Jump to content

theknightof

Members
  • Posts

    43
  • Joined

Reputation

10 Good
  1. by the way, it's not exactly true that reload time is a con of Protons -- it equals that of Thermite and Ion; it's lower than EMP; and only beaten by Cuncussion and Cluster. Ammo capacity is rarely a factor if we add to the equation refill options, and most players don't go through a competitive battle without dying every now and then (though it's personally something i take under consideration because in tdm i'm way below 1 death per match). I'm leaving Sabotage out of the discussion, it's kind of a topic of its own...
  2. i believe, Ramalina, you indirectly agreed that there is unbalance in missile components -- even if not strictly speaking of Protons. (...i won't even start on the imbalance of blasters) just for everyone's info, i am an experienced player with somewhere between 2-3k matches among various characters, 100% gsf achievements, and always flying solo. and a reminder: gsf has only one queue mode, there is no ranked/unranked, no team/solo, so the topic of components' imbalance is not only high-skilled pilots' concern. Enticy, as i mentioned, there is the option of boosting some other missiles. You are right "Effective =\= broken" but effectiveness of some vs. low effectiveness of other = broken. Hence, You are using protons, I am using protons, and I bet the % of players choosing anything over protons is unproportional to the number of choices we are given.
  3. ...and if we compare Proton to the other long-range torpedo - Thermite - what do we see? 1. Proton has 1.5k longer range (no range upgrade option for Thermite) 2. 15-18sec DOT is not as useful (as in any pvp) as a high burst dmg 3. Target debuffs for a long-range missile -- not the best option... Are they balanced? The answer is obvious.
  4. fair points. yet, what Concussion has in arc and speed, Proton has in range. and in my opinion instant kill > debuffs. it would take lots of statistics gathering to get a conclusive comparison. and even if slightly nerfed Protons would still be among the most useful missiles -- there is always a room for one that deals so much hull dmg. it would be hard to make a serious case that nerfing proton would disbalance the missile components.
  5. my protons lock in 2.2 which makes them easy to use. it's a frequent 1-hit kill, and, in my opinion, is not so much fun regardless of which end of the missile you are on....
  6. using protons on strikers. maybe for bomber/gs you has more flexibility (i don't know because last time i played gs is ages ago, and bombers i'd use only in domination where torpedoes are not the component to go for). but on a striker it's a no-brainer to pick proton before anything else.
  7. so which missiles do you choose for a tmd ship? you sound like you don't use protons, or just talking rubbish... and as you said "If you have full health and shields, they won’t one shot you". under these conditions other missiles won't even concern you. there is no need to give us a lecture on how to avoid a missile -- you can do the same against other missiles but they won't kill you even if you failed to.... and i'm speaking balance of components here, not of ships.
  8. Probably been discussed plenty before but I am opening the topic anyway: Protons are OP, and the obvious first choice for most of us for any ship that can have the component. What bothers me is that it takes away the freedom of choice -- if I try alternative missiles I am compromising performance for the sake of fun. The simplest way of balancing the missiles, and allowing us more viable selections is to nerf the Proton. Of course there is the option to boost most of the rest -- I personally wouldn't mind having other dangerous missiles so the matches will be more intense. If Proton is to be nerfed, the first things that come to my mind are removing its DOT, and practically limiting its range to 10k (probably by having missile speed & range being the same tier upgrade).
  9. Well, yes, given the limited info in the UI we are forced to adopt this approach. But if it were showing HP in percentage I would choose to spend hydrospanner if HP is just over 80% (which is still green), and might save it if at 90%+. The difference between green-81 and green-100 is huge.
  10. such option would be useful to have so you know exactly what your HP is (and can decide whether to use repairs or save them for later). must be a pretty simple task for devs, and would add to our gaming experience.
  11. i enjoy gsf but it seems unfair anyway that the gsf weekly is 4 and warzone is 3 battles. on top of that, on average a gsf battle is longer than a warzone one, and to make it worse -- queue time for gsf is usually longer.
  12. while we are at it, they could as well show the actual global cooldown in the alacrity stats.
  13. if you choose to focus on the "Play Your Way" discussion, it's not my fault that the slogan is so misleading, and not everyone is forced to watch livestreams, etc. "Watch / Don't Watch Your Way" is my motto;P seriously, there are many situations in swtor where one can feel they have little freedom to make their own choices. it's supposed to be an mmorpg, after all... there are loads of players who these days feel forced to play PVE/PVP against their choice, for example (and i know we don't really have to, but then again, we don't really have to vaccinate yet people feel forced to, excuse the analogy...)
  14. Gearing obviously strayed quite far from the "Play Your Way" motto because everyone is forced to avoid Mastery, Power, Endurance, and only stack Critical (or Alacrity, optional) except for the few occasions of playing level 75 content. Some form of soft cap, instead of a hard one, would be much fairer, and allow us some freedom of gearing the character Our Way. I believe such simple change would hurt nobody.
×
×
  • Create New...