08/25/2016: Revision IV Notes: Not much has been changed or added since III. I corrected some guild information and locations as per some old requests but the main body of the work remains unchanged. With DvL going on I have not been GSFing much but am determined to revisit the project occasionally.

NOTE: Due to a mistake when uploading the update I had to change the link address. I am including two links this time. One to the Dropbox location and one to my personal guild website where I keep a copy uploaded.

11/18/2015: Revision III Notes, Adjusted spellings of some names at the request of originators. Updated and massively expanded general information section with additional information. Minor corrections throughout the revision. Special thanks to both Drakolich, Sriia, Ramalina and all posters for their help and contributions in making this goal a reality.

11/5/2015: I have updated the Manual based on the feedback thus far received. I believe I have found and corrected all instances of the mistakes made but, as always, I appreciate any catches and notifications made on the forum, or through PM. Thanks to those who have posted thus far!

Since most of the pertinent information (builds, tips, strategies, maps, etc) is scattered across numerous forum posts and websites I decided I would try and draw a large amount of it together into a single, more ergonomic, format for new and old pilots alike.

I have done my best to make sure that all of the source material is codified and cited throughout the text with input from both original posters as well as experienced commentators.

I am putting this up not just as a resource but also as an invitation for more experienced pilots to post and help me to make it better. I have a 2nd revision already planned but I would like to expand upon it even more with more thoughts.

The continuing input of the community is greatly appreciated and I have continued my work on the overall work to make it more complete. I estimate possibly 1-2 more revisions before 90% of the remaining bugs/gremlins are out of the works and then I will keep a copy for download on my guilds home website. Any enthusiasts are encouraged to download and spread it around... just try and make sure its the most current version.

~Rannek

THE LINK: http://files.enjin.com/280404/GSF_Manual_IV.pdf (The guild website location)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gsgos2hik0m16yo/GSF_Manual_IV.pdf?dl=0 (The Dropbox link)

NOTE: Due to issues with the hypertext I had to upload the pdf to Dropbox. Its a free service but may have problems viewing the file unless you are logged in. I will update the link as soon as my normal file sharing service stops glitching.

The flavor text/early Beta based explanations of the scout and strike classes (Tratine, 2013) are WILDLY inaccurate. Top of pages 47 and 54.

Scouts are the premier dogfighters by a large margin, and strikes are really poorly suited to dogfighting, but lack the ability to do anything other than dogfight.

Hopefully at some point strike buffs will happen and a lot of guides will have to be extensively rewritten, but we're not to that point right now.

I'd sort of recommend deleting those quotes from the guide. The more detailed stuff below the introductions (very correctly) contradicts those quotes, but unless you're listing them as part of an explicit warning not to believe the flavor text BS in the hangar I don't see them really doing anything other than confusing new players looking at the guide.

Edit: Other than that, it's a really nicely formatted and easy to read easy to navigate compendium. It liberates the source material from the deficiencies of being scattered all over the place and hampered by the limitations of Forum formatting.

Looks like a great resource for new pilots to get into GSF well done. I found a few mistakes and added some suggestions below if you're interested. Thanks for taking the time to put this together and for citing the references that was really nice of you.

If you need any help or have any questions feel free to ask in this thread or just send me a private message.

Mistakes/Suggestions:

General information:

Backfilling: For myself I've always considered backfilling just entering a match where someone else had left. I've only seen someone purposefully try to backfill on the opposite team once and we had a good laugh about it, I don't they people are that angry about it, but I've been wrong before.

Controls: You can Strafe left and right with Shift + A and Shift + D

You might want to add F1-F4 for power management in the controls section as well.

You might also want to add the 3 ways to target people in the controls section as well. ( Tab closest target, R last target to deal damage to you and E target closest to your cursor)

Crew section picking companions:

New crew members cost 1250 not 1500 as you sited.

Crew actives:

Bypass increases Shields piercing by 16% not 35%.

Lockdown takes away 40 engine power not 40%. Some ships can have more or less then 100 engine power via upgrades or chassis.

Running Interference and Wingman both extend to 3000m to allies not 1000m.

Crew passives:

Response turning adds 5% evasion not 6%.

Sensor dampening adds 2000m dampening not 4000m.

The ships section:

Anastasie/Phytia is male.

Condor/Jurgoran: You didn't add the co-pilot information.

Scouts: I don't agree at all with anything said in the description, Scouts absolutely are the undisputed dogfighters. They also aren't anywhere near underpowered.

Drakkolich,

Thanks for the post!

I have already started revision II as soon as Ramalina posted. (she noted the obsolete data on the scouts and strikes flavoring text) so that has been updated in the upcoming revision. Your post is very well received and appreciated. I am going to go back through and start by correcting the errors and then I will start adding in the data that you, and others, have graciously put up.

I knew when I undertook this project a couple weeks back that some errors were going to be inevitable and so I tried to CMA by making this "version I" (implying I was going to have to revise it). Glad to know that people are reading it and helping me to brush it up.

NOTE: In reference to my citing my sources, I would be both ashamed and feeling quite guilty if I did not pay proper respect to the aces and veterans who painstakingly discovered the vast majority of this data before me. All I have sought to do is to organize it into an ergonomic reference.

Additionally, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all of the aces who have posted and built websites over the years. I wish I had your piloting skills... lol

~Rannek

A few more bits, after a second look-through:

pg 5 Definitions: Meta really about relative power in gameplay and not a synonym for "build" or "load-out". I've seen attributions as deriving from the meta in meta-data or as an acronym for Most Effective Tactic Available.

Meta: (adj,n)

It can mean an optimized ship that if properly flown cannot be equalled or surpassed at a particular task by any other build. "The BLC-Cluster battlescout is the meta dogfighter."

It can also refer to the general strength of a ship build or class relative to other ships, or a game mechanic in relation to game balance or play experience. "Unfortunately there are no strikes in the meta." "Removing the missile break from DF would break the meta."

Any definition of meta that doesn't capture the aspects of optimization and relative power in terms of game balance is slightly deficient.

All of the Dulfy information is from the last few weeks of Beta and first week or so of early access. Aside from the GSF calculator tool, none of it has been updated that I know, so there are a lot of things that have been changed. It's no longer really a highest quality resource unless you check all the patch notes since then for changes, and all of the forum posts about bugs that have changed things that aren't reflected in patch notes. Nice as a historical record of things that have changed since launch though. I guess maybe correct the portions you include in your manual, and give a warning that although well done and reasonably comprehensive the stuff on Dulfy's site is badly out of date in a lot of details. A lot of the errors Drako pointed out stem from this.

Ok, i think I have fixed all instances of the issues listed by Ramalina and Drakkolich. I also discovered that I had forgotten to link the pictures of about half of the fighters to their sections... that has been fixed as well.

Continued catches and thoughts are welcomed and appreciated!

I think those two caught everything I would have mentioned, but I'm taking a closer look at it now to be sure. One thing I did notice is that some of your citations need a little editing since I don't think they're consistent throughout. It's a minor thing, though, and the names are always correct from what I've seen. The dates are sometimes off.

On that note, I kinda prefer being referred to as Dakhath, but that's really up to you. People know me better by the two names you've used, and I have never really offered any indication on the forums that I use the screen name at all.

You should also change the definition of backfilling. It really does just mean that you enter a match already in progress. And I know you had a kinda negative experience involving that a few months ago, but the scenario you've laid out there is pretty rare.

On a more personal note:

Thank you for the work you've put into this!

You might be able to use some of the information from this thread though it was unfortunately never finished and is incomplete.

Edit: Also, if you need somewhere to host this, I do have a web server that I can give you FTP access to, and I could give you a subdomain under my forum's domain name (though of course visionary-tales.com has nothing to do with SWTOR or GSF).

I will dig back into the guide tonight to attempt to find adjust the citations and references to "sriia" into your preferred call-sign from the forums. I will go back and also adjust the definition on Backfilling as my understanding of it has gotten a bit better between yourself, Drakkolich, and Ramalina.

I am not sure which inconsistencies you are referring to regarding the citations but I will look at them in more detail. I know I found a "snafu" in the bibliograpjhy I need to address and... since some of this was done at 3am over a cup, or seven, of coffee I may have mis-input something. If you have some specific examples I would be delighted if you could point me in the direction so I can fix them. page numbers can help too.

Incidentally I found your guide (Dak) to be one of the best tactical breakdowns and so I incorporated much of it into the "tactics" section. If you have not already checked that section I would deeply value your input on it.

Thank you for addressing the issue from in game from several months back... I have actually not Qed since that night. Been sort of armchairing the whole thing. I might come out of retirement now that i have a better understanding of what happened.

That is a lot of work putted in that stuff. Grats.

BUT

In scout part i found one...misinformation?mistake?Wrong concept? Don't know how to put it:

In T2 description you suggested swapping to BO from TT for a GS hunter. That is a bit incorrect, since GS`s(especially T1) are second most evasion stacking class of ships.Also an advice to swap from RI to CF is questionable VS a target that can get 23% passive evasion a good advice.

The build you suggested is more suited for killing bombers without CP

This is a great idea, especially if it's made available somewhere people that don't come to the forums might find it.

A suggestion: maybe add an explanation of how evasion and accuracy work. It'll help people understand why choosing 6% accuracy is useful on a crewmember even when you already have 100% accuracy.

Thanks for taking the time, this is a beautiful compilation!

Edit: Removed, I now see that it's a quote

Updates to the manual have been made. original post has been edited and dated to reflect what has been done. As always I encourage as much feedback as I can because that is how I am finding/correcting/refining the manual.

Thanks again to everyone who has been contributing to this.

~Rannek/Ravaís

That is a lot of work putted in that stuff. Grats.

 

BUT

 

In scout part i found one...misinformation?mistake?Wrong concept? Don't know how to put it:

 

In T2 description you suggested swapping to BO from TT for a GS hunter. That is a bit incorrect, since GS`s(especially T1) are second most evasion stacking class of ships.

I think this depends on play style. For pure dps, blaster overcharge beats targeting telemetry, hands down. Doesn't matter if you use rocket pods or clusters, on both blaster overcharge is better. TT is good because of the long uptime and the evasion, but for killing anything fast B/O is much better.

Vs bombers, sure, but versus anything else....

First, Crit talent on TT, especially if you as (as suggested) use CF.

the main difference is that TT actually increse the crit magnitude, not only crit chance.

With RI or CF you have zero accuracy bonuses, which makes disto really powerful.

Dont get me wrong, BO is good. But you need wingman for it. also BO affects only primary weapons, TT is not so picky and works on secondaries as well

Vs bombers, sure, but versus anything else....

 

First, Crit talent on TT, especially if you as (as suggested) use CF.

 

the main difference is that TT actually increse the crit magnitude, not only crit chance.

 

With RI or CF you have zero accuracy bonuses, which makes disto really powerful.

 

Dont get me wrong, BO is good. But you need wingman for it. also BO affects only primary weapons, TT is not so picky and works on secondaries as well

B/O deals more DPS than TT, even when both are without wingman. The only ways TT can out-DPS B/O are:

1) B/O is not running wingman and TT is (which I think most people would agree is a mistake)

2) B/O is running clusters and TT is running pods (and even then, only because cluster locks can be broken)

I haven't checked how a B/O scout would do against a TT one, but for killing bombers, GS and strikes (only for killing, nothing else) B/O is better, including all the stat bonuses TT gives, and including the fact that it affects secondaries. If you assume both are used perfectly, B/O does more DPS even with it's shorter uptime (although the difference is smaller).

So the main reasons to use TT over B/O are:

-8% evasion, which is nice to have for half the time

-the longer uptime, which gives you more time to use the ability

-dogfighting other scouts (maybe, haven't actually checked)

The reason for B/O is simpler: if you wanna kill something fast and aren't worried about survival, go B/O.

in raw dmg. You would be right. But you have to factor in dmg delivery. By that i mean your actual ability hit the target and win the RNG roulette.

Also...wingman and TT is a really a common build and its hardly a mistake.

T1 gunship has 23% passive evasion and most t2 scout build come with 33%. So you will miss a fair amount shots, and it counts for a stationary dead centered target. Active evasion from Disto and RI can go even higher. by higher i mean way over 50%

TTs main assest is not evasion . It`s accuracy and crit chance/magnitude

DPS is a bit misleading number, Quads out DPS BLC by far, yet when you factor in ability to deliver efficient dmg with accuracy evasion and tracing penalties the view changes drastically.

in raw dmg. You would be right. But you have to factor in dmg delivery. By that i mean your actual ability hit the target and win the RNG roulette.

 

Also...wingman and TT is a really a common build and its hardly a mistake.

 

T1 gunship has 23% passive evasion and most t2 scout build come with 33%. So you will miss a fair amount shots, and it counts for a stationary dead centered target. Active evasion from Disto and RI can go even higher. by higher i mean way over 50%

 

TTs main assest is not evasion . It`s accuracy and crit chance/magnitude

 

DPS is a bit misleading number, Quads out DPS BLC by far, yet when you factor in ability to deliver efficient dmg with accuracy evasion and tracing penalties the view changes drastically.

I could put the math up here later on if you want. For now, let me just say that I included accuracy and crit gains from TT, damage and frequency (and crit) gains from B/O, and assumed the target was a T1 GS with lightweight armor and distortion field up.

I didn't check for tracking penalties, but the difference will be within 2-3% of what I already have and will only really matter with pods (which you wanna fire as close to center as you can anyway).

TL;DR - B/O more than makes up for the loss in accuracy and crit by sheer frequency. A bit of crit chance and damage helps too.

P.S. Wingman is a good ability, but you're sacrificing survivability against gunships with it. It's not a mistake, but I think most people agree RI is better for scouts in serious games. At least, the best scouts I know run RI.

I could put the math up here later on if you want. For now, let me just say that I included accuracy and crit gains from TT, damage and frequency (and crit) gains from B/O, and assumed the target was a T1 GS with lightweight armor and distortion field up.

 

I didn't check for tracking penalties, but the difference will be within 2-3% of what I already have and will only really matter with pods (which you wanna fire as close to center as you can anyway).

 

TL;DR - B/O more than makes up for the loss in accuracy and crit by sheer frequency. A bit of crit chance and damage helps too.

 

P.S. Wingman is a good ability, but you're sacrificing survivability against gunships with it. It's not a mistake, but I think most people agree RI is better for scouts in serious games. At least, the best scouts I know run RI.

I would love to see the math because Verain did it way back in the first few months of launch and everything we saw made TT did more Damage over the course of an entire game.

Now if you're arguing for single instance burst damage only, I could see Blaster Overcharge pulling ahead because of it's longer cooldown, that just seems to make sense.

A few things to consider when comparing Blaster Overcharge to Targeting Telemetry that people will overlook when doing the math.

-Targeting Telemetry applies to all your Secondary weapons when it is active. (I can make your missiles crit)

-Once both are fully upgraded Blaster overcharge's cooldown is 33% longer.

-Once Fully upgraded Targeting Telemetry lasts 25% longer.

I'd just like to point out that many of the top Scout players don't use Running Interference, the co-pilot ability for Scout players has always been very player preference oriented.

Sanic for example never uses Running Interference. Tomm (when he played) never used Running Interference. Mikabosh and Xiaoyu often don't use Running Interference.

I led a very talented team of pilots, artists and devs to provide this.

https://gsf.huttspawn.com has everything a new and learning pilot could ever need, we even did tee-shirt designs when it was requested. I screwed up. I knew that the only way a dedicated GSF site would work is if I could make 100 people LOVE everything about it. Those 100 people would make 1,000 almost love it and that 1,000 would make 50,000 like it. New pilots would learn to play the gamemode, queues would be happy places.

I could not bring myself to brown nose jerks, I did not get the 100 people to love it. For that I'm sad, something special could have truly helped the community out but the polarizing personalities, especially the passive-aggressive ones in this community could not be won over.

The other issue we ran into was someone with a little computing know-how attacked the website, a very weak DDOS attack was launched the day the very large in size tee-shirt files were made public. It was the straw the broke the camels back, I even quit flying.

So TL;DR don't waste your time, you will be ridden hard and put away wet.

Edit: total class acts in this community, within two hours of this forum post, script kiddies are attacking huttspawn production and development servers again. Whoever it is, we're kinda smart guys and all you're doing is making us laugh at your failure.

-Targeting Telemetry applies to all your Secondary weapons when it is active. (I can make your missiles crit)

 

-Once both are fully upgraded Blaster overcharge's cooldown is 33% longer.

 

I'd just like to point out that many of the top Scout players don't use Running Interference, the co-pilot ability for Scout players has always been very player preference oriented.

 

Sanic for example never uses Running Interference. Tomm (when he played) never used Running Interference. Mikabosh and Xiaoyu often don't use Running Interference.

I did actually overlook that. I guess that would make blaster overcharge much more situational.

As for running interference vs. wingman, I said it's more of a choice .I'm just pointing out that all the best scouts I've flown with and against had RI .Apart from that, it makes more sense to me to run TT with RI than with wingman because every point of evasion stacked adds more survivability while every point of accuracy stacked adds less dps.

I'm not saying that either is bad. Only why I would prefer RI, and why I assume other people do.

Are you sure that you didn't confuse RI for evasion buff icon from TT?

Icons on the HUD are practically identical.

I`m not all of that familiar with Harb pilots but I`m quite sure that on Prego(Arguably the most scout heavy server) i know of one great pilot who used RI(Northernlight), but even he swapped some time ago I, other Top pilots like, Xithos, Miryia, Teira, Rosy, Cainin all use wingman. And those guys are really nasty GS hunters...That i know from painful experience.

Are you sure that you didn't confuse RI for evasion buff icon from TT?

 

Icons on the HUD are practically identical.

 

I`m not all of that familiar with Harb pilots but I`m quite sure that on Prego(Arguably the most scout heavy server) i know of one great pilot who used RI(Northernlight), but even he swapped some time ago I, other Top pilots like, Xithos, Miryia, Teira, Rosy, Cainin all use wingman. And those guys are really nasty GS hunters...That i know from painful experience.

I might have, but I don't think so, because they generally have two icons.