Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

swtor producer mentions GSF changes coming in 5.2.2!

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Galactic Starfighter
swtor producer mentions GSF changes coming in 5.2.2!

Greezt's Avatar


Greezt
06.12.2017 , 10:32 AM | #41
They're also reducing ship costs, increasing requisition gain from the intro mission and reducing component costs.

So while I'd have loved them to give out the T3 GS and T2 bomber or something, overall they've done good for new GSF players.

phalczen's Avatar


phalczen
06.12.2017 , 12:05 PM | #42
Quote: Originally Posted by Magira View Post
To give the newcomers the worst gunship and the worst bomber is completely garbage. No balancing, that would have been the most important, especially with respect to the Striker and the Battlescout. All "updates" that did not require any manpower. These are just changes to numbers in a table.
Actually, it's not. The intro mission has always given enough fleet req to buy a tier 1 gunship or a tier 1 bomber. Now, they'll get even more. More importantly, by unlocking the arguably worst members of ship class for free, they are actually steering players away from making a poor choice with spending their fleet req. I can think of worse things to do with 5000 fleet req than buy a tier 3 gunship or tier 2 bomber. They've now made that choice for a new player even simpler.

Now, if only they could buff strikes to finish out improving the new player experience and adding that "x-wing" like feel to the game.
If you think I've made a good contribution with this post, I kindly ask that you use my Refer a Friend link! Here is more information about the program.

Glzmo's Avatar


Glzmo
06.12.2017 , 02:34 PM | #43
So to combat the problem of the game being littered by multiple gunships (aka "little death stars") hidden in AFK-Bomber little death-star-drone fields that destroy any hope of fun (and reward AFK players with multiple kills and assists), Star Wars-like dogfighting in Strike fighters and scouts is to give everyone a gunship and a bomber. This will make things even worse.
Why not just boost Strike Fighters and Scouts (and tone down Gunships and offensive drone bombers a bit) so they would actually be more desirable to fly and we could get a more authentic Star Wars dogfighting experience once more?

caederon's Avatar


caederon
06.12.2017 , 02:50 PM | #44
Quote: Originally Posted by Glzmo View Post
Why not just boost Strike Fighters and Scouts (and tone down Gunships and offensive drone bombers a bit) so they would actually be more desirable to fly and we could get a more authentic Star Wars dogfighting experience once more?
That would require a development team that actually knew how to change significant portions of GSF without breaking it. Those people are long gone, so they would have to hire new ones if they wanted to do anything that went beyond altering a couple numbers on a spreadsheet (like the req cost changes).

GSF really has nothing to do with authentic Star Wars dogfighting, anyway. The original movies based their space combat scenes on World War II movies, so you have spaceships moving as if they were airplanes with no significant three-dimensional aspect to their movement or spatial relations. That's not GSF. Never was, never will be.

If you ever fly in matches that predominantly feature scouts (assuming pilots of similar skill level), you will notice that actually hitting anything at a reasonable pace is nearly impossible, as literally everyone is bursting at the seams with Evasion and missile breaks. It is endless yo-yo-ing around while nobody's weapons land. All-strike matches feature a far slower pace and similarly few kills because they don't do enough burst damage to finish things.

GSF is at its best in a combined-arms match where each ship class is performing its role and people counter the other side by adjusting their approach or ship choice to reflect the tactical situation.

I understand the desire for the dogfighting simulation of your dreams, but GSF will never be that because none of the game mechanics are really set up to facilitate that kind of play.

- Despon

Verain's Avatar


Verain
06.12.2017 , 11:26 PM | #45
Quote: Originally Posted by phalczen View Post
Actually, it's not. The intro mission has always given enough fleet req to buy a tier 1 gunship or a tier 1 bomber. Now, they'll get even more. More importantly, by unlocking the arguably worst members of ship class for free, they are actually steering players away from making a poor choice with spending their fleet req. I can think of worse things to do with 5000 fleet req than buy a tier 3 gunship or tier 2 bomber. They've now made that choice for a new player even simpler.
Thank you for saving me from having to post exactly this.

The change is AMAZING. It crosses every t, and dots every i. By handing out the generally least powerful gunship, they provide a free gunship that the community secretly knows SHOULD be free, because the other gunships are more powerful than it is. The type 2 gunship has a really fun strategy, and has a pretty distinctive look (especially on Republic), instead of looking like a "heavy" and a "light" version of the same gunship (as the type 1 and type 3 seem to generally be). As such, it was an early pick by entirely too many new players, who thought that it should probably be about as balanced as the other 5000 req ship, and probably better than the 2500 req ship.

This prevents errors!

Similar for the type 3.

As an added bonus, the subscriber bonus remains intact, instead of having to be shuffled off to another ship (or unprecedentedly, removed forever).

Also exciting is the lowered req costs on pretty much everything, but I'll base my excitement based on how much they are lowered by. Too little and it won't be felt, too much and it will diminish the play time of the veteran players. There's a very broad section of correctness, however.


Complaints in this thread that they should have done MORE are totally absurd. They can always do more. Most times they do nothing. These changes will unquestionably help the game, and they are ultimately sourced from the community. This is highly competent dev action. Sure, ask for more, but don't whine!
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

phalczen's Avatar


phalczen
06.13.2017 , 05:30 AM | #46
These changes were low hanging fruit and indirectly address gear gap concerns by both making requisition flow more freely and making meta ships more accessible. These changes were never intended to address balance beyond making it easier for someone to own and upgrade a meta ship. Realize also there was a tiny little patch note:
Quote:
The CXP reward for completing a Galactic Starfighter match has been increased slightly.


This definitely won't hurt the GSF population.

I would love to see more GSF themed rewards (e.g. titles, uniforms, ship cosmetics), legacy requisition grants to make transferring req easier between toons, Infiltrators, and of course strike fighter and/or projectile weapon changes. But players have a great incentive to play GSF for unassembled components and command points. At this point we have to crawl before we walk. We are getting new ship customization options, hopefully direct buys instead of only being chance random drops from the Grand Starfighter packs, which combined with the requisition and ship unlock changes is more love than we've seen in three years. I hope those other things come.
Quote: Originally Posted by caederon View Post
That would require a development team that actually knew how to change significant portions of GSF without breaking it. Those people are long gone, so they would have to hire new ones if they wanted to do anything that went beyond altering a couple numbers on a spreadsheet (like the req cost changes).
- Despon

It took a little over 2 years (10/27/2004-1/15/2007) for the then current development team of SWG to re-learn Jump to Lightspeed and add content to it. 7 to add atmospheric flight (3/2011).
I would hope that development teams learned from past mistakes in other games and put comments in the code to facilitate balance changes in the future.
On a more positive note, I think the key is that they should put any sort of balance changes up on PTS and invite us to test them out, because if its broken we will find it.
If you think I've made a good contribution with this post, I kindly ask that you use my Refer a Friend link! Here is more information about the program.

Lendul's Avatar


Lendul
06.13.2017 , 09:23 AM | #47
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post
Thank you for saving me from having to post exactly this.

The change is AMAZING. It crosses every t, and dots every i. By handing out the generally least powerful gunship, they provide a free gunship that the community secretly knows SHOULD be free, because the other gunships are more powerful than it is. The type 2 gunship has a really fun strategy, and has a pretty distinctive look (especially on Republic), instead of looking like a "heavy" and a "light" version of the same gunship (as the type 1 and type 3 seem to generally be). As such, it was an early pick by entirely too many new players, who thought that it should probably be about as balanced as the other 5000 req ship, and probably better than the 2500 req ship.

This prevents errors!

Similar for the type 3.

As an added bonus, the subscriber bonus remains intact, instead of having to be shuffled off to another ship (or unprecedentedly, removed forever).

Also exciting is the lowered req costs on pretty much everything, but I'll base my excitement based on how much they are lowered by. Too little and it won't be felt, too much and it will diminish the play time of the veteran players. There's a very broad section of correctness, however.


Complaints in this thread that they should have done MORE are totally absurd. They can always do more. Most times they do nothing. These changes will unquestionably help the game, and they are ultimately sourced from the community. This is highly competent dev action. Sure, ask for more, but don't whine!
Nice, a post from Verain I can completely get behind. Jade is only effective in Hearthstone Druid decks.

Verain's Avatar


Verain
06.13.2017 , 09:38 AM | #48
Quote: Originally Posted by Glzmo View Post
This will make things even worse.
This is terrible reasoning, by the way. Without mines, scouts would be the best things on a node (and were before bombers), the best dogfighters (obviously still are), the burstiest damage (still are), and the most mobile thing in the game (obviously also still are). Hoping that new players line up in strike fighters to feed doesn't improve the game.

Quote:
Why not just boost Strike Fighters
They should and still intend to. But I can offer a great guess: balance work is much harder than the simple and correct changes that they just made to the game. As example I offer:

Quote:
and Scouts (and tone down Gunships and offensive drone bombers a bit)
These are bad changes! Scouts definitely do NOT need buffs. Gunships could be nerfed as part of a redesign that also nerfs scouts, and drone bombers absolutely do NOT need nerfs- they aren't even the most relevant bombers!



Balancing isn't a "...just...". It's a big deal. The simplest balance changes they could make are simple buffs to strike fighters, ideally in a way that makes them a little bit less like gunship and scout food. The game, as written, has solid and good roles for three of its four classes.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

Stellarcrusade's Avatar


Stellarcrusade
06.14.2017 , 02:48 PM | #49
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post
This is terrible reasoning, by the way. Without mines, scouts would be the best things on a node (and were before bombers), the best dogfighters (obviously still are), the burstiest damage (still are), and the most mobile thing in the game (obviously also still are). Hoping that new players line up in strike fighters to feed doesn't improve the game.

They should and still intend to. But I can offer a great guess: balance work is much harder than the simple and correct changes that they just made to the game. As example I offer:

These are bad changes! Scouts definitely do NOT need buffs. Gunships could be nerfed as part of a redesign that also nerfs scouts, and drone bombers absolutely do NOT need nerfs- they aren't even the most relevant bombers!

Balancing isn't a "...just...". It's a big deal. The simplest balance changes they could make are simple buffs to strike fighters, ideally in a way that makes them a little bit less like gunship and scout food. The game, as written, has solid and good roles for three of its four classes.
I agree. I would love if they would balance out the dogfighters, meaning instead of scout being the best in every catagory and fighters being slow, less range, and weaker, it would be nice if a little give and take could balance them out such that a veteran fighter versus a veteran scout would be an even match up. Where the scout would have to win with maneuverabiity/speed or the fighter would out burst him down. Perhaps remove BLC from scouts and give JUST to fighters would be a start. Really, battle-scout shouldn't be a thing. That's like a speed-garbage truck or a armored-motorcycle: no reason to exist. Scouts should probably be the fastest and most meneuverable with no punch. Fighters should be more armored, less manuverable and dogfight very strong if not out-maneuvered.

Yeah, I know, you are thinking: "Then what would all the veterans fly if not for a sting/flashy?" ........... Exactly.