I want to make sure to say yet again that I appreciate your talking to us more, Keith. Lack of talk from the dev crew has always been a big issue here at SWTOR, and I noticed it all the more after coming over from City of Heroes. Sure, some people will be grumpy about what you are saying, but a dialogue really does help an MMO community, I have found. Otherwise all feelings are left to simmer, undirected. I'm checking in on behalf of the GSF community, hoping we'll see more follow up on the feedback threads that were started there. It was great to get those, and I really hope they bear fruit. I left the game for a long while just after the dev team asked for ideas about what to do with Strikes, and when I came back about 9 months later, I was more than a little saddened to hear nothing happened with all that feedback and it's even worse that nothing has happened since that time, years ago! Definitely think through your changes well, but please do keep paying attention to this along with everything else on the road map.

I think they mean stuff like the trade and pvp channel, which definitely are there at start, just like general chat. If not, well, that seems like that would be the easiest and would make sense to do. *shrugs*

It's to the point where I rarely participate in a joust. If the other player wants to do it, something is probably in their favor, so unless I'm feeling really confident and the game is not being laggy and my aim is where it needs to be, I'm going to deny them their chance. Knowing when to engage and when not to makes a big difference as well.

Doing this is essentially flipping the bird to players that love flying bombers and/or only fly them. I personally prefer flying everything BUT bombers, but everyone has their cup of tea and I have flown with plenty on Shadowlands that only like to play bombers. While I can appreciate how bombers changed GSF, they've been around for years and they're not going to get rid of them or alienate people that do like them: that's just bad design. A stronger way to approach it is to improve anti-bomber components and weapons. Currently, the best thing to deal with a bomber is a gunship with ion railgun. Scouts can do a good job one on one before it's set up, but the tools they're supposed to use against a bomber's stuff don't work well (EMP, etc.), and yeah... strikes are even worse off. I'd personally love to see satellites rotate to make lazy bomber pilots move (nothing worse than a "tick bomber," to my mind), but I think giving better tools so bomber pilots need to be proactive more is the way to go. Better components would also help against the lazies in shipyards and Kuat that find some trench to hide in and do nothing but fart mines, too. Another thing about overall feedback, if they did make ship hangers legacy based, they really need to give better things we can spend our backlog of requisition on. I kind of wonder if that's what they're thinking since they've asked about vendors, too, but it really will help. Galactic command is nice and all, but it's subscription based, so if you take that and req away, you are drawing away potential pilots, too. Any vendors put in can have increased costs to encourage subs, too.

Well said, Ramalina, I completely agree. Pretty much everything I've been trying to say.

I don't really see weakening armor as much of an option, particularly since you're still going to have turrets, and why weaken armor options when you can just focus on giving each of the lasers a clear cut job to do? Meh, forget it. I don't care if or how they tweak damage reduction armor, etc., or the various lasers. I just want them to take some good time and thought and give each component a place, and the same with each ship type. It's doable. Remember how poor of a choice alacrity used to be in the ground game, or how crit and surge used to be separate? Just do the same with GSF so we can stop having the noticeable disparities currently in place.

So for paragraph 1, it's not a fallacy. You're arguing for flight sim elements being added to GSF, when it's not trying to be that kind of game (just like Rogue Squadron with the N64 or other consoles was flying around, but hardly a flight sim). That's an equivalent analogy to asking an MMO like Old Republic to go to an RTS, so it was a fair point to make. It's also more than fair to argue against some of your other points, like in the second paragraph I left in, which are asking for a fundamental recreation of what we have (you're making suggestions about movement and aiming, all of which are fundamental to how GSF works right now). First off, even if they had all the development time to create a brand new game matching your specifications, you're than alienating anyone who appreciates and likes the current game, which, despite your suggestions in your post, isn't insignificant. A lot of the people posting and that I've talked to in my guild, etc., don't hate how GSF plays, necessarily, they just don't like the skill differences, matchmaking, etc. We don't need to get into a numbers argument about how many play it or like it, either, it's just solid design sense. If you have a game system that people are playing, years of game and development show that you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater And yeah, two. The dev team doesn't want to create a whole new game (look at all the other things in the road map they want to work on, and how long they've let GSF languish). They're asking for friction points for how GSF operates now, so they can tweak it, just like when they talk to players about their current classes. In that scenario, players asking for the ground version of SWTOR to be turned into an FPS only would be similarly met with comments to get on track with what was asked for. I'm not trying to be snippy with that last part, either. Just given how GSF works, what things would be a friction point to be improved and tweaked? Something about matchmaking, the maps, the GUI layout, the stats ships have to play with (like how well Strikes use boost versus scouts), how components work, etc., are all wide open to discussion, as then you're actually giving feedback they asked for. Unless you do that, you're just asking for an apple to be an orange. Simple as that.

I wasn't saying quads and pods wasn't good, I know what they can do. But you have to admit they're weaker than BLCs. BLCs does everything they do in one package and can be used in a rapid turning fight. And if you have a component that does everything well, no matter how you buff the others, they're still going to be a weaker choice in comparison, unless you make them all equally stupid good, by which time you might as well not even have ones to choose from. Weakening BLCs strength against armor is the most obvious choice, since scouts have other options in that category, and it makes that choice more valid. Bringing up the other lasers to be a viable option in other areas is then more valid as well. You have other ideas you've thrown out about the other lasers, but how would any of those buffs be a valid option against BLCs? Making any of them better against shields isn't going to stop BLCs walking all over that ability still, and being good against armor, and being better in a dogfight/turning battle, etc. Unless you start arguing for those other lasers to do everything BLCs can, any development time put in is pointless. Nerfs are never popular, but when you have something with absolute zero weaknesses blowing away the competition, a good developer should acknowledge the issue. I'm arguing for a pretty minor change, too, not some mammoth nerf. If there's some other minor tweak that would help make other lasers a viable option even after some buffs, I'd be cool talking about it.

The problem is BLC is so good, it becomes almost silly to make any other choice. I far prefer Quads with pods or clusters, as that just fits my play style a lot better. I just don't like the shotgun style and feel of bursts. But even so, BLCs are so good they're better than the quads and pods combo for bombers and gunships. You don't even need to bother with a secondary, just maneuver in, pop a CD or two and lay on that primary key. So why shouldn't something that is really good across the board not have some downward tweaks? How can other types of lasers compete when BLC does everything they could do already? It's best for dogfighting and hard targets and also deals with any accuracy issues the game throws your way (as long as you can aim, of course). It's got to have some weakness if anything else is going to get a place. I've said elsewhere that removing the armor penetration (and even swapping out for increased damage to armor for that tier) would make quads and pods have a clear role, and allow other lasers to get a tweak and have a role as well. Should it be done with other tweaks to the game to help define roles? Sure. Strikes need some more capability in taking out bombers, etc. They definitely have missiles that are supposed to be worrisome like a gunship with ion aoe taking out bomber gear. But it's never good design to have multiple choices for a weapon and make one best at everything you need a weapon to do. You might as well remove the rest, then.

Well said. The equivalent of some of this stuff is asking Battlefront to become a flight simulator or something, because you can fly stuff there, too. Asking a game to be something completely different than it is makes no sense whatsoever. Now if someone wants to work with what we have, like just add joystick support over and above the keyboard and mouse setup (which I don't see as being impossible), or work with the components we have to tweak the game that's here, then that's fine and dandy.

I've tried getting some pub pilots to go impside with me when things are lopsided, but people are really reluctant, unfortunately. Or they say something like all their characters over there already finished their missions, which is weird to me, too. If you're a regular GSFer, missions are just a little CXP gravy... you'd think you'd rather more pops and even matches.

Yeah, I'm not against vendors, and I like your ideas there (yeesh, giving us decorations to match up with ships would be a real boon, though I guess they'd have to be different from the current ones from packs and other rewards). But yeah, adding in more companions unlocked from using them as your crew, etc., are some other really great ideas. Mostly wanted to note this as a great idea and hope it gets noticed and acted on.

I thought so, from how you posted. I mostly added that in there as some posting in thread and in the past are like "I wanted a SIM" or something hardcore along those lines, which is clearly what GSF is not intended to be, and frankly would not be a very big draw. Games like Battlefield, Rogue Squadron, etc., show that a lot more people like a more arcadey approach. And yeah, I don't see why joysticks or controllers can't work with GSF. I personally prefer mouse since I played a lot of FPS on the PC, not consoles (I don't know why people prefer controllers, they're so imprecise for aiming). But I get that people want it. Oh, and that's not to say people shouldn't like flight sims or something like TIE fighter, just realize that they're not a big draw for a lot of people.

I feel like bursts never should have been given to scouts, as they're the ones with the speed and maneuverability to get ridiculously close fast and leverage its insane stats at that range. Everything about the combination of the two exacerbates their strengths. But I guess we're here, and removing them entirely from scouts would really change things, probably too much (and create ill will). At the very least I think the armor pen should be removed. Rockets are then the scouts go to for anti-armor or burst on a gunship then. They have clusters for dogfighting. And I dunno, the other missiles would still need a look at (I get a kick out of Sab Prob, but it's bugged STILL and deserves a look at with other missiles). And then there are actual choices people need to make with their builds and even scout type choices, rather than just throw a Type 2 scout at it, because it's able to do everything well. I guess my big contribution to the whole thread would be that EACH ship needs to have a role in the current meta, and missiles and laser types are a part of that meta. Think about how you want each part to fit into the meta, or else you're just going to make things lopsided in some other way. Strikes are the main ship that needs a role or area to shine, so focus on the components and base stats (speed, maneuver, boost usage, etc.) to help it compete.

I wouldn't mind seeing joysticks enabled. I'm really not sure why they aren't, as it's basically the equivalent of how Battlefield works when you hop in a plane or helicopter. GSF really is basically an FPS, but with that vehicle element added to it. But just realize if they did add it, you'd still be playing a "chase the crosshair" game, as everything in GSF is structured around that crosshair: the whole thing is structured around it, and they're not going to rework for something that foundational. It's an arcadey space combat game, not a flight sim. Not sure if that's what you're longing for, but some of the "needs joystick support" crowd still seem to long for a flight sim or something like the old TIE Fighter game, which is not what GSF is at all.