Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

GSF Discussion: Friction Points

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Galactic Starfighter
GSF Discussion: Friction Points
First BioWare Post First BioWare Post

caederon's Avatar


caederon
07.09.2017 , 08:55 AM | #211
Quote: Originally Posted by Eli_Porter View Post
My idea is to add a Capital Ship Shield, a buff giving 100% extra shield capacity to all new spawns for 10 seconds.
In Domination matches (the ones with the satellites) the capital ships already have powerful turrets that have a 10k range. This gives a fair amount of cover to new spawns. Maybe you're not thinking of Domination mode, though.

The capship turrets used to also be active in TDM. What this resulted in was players turtling at the capship after their team got a lead, sitting back and waiting it out while the opposing team could do basically nothing to approach them due to the powerful guns. To compensate for the chance of getting blown up when you spawn in TDM, there are always three active spawn points. You can pick one that is not at the focus of the enemy attack if you are concerned about being immediately gunned down. The larger problem in this scenario is that the other team is clearly better able to blow up enemy ships than yours if your side is dying constantly at the (usually center) spawn point.

Would a shield bonus help a lot in this case? Technically, on Lost Shipyards there is no capital ship at the center spawn point, but perhaps your proposal is just a 'wherever you spawn you get the bonus' thing. An extra 100% shield pool is significant but ion railgun fire will still eat it up pretty quickly. It doesn't address the problem that if your team is pushed back to the spawn, they aren't able to exert offensive pressure or kill the attacking side. Is it really that much better if you are blown up a few seconds later, and the result of the match is the same? It won't prevent blowouts.

Blowouts in TDM happen when one side can't put out enough damage team-wide to thin the enemy's attacking force or, in some cases, to take out a key player. This usually stems from a few common problems.

The first problem is when a team has a poorly selected composition. Too many bombers is often the culprit, particularly when facing veterans, though gunship stacks are easy pickings if there is a skill disparity between the two teams. The side who has more people directly participating in the attack is likely to be the winner, and when that number is more than a difference of one or two pilots, it's going to be bad.

The other problem is poor marksmanship (look at the Hit% column on the scoreboard after the match) which itself is a result of people not having developed the skills or having the knowledge of how to land shots. There are other concerns beyond that, but those are the most basic hurdles that blown-out TDM teams face.

To avoid blowouts, you need a team with enough players who know what they are doing and can execute at a reasonable level of competence. A shield buff would slightly delay the inevitable, but not alter the final outcome in any significant way.

This goes back to one of the major friction points in this thread, which is that GSF lacks proper in-game tutorial resources and/or practice arenas where people can learn the skills that will serve them well against live competition.

- Despon

Josephmg's Avatar


Josephmg
07.09.2017 , 09:12 AM | #212
LEARNING CURVE is the top reason none, zero, ziltch, no one in my guild plays GSF. The GSF Tutorial stinks and is unclear. The best way to achieve more participants would be to lessen the learning curve and this can be done easily. Private Matches would be the easiest way to allow more people to become familiar with GSF and its classes of ships. TO BE CLEAR, I would nerf all comms and cxp in these private matches and they should not count towards weekly or daily rewards. It would allow those who have been disenfranchised by the learning curve to come back to the game in a way that would be enjoyable and would not hurt those GSFers who put the grind in.

Eli_Porter's Avatar


Eli_Porter
07.09.2017 , 09:15 AM | #213
Yes, I was thinking the shield buff would be given to any of the three starting spots in TDM.

I want newbies staying alive longer in a spawn-camped TDM scenario, rather than getting blown up the second they spawn. A temporary shield buff on spawn achieves that without giving a big defender's advantage.

It's way simpler than adding a proper in-game tutorial and doesn't hurt anything.

caederon's Avatar


caederon
07.09.2017 , 09:37 AM | #214
Quote: Originally Posted by Eli_Porter View Post
Yes, I was thinking the shield buff would be given to any of the three starting spots in TDM.

I want newbies staying alive longer in a spawn-camped TDM scenario, rather than getting blown up the second they spawn. A temporary shield buff on spawn achieves that without giving a big defender's advantage.

It's way simpler than adding a proper in-game tutorial and doesn't hurt anything.
The problem is that it doesn't really solve anything, either.

Consider that veterans would also get this shield boost, and ten seconds is a long enough time to get into the fight... so you're also giving an advantage to them.

I understand and sympathize with the 'getting killed as soon as you spawn sucks' but the underlying issues are what need to be addressed.

The first, best preventative step is to get players into matches against people of similar skill level. With the current matchmaker this requires more players on most servers to work... but is a necessary thing and would do the most to help new players.

The second step, also essential, is to give players the knowledge base they need through in-game means to understand what is going on and how to combat it.

The shield buff you're proposing is like putting a band-aid on a chainsaw wound. It might buy you a few seconds of life but the prognosis is still grim without additional, serious intervention.

- Despon

Pilgrim_Grey's Avatar


Pilgrim_Grey
07.09.2017 , 02:45 PM | #215
Quote: Originally Posted by niemi View Post
Interesting that the analogy presented is literally a fallacy presented between an RTS game which swtor just simply isn't... and trying to equate that to GSF not being a flight sim at all... except that is is... just a poor version of an arcade one, but sure, the argument that it isn't actually simulating something is probably part of the problem.

Finally, adjusting flight physics and certain mechanical aspects of a game such as GSF isn't going to cripple or radically alter the foundation. Things like this, YES, can be amended and is part of the process in seeing any change in a game, whether one wants it or not. Unfortunately, for many people who are the current community, maybe this is an unwanted measure, who's to say, these reasons are why others don't like it.
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.
Ithyrn (Guardian), Malachais (Gunslinger), Ez'kiel (Commando), I'arwin (Sentinel), Ben'adar (Scoundrel)
Ithryn (Operative), Ithryc (Juggernaut), Thar'kun (Powertech), Ahoshta (Assassin)
Shadowlands Server

Eli_Porter's Avatar


Eli_Porter
07.09.2017 , 04:40 PM | #216
Quote: Originally Posted by caederon View Post
The problem is that it doesn't really solve anything, either.

Consider that veterans would also get this shield boost, and ten seconds is a long enough time to get into the fight... so you're also giving an advantage to them.
Yes, and veterans would be better equipped to clean out spawn campers. That's a good thing.

Quote:
The first, best preventative step is to get players into matches against people of similar skill level. With the current matchmaker this requires more players on most servers to work... but is a necessary thing and would do the most to help new players.
Agreed, but without cross-server queues I can't see this happening. The population simply isn't there.

Quote:
The second step, also essential, is to give players the knowledge base they need through in-game means to understand what is going on and how to combat it.
Are you specifically talking about a better tutorial or better in-match info? Both I support, but I suspect both are more challenging to implement than a temporary shield buff on respawn. I'm not suggesting the devs should be (or are) lazy, but I think we should propose low-effort solutions as well since we don't know how many resources BW can allocate to GSF at this point.

caederon's Avatar


caederon
07.09.2017 , 05:07 PM | #217
Quote: Originally Posted by Eli_Porter View Post
Are you specifically talking about a better tutorial or better in-match info? Both I support, but I suspect both are more challenging to implement than a temporary shield buff on respawn. I'm not suggesting the devs should be (or are) lazy, but I think we should propose low-effort solutions as well since we don't know how many resources BW can allocate to GSF at this point.
If the only thing to come out of all this discussion was that they implemented a really great tutorial and added GUI elements (like 'evaded' flytext when a shot misses due to Evasion) it would make the game -so- much better and so much more comprehensible to new people. The quality of play will never improve until the quality of player does. Equipping people to understand the game is so much more important than making a Strike Fighter better or anything else.

We don't know how much effort and resource they can put into things, but a temporary shield buff wouldn't make anyone hate gunships less, hate bombers less, hate scouts less, or help them understand things that a large percent of people seem to find incomprehensible which leads to them shooting 3% and dying 12 times.

People not knowing what they are doing or what is happening to them is the base of most of GSF's problems.

- Despon

Cernex's Avatar


Cernex
07.09.2017 , 10:19 PM | #218
Quote: Originally Posted by Pietrastor View Post
#1 reason, and this is coming from regular GSFer. I don't play on alts and even increased requisition gains won't change that. GSF is a side-game, you cannot expect people to maintain dozens of ships separately on every alt. If Strongholds were character-specific, they would never be as popular.

That and lack of PVE Starfighter. This is PVE-primarly game. GSF is completly separated from existing on-rails PVE space minigame both in gameplay and gearing. One doesn't benefit the other and doesn't encourage trying out and continuing to play the other. Not to mention, most players will never even try PVP before having an extensive experience in PVE.


I'm going to second on this one, I have multiple characters but only one do I complete GSF on any regular basis. Ultimately maintaining the same ships over the legacy is daunting.

I believe having a PvE-based area would allow players to have a better idea on GSF mechanics and ultimately promote PvP play. You don't expect players to jump into WZs without some knowledge of their class and practice against each other in open world. The tutorial is lackluster and last I attempted, I can't take my own ships into the Tutorial.

Cernex
Referral Link

Sorrai's Avatar


Sorrai
07.09.2017 , 10:56 PM | #219
Each of these questions are excellent topics and are a good indicator the Dev Team has been doing their homework.


Quote:
Is the learning curve too steep to get into?
For new players, absolutely. The learning curve is brutal and is fundamentally the biggest obstacle rookies face entering GSF. The tutorial needs to be improved and expanded. I also think GSF would benefit greatly if it featured the following:

  • New feature: Test Flight. A training mode that provides players a safe place to practice flying their ships and the freedom to experiment with abilities, crew selection and load-outs without the pressure of being in a live match. This mode might even include the option to invite a friend or small group for sparring purposes.

  • PVE mini-campaign. Designed to help bridge more players over to GSF, this would consist of a series of progressive space missions that followed a starfighter-themed storyline and included elements like cinematic cut-scenes and conversation wheels typical to the rest of the game. The series would essentially serve as a progressive tutorial that familiarizes players with every aspect of GSF: basic controls, ship types, weapon systems, targeting, engine maneuvers, power management, co-pilot active abilities, crew passive abilities, radar and sensor communications, buffs and de-buffs, etc. By the time the player advances to the epic final mission they would have a much more comprehensive understanding of how everything works and hopefully have more reason to invest in GSF. In retrospect, this is something that probably should have been implemented when GSF first launched.


Quote:
Is ship balance preventing you from playing?
On larger servers where GSF is more popular there is frequent squabbling over the pervasiveness of bombers and gunships during matches. Many have suggested imposing a limit to how many gunships and bombers should be deployed for each side. Some veteran players argue that it has less to do with ship balance and more to do with skill level. Perhaps allowing a maximum of 3 gunships and 3 bombers for each side might help to break up some of the congestion, but I think putting a cap on any ship class would cause quite a bit of outrage from players who have no interest in flying scouts or strike fighters. I think balance issues are always going to be inherent with any kind of PVP.


Quote:
Are you not playing because you feel GSF needs something new to bring you back in?
It's with deep resentment when I say that the GSF community is the unequivocal bastard stepchild of SWTOR. We have been neglected longer than any other community in the game. This gross negligence is responsible for decimating what used to be stable, consistent GSF communities that once thrived on mid-sized servers like my home server of Begeren Colony. Without any support from the Devs, the increasing disparity between veteran and novice pilots manifested into the Marianas Trench we see today.

Guys, I am begging you. We need new content. Please. For the love of God. Please, give us new content.


Quote:
Matchmaking issues?
Match-making may not be perfect but it certainly works better on servers with a larger pool of players.

Since I fly more frequently on a smaller server with a thinner GSF population, I've encountered numerous times where matches abort because one team ends up being short 2 or 3 players. Aborted matches are always a disappointment and I've often wondered if there was a way to place a stopgap measure that could prevent, or at least minimize, that from happening. For example, in an 8 vs. 8 scenario, if Team A has only 6 players enter the match while Team B has a full complement of 8 players, the 8th player from Team B would be barred from entering the match until Team A can acquire at least one more player. If there are no other players available to back-fill, then the 8th player on Team B will be returned to the queue until Team A gets another player to back-fill into the match. It may not be fair for the 8th player to be excluded but neither is having a match abort for the 13 other players who want to fly.

Quote:
The fact that GSF is character based and not Legacy?
Based on the comments I've read so far it's quite apparent this is one of many major issues people have with GSF. If GSF hangars were to become Legacy-wide I would request that the Devs give players the option of selecting and deselecting their upgrades from major and minor components. Some of us actually enjoy the challenge of flying stock ships.

Alekerro's Avatar


Alekerro
07.10.2017 , 02:13 AM | #220
Quote: Originally Posted by EricMusco View Post
  • Is the learning curve too steep to get into?
  • Is ship balance preventing you from playing?
  • Are you not playing because you feel GSF needs something new to bring you back in?
  • Matchmaking issues?
  • The fact that GSF is character based and not Legacy?
-eric
Hi Eric!
1) Yeh, the learning curve too steep to get into and GSF is very unfriendly unlike the well-known sessional cosmo-sims.
Its better to have something in between PVE space-missions and GSF.
2) It needs to be friendly to all ppl, not the 5-10 nerds. Who stroking his own wookie
3) Matchmaking good, on prime time i can find those nerds
4) Yeh, for cost reasons i prefer to have GSF based on Legacy, but if there will be no PRIME and BIG fixes or just remake\relaunch - it doesnt make sense. I and my friends dont need just ship rebalance - we need normal (maybe just like the popular ones F2P\B2P space simulators) ship warfare. Thanks!

TOP 1 (2012) and TOP 2 (2013) PVP player. The Sith Wyrm server
Founder, Magnate and Living Legend - Alekero.
always subscribed 180d 7 days of TRIAL subscription click