. That isn't the only example, but it is the biggest.

 

Does every example favor imps? I don't think so. If you are looking for weapon efficiency and hydrospanner, that's a hard combo to find on impside, and I can think of a couple builds that want that. If you could mix and match passives and copilots separately, I think you'd make builds that neither imp nor pub actually end up with in most cases, and then instead of having two cool builds, you'd have just one build that was boringly better than the others.

 

I'd prefer they balance it by allowing us to use the companions we earn through KOTFE/KOTET as crew members.

 

I'd prefer to keep balance and content separate. New crewmen could bring new copilot abilities and passive abilities, and balancing could address some of the power deltas between some of the passives (in particular). I don't feel we are looking at a problem that needs a solution- I think it is nice that Republic and Empire have slightly different strengths. It's ok if your favorite build is slightly better on one side. It's less ok if that happens a lot and is always the same side, but I don't think hydrospanner alone is making that happen.

[phalczen]

I also hate the idea of allowing players to customize their engine, blaster, or missile components separate from the actual effects of this. Not only does this homogenize stuff further, it also prevents you from knowing the components of the enemy by looking at their ship- right now, targeting an enemy provides information about what they will be shooting you with, or how they will be evading you, if you are accustomed to the looks of these things. There could be other ways to offer this information, but the current one rewards you for learning about the game.

 

Well, in the ground game, with the outfit designer, it became possible for light armor wearers to look like heavy armor users and scoundrels/operatives to wear jedi outfits. Furthermore, when they removed stances in, 5.0 I think, players lost another icon on their buff bar that players used to determine who they were up against. So, it became necessary to watch the animations, watch the cast bars, watch what the player was doing in order to determine their advanced class and discipline.

 

My point is that pvp'ers in the ground game adapted, and the same would happen in GSF. Every engine maneuver is highlighted on the buff bar of the player ship, so you still learn the information, you just have to learn it real time, and not simply by looking at their engine art in the target window. Regarding blasters, again, the real issue becomes when you get hit, that's really when you know. I mean, BLC's are pretty obvious on a Sting, but LLCs and RFLs are all very similar between scout models on both sides, and rendered in the small target window may not be discernible. One will damage your hull as a T1B with CP up and the other won't. The same art for BLCs on a sting is regular LCs on the blackbolt and bloodmark. Engines are even more confusing, for that matter: pubside, the barrel roll engines on a T1G look like retro thrusters on a T3G. If you were a newish pilot, and you saw a Quarrel run away using Barrel Roll, and only looked at the engine art, you'd make an incorrect conclusion about those same engines on a Condor. The only way you'd truly know is by watching the buff bar and watching how the ships maneuver in real time.

 

So, I get that you want to be rewarded for recognizing that those Y-wing style engines on the Quarrel mean it has barrel roll, and on the Condor mean it has retros, but this information can be taught to players other ways, arguably less confusing ways, while gaining huge customizability in the process. That is important to a lot of people, and honestly, if you expand crew offerings with all the KOTFE/KOTET and alliance alert companions, there plenty of room to balance out things and still have a unique ship on every toon.

[Drakkolich]

The problem isn't that different factions get different combinations. The problem is that the passives aren't equal to each other.

 

Pin pointing is worth almost and possibly more then double the other offensive passives.

 

Engine buffs on engineering are so superior to the weapons power ones that on almost every ship you take double engines.

 

What if you just had passives that were interesting in those slots and we're actually balanced to the other ones. This let's you keep this fun flavor of the game and have the balance you guys are searching for.

[Verain]

Well, in the ground game, with the outfit designer, it became possible for light armor wearers to look like heavy armor users and scoundrels/operatives to wear jedi outfits.

 

Yea that sucked. But there's other concerns than pvp in the ground game, like making galactic dollhouses and stuff. This game doesn't have those distractions. If pvp was what everyone did in the ground game, they would likely be a lot stricter on that note too. Also note the ground game has class icons, and nothing in the ground game covers ground like ships can here.

 

My point is that pvp'ers in the ground game adapted, and the same would happen in GSF.

 

Or just not. I think it was lame that they made all those changes. I don't want to see them duplicate that mistake in GSF, especially lacking a compelling reason like they do in the ground game (quality of life for RPers, less inventory burden, ability of players to tell stories, etc- these are unpresent or irrelevant in GSF).

 

 

So, I get that you want to be rewarded for recognizing that those Y-wing style engines on the Quarrel mean it has barrel roll

 

Yea so lets not mess the game up.

 

 

The problem isn't that different factions get different combinations. The problem is that the passives aren't equal to each other.

 

Absolutely.