That's not really an issue, I took the stock ships on a new character and scored top damage, kills, and objectives. There's just a short but sharp learning curve for new people who just start off and don't really know what they're doing yet. If anything that will merely serve as a crutch and inhibit some learning to a point.

Mmmm.

I love the classic "I used stock ships and I score top DPS and KILLS...so everyone else must adhere to my ridiculous and exaggerated concept of 'normal' " mindset. (Sounds like someone is playing the "I did it so everyone else has to as well" game.)

Carry on! The rest of us will be having a conversation about how to make the game better for new players.

The only thing you have brought to the table so far is that, perhaps, ALL upgrades should be unlocked and the game should be more about configurations and not grinding out new parts. I think the attitude that you display shows a complete lack of disconnect with the gaming population that isn't you.

If I'd were to put simply why I think the shape is so detrimental to Strikes I'd say that it has to be compared to a Gunship.

 

Both a Gunship and Strike (in a striky build, not a scouty one) are absolutely similar in regards of a satellite. If they want to have enough punch, they must exit the capture range. If they want to be in the capture range, they only have cannons.

 

The difference between both is that the Strike can't perform correctly, even at distance, because it can be denied the use of his missile trivially, making it perform mediocrily at most.

And going vertical, will work only on those doing circles around the lower part. A real evasive target use the solar panels, the antennas... Which will deny the Strike its ability to launch a missile.

On the other hand, the Gunship from distance just has to not release the shot at the wrong time. It doesn't matter for the Gunship if its target decides to do turns around solar panels. He just has to wait out for when he won't be behind those. For this very reason, he doesn't have to care too much about going vertical even if the target do dumb circles.

 

At the moment, against a real evasive target, the satellite acts like a grid or successive bars, an area with plenty of litlle object obstructing LoS periodically. Used correctly, it nullifies the use of almost all missiles.

 

In other words, Strikes just doesn't suffer from the same level of hindrance created by odd shapes. If the satellitte were to be changed into a ball, the Gunship performance would likely change only by a little. The Strike performance would be fabulously improved.

 

 

 

 

As far as lowering tracking penalties... Yes it would help. But it would help anyone, and not adresses the efficiency of striky Strikes particularly. And after all there's the maneuver work around, so I'm not sure it would make any ship significantly better.

And to be frank, I'm quite okay with the tracking penalties as they are now. I don't expect long range cannons to be good in turning fights, and they (penalties) are high enough so that in high turning fights, only a Scout can do something thanks to the help of systems. Actually, I wouldn't like that LLC becomes as efficient as BLC is now, I find abnormal for cannons to be efficient on its own in the particular situations of high turning fights... ...I'd prefer that systems are used to mostly unlock these situations rather than cheezy burst like it's used with BLC (because BLC is just soo good that you don't even need that system ability in the first palce)

And after all, these fights are Scout territory, I'm okay that Strikes may end not that fitted for it.

I think you hit on some of the biggest issues. Namely, the satellites off protection that basically voids the attacking strengths of many fighters. I find it very hard to believe the devs wanted to satellites to basically be little fortresses that ships could hide in.

There is a very simple change that can be done...if an attacking force has more in range then the satellite still gets captured. Most domination games on the market work like this. A single person can't hold a point on their own if they are out numbered.

Actually, I wouldn't like that LLC becomes as efficient as BLC is now, I find abnormal for cannons to be efficient on its own in the particular situations of high turning fights... ...I'd prefer that systems are used to mostly unlock these situations rather than cheezy burst like it's used with BLC (because BLC is just soo good that you don't even need that system ability in the first palce)

And after all, these fights are Scout territory, I'm okay that Strikes may end not that fitted for it.

I was actually suggesting RFLs, not LLC, have the same tracking as BLC. It wouldn't fix RFLs by any means but it might be a step towards making them more useful. RFLs do low enough damage that I don't think they'd become OP but it would give them better accuracy in high deflection scenarios which might mitigate some of the problems caused by being a sustained DPS weapon.

I was actually suggesting RFLs, not LLC, have the same tracking as BLC. It wouldn't fix RFLs by any means but it might be a step towards making them more useful. RFLs do low enough damage that I don't think they'd become OP but it would give them better accuracy in high deflection scenarios which might mitigate some of the problems caused by being a sustained DPS weapon.

I poorly expressed my wariness of seeing cannons made closer to BLC, rather than the reverse. (I tried to not write a wall of text, after the initial wall of text. I guess I should have.)

I actually like how most cannons are at the moment, I like the fact that LLC and longer range cannons lacks in turning fights because they are either not build for close range (QLC, HLC), or made brutal. (LLC). I like this built-in weaknesses because I gives a deeper raison d'être to Scout systems : not only they can be used as enhancers (LLC becoming deadly through BO), but also making them suitable for situations they weren't originally (LLC becoming accurate through TT). But never, they become absolute threats.

I also like the concept of some cannons reducing the accuracy weaknesses to me more widely adapted, at the cost of damage potential like LC or RfLC (even though I think they went overboard on the drawback, especially on RfLC)

That's why I'm cautious of making them more like BLC. BLC are the only cannons good enough as a stand alone, resulting in them being used with system to be very cheesy. Too cheesy.

I fear that a universal improvement of the cannons (in the way it improve them at every range) may lead to a very wild nerf of systems because it may start "to be cheesy" too.

I'm not fan of the possibility as it would reduce the functional difference between Scouts and Strikes, as potential will come more from the weapon, and less from the system...

I'm not saying performance should not be similar, but since they share many things, that the functionality has to remain as distinctive as possible.

Where I'd improve the cannons, is the accuracy at maximal range, to always be 95%. Strikes are much less likely to attack from close range (<3000m), unlike a Scout. That would noticeably improve the performance of a Strike that decides to use close/medium weaponry (up to 10/15% extra accuracy) without affecting the Scout performance too much (max potential actually unchanged). Performance gap reduced, functionality gap mostly unchanged.

As for BLC... I'd like them to only be a second iteration of "more accurate, less damage" of LLC, like RfLC is supposed to be the first iteration (with much more reasonable damage taxes than now, of course)

I don't know if the guy above is trolling or not but ...

I didn't ment to troll.

I just asked for BOMBers going BOMBing something instead of pooping out things ment and built up to crash scouts and strikers with little or no option for foes to survive.

- "Sir! We got orders from Fleet to capture three satellites in this asteroid-field!"

-"Right. Send the bombers!"

-"Err...???"

lol

Those scenarios we have are a foolish nonsense for bombers. In TDM they're barely used, in cap scenarios once a bomber fills a satellite with poops, 3-5 players are needed to clear the thing all togeather with most likely 2-4 of them booming out, i.e.: a full winning seen for the bomber even if at the end the satellite will be lost.

So my suggestion is (if they can't really be fully reviewed) make scenarios for the bombers where they'll be supposed to bomb something (assault-defence scenarios for example), give them back their role and remove them for good from what we have now. The so called "bombers" we have are a full compromise of whatever nonsense a bomber should not be: remember what was the end of the whole Gold Squad (equipped with Y-wings i.e.:bombers) during the attack on the Death Star?

Fried by Vader in a Tie-premade with not even the need to tune-up his rebreather. Rofl.

I didn't ment to troll.

I just asked for BOMBers going BOMBing something instead of pooping out things ment and built up to crash scouts and strikers with little or no option for foes to survive.

- "Sir! We got orders from Fleet to capture three satellites in this asteroid-field!"

-"Right. Send the bombers!"

-"Err...???"

lol

Those scenarios we have are a foolish nonsense for bombers. In TDM they're barely used, in cap scenarios once a bomber fills a satellite with poops, 3-5 players are needed to clear the thing all togeather with most likely 2-4 of them booming out, i.e.: a full winning seen for the bomber even if at the end the satellite will be lost.

So my suggestion is (if they can't really be fully reviewed) make scenarios for the bombers where they'll be supposed to bomb something (assault-defence scenarios for example), give them back their role and remove them for good from what we have now. The so called "bombers" we have are a full compromise of whatever nonsense a bomber should not be: remember what was the end of the whole Gold Squad (equipped with Y-wings i.e.:bombers) during the attack on the Death Star?

Fried by Vader in a Tie-premade with not even the need to tune-up his rebreather. Rofl.

Well... Just one thing.. I use bomber in TDM. ANd almost always get top kill on my team except against decent gunships.

Well... Just one thing.. I use bomber in TDM. ANd almost always get top kill on my team except against decent gunships.

It's the same for me pal, and I guess it's the same for everyone having a T3 bomber and knowing just a bit how to use it.

But it's boring like looking at snails and most likely the majority of what we hit are premades of people just scouting the GSF thing. No fun.

It's the same for me pal, and I guess it's the same for everyone having a T3 bomber and knowing just a bit how to use it.

But it's boring like looking at snails and most likely the majority of what we hit are premades of people just scouting the GSF thing. No fun.

I've flown my T3 three times. I was talking of a T1 assault or even a T2 defensive or a T2 support. I know someone who's flying a T2 snare in TDM.

Mmmm.

 

I love the classic "I used stock ships and I score top DPS and KILLS...so everyone else must adhere to my ridiculous and exaggerated concept of 'normal' " mindset. (Sounds like someone is playing the "I did it so everyone else has to as well" game.)

No.

The reason the forumites bring up aces oblitering on stock ships isn't because it's a reasonable prescription for new players. In fact, if people were rational, they would follow this sequence:

1)- Realize that gear has WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY less meaning than skill, in light of tons of adequate documentation of this fact, and the overwhelming firsthand testimony of those that have both.

2)- Become cross about the fact that it's far easier to earn a piddling 150k req on a ship (which, I mean, I have 17 mastered ships on Republic and another 17 on Empire, and five of those ships are "complete"- every upgrade purchased totally) than it is to play the thousands of games necessary to have the skill needed to do that.

3)- Either decide to get really good with deliberate practice, or be angry that the game rewards skill so much.

But because players are instead walking in with their ego forward, they believe that somehow their dozens of games plus maybe playing some similar games in the past makes them "probably about as good as anyone", as if that compares to thousands of games on a player who has TONS of experience, since childhood, with a similar set of games.

So the problem? IT MUST BE THE GEAR!!!

It's not just the opinion of players who have both skill and gear that skill is wildly more important- it's documented over and over again with screenshots.

Carry on! The rest of us will be having a conversation about how to make the game better for new players.

And that conversation doesn't really have much to offer as regards gear. For what it's worth, I think that:

1- Access to the unupgraded version of components should be free or very cheap (100 req at most). My reasoning is that the cost is currently set up to be MORE expensive than the tier 1 upgrade, so players have to describe very carefully, based on descriptions or experience, whether to go for the upgrade or not. If you have 1200 ship req and want to upgrade, do you put 1000 into the first tier of rapid fire lasers and then queue and actually be more powerful, or wait out the 2000 switch to another cannon, THEN the 1000 upgrade, and be on the right path? I think that's a choice that encourages players to get trapped via the "sunk cost" fallacy. Basically, that's the overwhelming tendency of humans to go for a path that they've invested in, even if the initial investment was random. The emotional weight of "throwing away" that first upgrade will often lead to the second, etc.

The other half of this I discussed two pages back- that it would encourage new players to keep playing, because you'd be baiting them with new experiences. And right now, it's an experience NO ONE actually has- when you start out a fresh ship, you don't get to try out all the pieces in their unupgraded forms. The only players with experience with all components normally are playing with substantially more upgraded (or mastered) versions. It would definitely add depth to the initial play experience honestly and without weakening balance. It's honestly a no-brainer move.

2- The 150k cost of mastering a ship can seem intimidating to a new player, but in practice, a ship with 75k req is like 85% mastered. For awhile I was in favor of decreasing the costs of the prohibitive 15k layer and even the 10k layer, but now it definitely seems less important. It could still happen, I just think, well, whatever. The bigger thing is that I think some of the "mandatory" upgrades that are kind of deep- especially armor piercing on rocket pods, but honestly, armor piercing on anything- should be baseline or at the very first tier. If we actually had dev dollars to spend, I would suggest making the 5k tier be a two-choice guy as well, as that would add depth and make a lower req guy more invested in his choices.

3- The UI could simply be more informative. I mean, fancy cars will let you know if you're going to turn into something semidecently, this information would greatly reduce the skill needed to fly places- you often are making a sharp turn and you better have your location relative to the superstructure memorized, or splat. Again, it's easy to mock players that run into stuff, but this is the number one issue plaguing new players, and a small icon or whatever showing that you're about to faceplant rock with your turn would definitely help. Other UI boosts could include an artificial horizon and compass- they sound fiddly, but once in it would be a much better way to describe how to fly than "just basically get that you are in a large flat rectangle, then memorize everything inside of it, you'll be fine!".

I could go on about the UI- bugs eye radar would be best choice, but that's not really for new players, and in my suggestions thread I discuss that there should be the way to distinguish enemy ships by CLASS on the HUD- ex, everyone is a small red triangle except your target, if there were four slightly different triangles with different fill and colors, you'd be MUCH better suited to figuring out what was going on and where at a glance.

4- This game is just so north korea about everything. I don't get it. Like, because of matchmaking, you can't upgrade your ship components or play with your toys during the one time you actually need to be able to- when you are looking forward to playing a game. There's zero legacy integration, you can't even take cartel ships as copies over to your alts, which is legitimately strange, given the rest of the game. There's very few cartel ships. Most cosmetic upgrades are in packs, meaning that they'll eventually go away, while being almost worthless because in order to care you need to GSF (most players) and care about cosmetics on your ship (some players) and care about that specific color set (rare). You can't make any of them with professions, and they are VERY conservative in most cases. Sure would like a pink/purple Clarion...

And of course your hangar is character locked. No one even hinted that we might see some way of, in PART, allowing some bleed over here.

It's not any one of these choices, it's that they jumped through so many hoops to shut down anything that might make you raise your eyebrows. Why so much effort? I mean, my ground game guy needs to find a bunch of pacman pellets or my player power is lacking (I haven't ground them up), I need to max out other characters in legacy in order to get better solo buffs and a massive stack of presence (I haven't done that), and all manner of other strange stuff like that. You can cheese leveling or being a lowbie, but heaven forbid you get the Gladiator on more than one character for less than 1800 CC per.

Oh, and of course, there's not even that many cartel skins.

Just like... loosen some of this stuff a bit. It will up player enjoyment a lot but not really budge player power.

I find it very hard to believe the devs wanted to satellites to basically be little fortresses that ships could hide in.

Why?

Not only have the satellites been that since launch, they literally spawn turrets. They are absolutely intended to be little fortresses that ships can hide in. In fact, the one thing that changed this dynamic- the ability to bomb a satellite- was removed, with the mines having LOS respecting explosions added!!!

It's unquestionably dev intent.

1- Access to the unupgraded version of components should be free or very cheap (100 req at most)

....

The other half of this I discussed two pages back- that it would encourage new players to keep playing, because you'd be baiting them with new experiences.

I am in total agreement with this. Having all components unlocked at the base level for free would encourage experimentation and provide a wider array of meaningful choices for people to make, especially if some underused components were tuned up a little. Also, if they are going to continue to curse new players with rapid-fire lasers by default, don't punish them further by making them spend precious req just to get out of having guns that can't hit anything.

Decreasing req costs across the board is a move I would totally support. The carrot being dangled in front of people to keep them playing GSF is not 'I can get more powerful ships if I keep playing!' ... there is no carrot, no reward beyond the fun of playing the game and experimenting with loadouts. You're not getting more powerful ships beyond the point when you get the T1 gs and T2 scout... and for subscribers, they start with the T1 gs, so that means beyond earning that initial 5000 fleet req you're never going to get a more powerful ship than what you have available to you. Make the req costs less, let people experiment. They won't get bored when they run out of new ships or abilities to spend req on. They will actually be getting to the fun part of the game faster.

I also like the idea of having armor piercing be a baseline part of the weapon. It would let the T1 strike immediately have good damage against turrets in domination matches, for one thing. It might also embolden new players to attack bombers instead of just running away like they usually do now.

The whole 'skill vs gear' debate has been definitively answered by the Stock Night experiment Drakolich ran. If you aren't performing as well as the veterans on your server, ask them for advice on what you can do to improve. Look at the way you fly critically, find out if there are different tactics you can use. Be a student of the game. You'll improve.

...and as Verain said, it's not like it is even that substantial of an investment of time to master a ship. I'd like it to happen quicker for people, but it's not that prohibitive. You don't have to run ops to get the gear, there are no rare drops that keep you from getting your burst lasers, the only single thing you have to do to get more gear is play the game and complete the Daily / Weekly quests. So do it.

- Despon

Also, if they are going to continue to curse new players with rapid-fire lasers by default, don't punish them further by making them spend precious req just to get out of having guns that can't hit anything.

So, two points.

1)- Part of this is that the default components are weak. RFLs are always picked up as this flag, but RFLs should be BUFFED. But even if the components were all even, swapping shouldn't be a big deal.

2)- Even if the components were balance... A lot of ink has been spilled is psych circles over sunk costs in the last couple decades, with salesmen being all OVER this. By getting someone to do a small (meaningless) favor or by getting them to agree to a small initial purchase, later behaviors are modified heavily. Having a 2k barrier to entry is only a small number to a dev or a veteran- it's massive to a player who earned 800 req and maybe makes 1800 a day. That's his whole day's pay in GSF terms, he can't just spend it on a whim. It also means that he's really and super locked into whatever gun he chooses- because he spent so much on it. If you dump 12k into a component, you are VERY unlikely to want to do that over, even if you should. You'll sometimes see players arguing in favor of some ship or component that is awful because they spent so much of their effort on earning it that they can't let themselves be wrong. GSF is hard enough without cognitive dissonance telling you which component to master.

Decreasing req costs across the board is a move I would totally support.

I'm not really. I mean, I wouldn't be angry if that's the best they could come up with, as long as it was done generally right. I feel that the costs of the 5k and less components are all very appropriate, but the higher costs are in no way efficient except for a few that are way too good, and that's the bigger problem. If you spent your 10k on quad lasers T4 versus Distortion field missile break, ouch.

The carrot being dangled in front of people to keep them playing GSF is not 'I can get more powerful ships if I keep playing!'

No, that carrot is there. Once you have the cheap upgrades, each EXPENSIVE upgrade unarguably increases both the power and customization of the ship. It's a fine carrot. I think it's even appropriately priced, MOST of the time. I just don't like it when person A can spend 20k req on a ship and not really increase their play power, and person B can spend 20k req on that very same ship and become MUCH more powerful- that's pretty trappy, you know?

You're not getting more powerful ships beyond the point when you get the T1 gs and T2 scout...

I would argue that the T3 Gunship and all bombers increase player power in some way, so definitely disagree.

And the ships that really aren't "worth it" from a player perspective should be buffed or the meta shifted so that your ship choice wasn't wrong. You should want that ship diversity, you should want all the ships, and not just for completionism.

I also like the idea of having armor piercing be a baseline part of the weapon. It would let the T1 strike immediately have good damage against turrets in domination matches, for one thing. It might also embolden new players to attack bombers instead of just running away like they usually do now.

I mean, in that example, you are reducing the damage of the gun by like 8%, and then the current upgrade adds that back. The 8% needs to be comparable to the current T4 choice (tracking penalty reduced) that almost no one takes (even though it's very good, much more than 8% damage) because the armor ignore is so solid.

But I think that's the RIGHT way to do this. These upgrades shouldn't cost 10k, is the bigger deal- that's too much gating for a core feature IMO. The heavy laser is balanced with its lower dps, around having access to the armor piercing, so it should probably just have it off the bat because it defines the laser so much, AND would improve the meta.

The whole 'skill vs gear' debate has been definitively answered by the Stock Night experiment Drakolich ran. If you aren't performing as well as the veterans on your server, ask them for advice on what you can do to improve. Look at the way you fly critically, find out if there are different tactics you can use. Be a student of the game. You'll improve.

Agreed totally. It's still not trivial, though- practice is not free, after all!

it's massive to a player who earned 800 req and maybe makes 1800 a day. That's his whole day's pay in GSF terms, he can't just spend it on a whim. It also means that he's really and super locked into whatever gun he chooses- because he spent so much on it.

What if you could buy back the requisition spent on a component for a reasonable fee? Let's say you want to try rapid-fires because you love the sound and don't realize how bad they are. If you had the option to refund the requisition spent on a per-tier basis, you could experiment a little more freely without it being cost-free to respec. The cost could be in fleet comms, credits, or more likely, cartel coins. I wouldn't mind it being penalty free to refund requisition, but in the grand MMO tradition of penalizing people for changing their minds, at least the costs could be manageable and nobody would be trapped in a bad build.

And the ships that really aren't "worth it" from a player perspective should be buffed or the meta shifted so that your ship choice wasn't wrong. You should want that ship diversity, you should want all the ships, and not just for completionism.

That's completely right, and ideally the devs would work to ensure that every ship in the hangar has a real role in combat. Ideally, we'd have someone working on the game with at least as much enthusiasm as the forum thinktank spends on dissecting it. Keeping a game balanced and interesting is a commitment and an ongoing process.

Do you think 5000 fleet req is too high a figure to pay for the majority of the ships? Maybe dropping it down to 2500 each would encourage more diversity among new pilots and get them into trying new things faster, or finding a ship that suits them more than the default hangar.

- Despon

Have to laugh a little bit...

They added massive REQ point gains in 3.0.

ha. Isn't this what many of us were suggesting? That and enough points to pick/upgrade a ship?

So...Bioware also recognized it as a significant issue. Are we still going to see all the excuses come out that this is a bad idea?

Why?

 

Not only have the satellites been that since launch, they literally spawn turrets. They are absolutely intended to be little fortresses that ships can hide in. In fact, the one thing that changed this dynamic- the ability to bomb a satellite- was removed, with the mines having LOS respecting explosions added!!!

 

 

It's unquestionably dev intent.

That's not the intention of turrets. Turrets were placed there to make sure satellites couldn't be captured with ZERO recourse.

Satellites need to slightly bigger capture range to make sure that an attacking team has a fair change to take it. The game, IMO, should shift the sattelite to the team with more atttackers. It shouldn't hold it just because 1 or 2 bombers are waiting for their friends to arrive.

Regardless...

I don't think any changes are coming to GSF in terms or maps or gameplay because its obvious development isn't being spent here.

Have to laugh a little bit...

 

They added massive REQ point gains in 3.0.

 

ha. Isn't this what many of us were suggesting? That and enough points to pick/upgrade a ship?

 

So...Bioware also recognized it as a significant issue. Are we still going to see all the excuses come out that this is a bad idea?

Yes they are doing it and that announcement came after this thread if you pay attention. If that's what they're doing that's what they're doing but it wont stop complaints forever. I'll remind you that they gave away free pvp gear at level 50 and that went away. Granted PVP gear actually makes a difference in warzones. I still standby that the default ships aren't really so terrible and that I've done fine without the upgrades with each new character I drag in. Why, because I have experience. When I first jumped into GSF it took a few matches before I got the hang of it, up until then I died a lot with little to show for it but now I tend to hang at the top of the chart with 30-40k damage dealt using either fighter or scout and enough kills to show that I'm not just taking pot shots and that I stick it out in the heat of a fight and don't bolt for it. Giving out gear will not remove the need for practice and skill, it's just a temporary crutch which could end up doing what tactical FPs do, someone runs a TFPs till 55 then jumps into a real flashpoint completely unprepared and ignorant of what they need to do.

That's not the intention of turrets. Turrets were placed there to make sure satellites couldn't be captured with ZERO recourse.

How do you know? My point was that the sats sit there literally spawning turrets, hence the assumption that they are meant to be little fortresses is a pretty sound one. I mean, if you don't want it to be a fortress, you don't make it impregnable, rewrite how AOEs work just so you can't blow people out of it, cover it with powerful LOS items, and then make it spawn its own tiny defending ships. Every single thing about a satellite makes it a tiny fortress.

Satellites need to slightly bigger capture range to make sure that an attacking team has a fair change to take it.

I actually think that would make it easier to defend, interestingly enough. When I'm solo defending a node, the worst thing is an enemy pulling back to midrange. He can still attack me, but if I want to attack him I have to leave cap range. I don't think that this would be a bad change, but I don't think it would really do what you think.

The game, IMO, should shift the sattelite to the team with more atttackers.

I disagree pretty strongly. If these were "democracy towers" like in many games, the game would shift to who could weight the area in their favor the most, even for a little bit. This would just add up to some massive scout buff.

It shouldn't hold it just because 1 or 2 bombers are waiting for their friends to arrive.

Because bombers should obviously not be able to do anything at all, right? I mean, they should be brave and face those scouts in open space.

Nah, it's a mediocre idea. I wouldn't be opposed to there being a way to decap it if you really super outnumber them, but not like "we brought four fast ships that don't know how to shoot straight, and they brought two slow ships whose only job is to defend a node, so we ran circles around them with no effort until they were guarding a red node lolololol". That's awful.

There's only 1 game feature that needs to get fixed; No insta kills, that's the only thing driving away any newcomer - any game feature that when your unlucky doesn't allow you to leave the spawn point OR get half way to an objective gonna scare away anyone remotely interested in GSF . . .

I've been on it since pre launch and every time we face a beginners team this game feature die a bit, cos I never see those players again . . .

There's only 1 game feature that needs to get fixed; No insta kills, that's the only thing driving away any newcomer - any game feature that when your unlucky doesn't allow you to leave the spawn point OR get half way to an objective gonna scare away anyone remotely interested in GSF . . .

 

I've been on it since pre launch and every time we face a beginners team this game feature die a bit, cos I never see those players again . . .

I don't think those 1h kills are really a result of luck. It might seem like it, but they're not. The usual 1hkos (or what feel like 1hkos) are the BLC battlescout builds and well-upgraded Railgun shots.

But yeah, they are a problem, I think.

I don't think those 1h kills are really a result of luck. It might seem like it, but they're not. The usual 1hkos (or what feel like 1hkos) are the BLC battlescout builds and well-upgraded Railgun shots.

 

But yeah, they are a problem, I think.

Slug Railgun : 16% chance to crit. Anything else cannot 1hKO anything.

BLC : Does about 900 damage a shot + 8% crit... Not enough to 1hKO

BLC + TT + CF : 900 damage a shot + 50% crit + 75% surge. Can't 1hKO

The problem isn't 1hKO... The problem is subsecond kills. Those that are so fast a slight latency can get you killed without even knowing you're under attack.

These include

• BLC with or without BO or TT
  
• Quad under TT or BO
  
• LLC under TT or BO
  

From all them, BLC is the slowest. Quad and LLC can do the job faster. The problem isn't railgun.. Even BLC wouldn't be that bad if it didn't have armor pen. Armor pen just make BLC to good at taking anything. But anyway the true problem is simple. The CDs. They can add over 60% burst power with a really long uptime.

To fix this without overnerfing, there are a few ways people have said forever.

1. Reduce their duration.
   
2. Make them less powerful.
   
3. Give them considerable drawback
   

Only 3 things in the game can kill you in one hit.

The first is a Slug Railgun Crit, which does 2400 damage and has only a 16% chance of happening, it requires you to be a scout, and use distortion field and not use reinforced armor. If you take say directional shields on a scout and use a large reactor even one of the most fragile ships in the game cannot be one shot by this railgun.

The second is a Proton Torpedo Crit which does 1308 Damage straight to hull and has only a 10% chance of happening. It automatically one hit kills all scouts, it can one hit all gunships that do not take reinforced armor.

The last way to get one shot, and is perhaps the most common are when someone picks up the Damage Overcharge Powerup in Teamdeath match. Most Railgun hits will one shot players, as well as multiple high damage missiles or torpedos.

When this Powerup is gained there is a giant red message flashed accross your screen letting you know what player has it so that you may avoid him.

As you can see one hit kills aren't very common in the game at all, they require very specific scenarios to happen. If you are talking about getting hit after already taking damage that is a whole new scenario and is not "being one shot". Most of the time players that think they were one shot was the result of very fast burst damage either from multiple players or from one player popping a bunch of cooldowns at once.

I hope that clears up all the mysteries of the "many" ways people are getting one shot.

Just giving another voice of support for not being able to heavily mine spawn points. Just finished a game, and all three points were nailed down. Final score was something sad like 50 to 6.

It's pretty lame spawning and seeing a sea of mines, scouts, and a bomber swirling around a Star Destroyer unopposed.

I mean, unless the plan is to give me cheap credit for matches, since those who were playing it got frustrated enough to drop, which allowed me to come in on garbage time and die a few times for credit.

I just didn't see the space battles as being a simple 5 minutes of garbage time for daily credit type add-on. That's the way it's been playing though in my experiences over the past couple of weeks.

If the nodes are mined, then concentrating in one spawn helps - let's one man start, disarm the mines the hard way, then another - the mines won't kill all, just 1-2; rest should be able to clear the node neighbors.

I agree though, it is lamers' tactic. But again there are people enjoyinig gunshi*wall against a bunch of 2-shippers...

It's the same for me pal, and I guess it's the same for everyone having a T3 bomber and knowing just a bit how to use it.

But it's boring like looking at snails and most likely the majority of what we hit are premades of people just scouting the GSF thing. No fun.

First off, I never expected this thread to last so long so I guess it's cool beans people are passionate about GSF and want to see it improve in one way or another. On another note yes... and now that people have come to realize how effective the mine/sentry spam is it's not just boring for the bombers, I've encountered full on turtles in deathmatch where both teams end up camping out on either side of a single asteroid with about 20+ mines/rail sentries scattered on either side + gunships. To all of us who hadn't invested in gunships/bombers on our current characters yet it was just a sit and don't do jack for the whole match.