Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Galactic Starfighter (GSF) Suggestions

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Galactic Starfighter
Galactic Starfighter (GSF) Suggestions

DakhathKilrathi's Avatar


DakhathKilrathi
01.01.2020 , 05:22 PM | #21
Quote: Originally Posted by djmurloc View Post
Allow joysticks ffs.
https://www.xpadder.com/

here you go it's enabled you just gotta go get that

Linuxizer's Avatar


Linuxizer
01.03.2020 , 09:47 PM | #22
Quote: Originally Posted by depeshmood View Post
Currently a deathmatch has a maximum of 50 kills per team and a maximum of 10 minutes for the match.
Quote: Originally Posted by depeshmood View Post
Teams with a maximum of 4 players would need to reach a score of 350 points to win the match.
The current time limit is 13m 50s, not 10m. The average match for me lasts 9m 23s. I feel matches currently are a bit too short. As to your suggestion of 4vs4 Domination to 350 points, a team could win in less than 3 minutes. That's too short to try any strategy. Your numbers are not right. If you adjusted your numbers, I'm still not crazy about your general idea. The maps are big for 4vs4 or 6vs6 and you are going to have too much downtime with no action. Or say two players go down on the same team. Now it's 4vs2 and it could be very hard to recover from that. By the time the first two respawned, the other two could be overmatched and shot down, and the cycle continues.
Starfighter videos on youtube


Referral link: https://www.swtor.com/r/jBHrWL

Linuxizer's Avatar


Linuxizer
01.03.2020 , 10:06 PM | #23
Quote: Originally Posted by DakhathKilrathi View Post
Win/loss is objectively better. Even in the circumstances you're outlining, that is a self-correcting problem. It doesn't give anyone an advantage for cheesing.

Meanwhile I've got a ship where I have a KDR of 63. That's not an exaggeration. I played it very conservatively. A more realistic look at my KDR puts it closer to 3.5 - 4 these days. Additionally, in domination I (and many of the best players) am(are) far more likely to just eat a death if it saves time. If that's the right call, it increases our chances of winning.
Kill rate (per match or per unit time) is surely a more useful metric than KDR. I suspect a lot of less good players than you have better KDR than your 3.5 - 4. Bomber aces will be misrepresented with either kill rate or KDR. Win rate is more representative for them.

I have an example of a deathmatch where one player had 24 kills, 2 assists, 10 deaths, 83000 damage, and another on the same team had 9 kills, 6 assists, 3 deaths, 54000 damage. KDR really isn't the best metric here.

Even if everybody solo-queues, I wonder if win rate is going to be a poor metric in the typical match.
- The ace pilot solo-carries and may have a win rate of 90% or more, and large sample size from thousands of matches
- The well above average pilot may have a win rate of 70%
- The slightly above average pilot may have a win rate of 60%
- The average pilot should have a win rate of 50%
These are useful and representative metrics.

On the other hand,
- The brand-new pilot has a win rate of undefined (or 0% in swtor-math)
- The 1-match pilot may have a win rate like 45%, and large sample size from many such players
- The well below average pilot may have a win rate like 46%
- The slightly below average pilot may have a win rate like 48%

I picked numbers like that, because in 8vs8 or 12vs12, an above average pilot makes a much bigger positive difference than a below average pilot makes a negative difference. So the problem is that most of the players in the typical match have the same win rate, within statistical noise. Kill rate should provide better resolution. Perhaps experience, kill rate and win rate should all be accounted at the same time, for best matchmaking results.
Starfighter videos on youtube


Referral link: https://www.swtor.com/r/jBHrWL

Verain's Avatar


Verain
01.12.2020 , 11:20 PM | #24
Win rate is better than any metric you have listed. For every player. Every player has the same objective: to win the game.

To improve on win rate, you need to consider who is winning and who is losing. This enters the realm of rankings, ELO style or otherwise. The game does have this in some pretty good manner for the ground game, but it doesn't seem to have a good internal metric like this for GSF. If they added this, it would be the best stat for matchmaking: it's the industry answer for match making, after all, across pretty much all games.

But without it, win/loss is your best, and it's not a question.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

sharpenedstick's Avatar


sharpenedstick
02.11.2020 , 08:07 AM | #25
Quote: Originally Posted by myrrhbear View Post
Speaking for myself now - not quoting for my friend:
2. Groups of highly ranked pilots queuing as a team is really game breaking. I am personally a quite strong pilot in GSF ending up consistently in the top 2 or 3 on most matches I'm in. However whenever a team of 3 or more strong pilots queue as a group it for all intents and purposes kills GSF until they get bored and quit queing for the night. A group of strong pilots queued as a team totally throws off any semblance of balance, and their team almost invariably will totally decimate the other team to the point to which many pilots will simply stop engaging during the match. After a couple of matches like that people simply stop queuing, since it's really no fun to play GSF at those time, so GSF is not available for anyone for a while until the elite group stops queing for the night. It's really a big problem, and comes up fairly frequently.
Very much this. Even the premades know it's true, that's why they're so defensive every time premade queue issues come up on this forum or in game. And why you were attacked just for daring to suggest they're part of the problem.

The simple reality is they make premades because they just want to stomp people. They have no interest in real games, no interest in competition, and very little interest in the overall health of GSF as a system.

I think two queues should exist:

1. Solo and Wingman: Max of two people queueing together. Two skilled pilots can still very much control the course of a game against weaker opposition, but at least this would minimize the premade queue stomping while still allowing you to play with a friend.

2. Premade: Groups of 3+, only queue against other premades.

None of this is to say premades are the only issue GSF has. Or even necessarily the biggest. But they are part of why most matches are horribly one-sided. And, unlike whatever black box formula Bioware uses, premades are relatively easy to solve.

cheese_cake's Avatar


cheese_cake
02.11.2020 , 04:17 PM | #26
Boy does this thread keep getting resurrected.

No one is stopping others from grouping too. There would be more competition if more people did that instead of leaving a match when placed against better pilots or worse -self destructing to not give others who do want to try a chance. The mental logic of making the situation worse for your team while benefiting players you hate/dislike is just galaxy brain worthy.

image related: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...axy_brain2.jpg

Unranked warzone PvP-ers do not get as salty about groups as GSF-ers. The primary reason a particular group lacks competition is because decent or otherwise self-proclaimed decent pilots give up before trying. Sure going up against a monumentally tough opponent is demoralising, but the lack of willingness & effort to do what you can should be addressed as well.

If the problem really is groups, then the group size could be reduced. However, the concept of a premade is a scapegoat for the pains voiced in this thread. Even people pairing with only one other friend get slammed with the same hate. Why must others be punished for wanting to play with friends when one refuses to play with friends of their own, improve their play, and dismiss criticism by invoking defensiveness without irony.

I think a more interesting question to ask if why groups provoke such strong reactions in GSF, but not warzones. If we can tackle that, perhaps we might solve the underlying issue of complaint. /edit -I looked through the Warzone forums. Complaints about groups revolve around being placed with a clueless (not necessarily weaker) team, and an adamant refusal to group. Hmmmmmmmm.

sharpenedstick's Avatar


sharpenedstick
02.11.2020 , 07:25 PM | #27
Quote: Originally Posted by cheese_cake View Post
Boy does this thread keep getting resurrected.

No one is stopping others from grouping too. There would be more competition if more people did that instead of leaving a match when placed against better pilots or worse -self destructing to not give others who do want to try a chance. The mental logic of making the situation worse for your team while benefiting players you hate/dislike is just galaxy brain worthy.

image related: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...axy_brain2.jpg

Unranked warzone PvP-ers do not get as salty about groups as GSF-ers. The primary reason a particular group lacks competition is because decent or otherwise self-proclaimed decent pilots give up before trying. Sure going up against a monumentally tough opponent is demoralising, but the lack of willingness & effort to do what you can should be addressed as well.

If the problem really is groups, then the group size could be reduced. However, the concept of a premade is a scapegoat for the pains voiced in this thread. Even people pairing with only one other friend get slammed with the same hate. Why must others be punished for wanting to play with friends when one refuses to play with friends of their own, improve their play, and dismiss criticism by invoking defensiveness without irony.

I think a more interesting question to ask if why groups provoke such strong reactions in GSF, but not warzones. If we can tackle that, perhaps we might solve the underlying issue of complaint. /edit -I looked through the Warzone forums. Complaints about groups revolve around being placed with a clueless (not necessarily weaker) team, and an adamant refusal to group. Hmmmmmmmm.
The question is not can other people also group. Of course they can. But rather, it's "are premades good for GSF?"

Now, of course, that question is largely rhetorical, because we all know it's not good for GSF. Premades are not elevating play. They're not making queues faster. They're not encouraging competition. Everyone knows this. In fact, it's exactly why people make premades. Not to test "steel against steel." It's not to find these epic 49/50 or 1000/999 games against other elite teams. It's to roll PUGs 50 to 2 and 1000 to 7.

Comparisons to WZs are inappropriate because WZs draw their players from a much larger base. GSF has more narrow participation to begin with, and its learning curve (even without premades) is sufficient to prevent any more than modest growth. Add to that the natural attrition of MMO players and Bioware's failure to support GSF with new content, new rewards, new story elements, etc...

The simple question for all the premades is what's more important to them? Easy wins, or the health of GSF? The defensive screeds we get from premade players makes the answer clear.

DakhathKilrathi's Avatar


DakhathKilrathi
02.11.2020 , 08:37 PM | #28
Quote: Originally Posted by sharpenedstick View Post
The simple question for all the premades is what's more important to them? Easy wins, or the health of GSF? The defensive screeds we get from premade players makes the answer clear.
Groups haven't killed GSF (or significantly impacted the health of the game in any appreciable way) in the full SIX YEARS it's been out. The only thing that matters - the only thing that has ever mattered - is server health overall.

As I said earlier in the thread and every time this argument comes up: the complaint is that people who can beat you are playing. You're asking people not to play. If you got what you wanted with groups, it would be something else.

I'm a solo player almost all of the time and I hate the state of the current meta because of a couple of super broken abilities + the general cluelessness of the player base. But groups aren't the problem and never have been.

This is such a tired discussion.

do the people who keep posting this argument even read what anyone has said about it before they post or what because it's always the same thing over and over and over

cheese_cake's Avatar


cheese_cake
02.11.2020 , 09:29 PM | #29
Well first and foremost people group to play with friends.

GSF is a team game. Matches are 8v8 or 12v12. It is possible to queue as a group of up to 4 players. To be successful required concerted coordination with one's teammates. This could mean flying to where help is needed, peeling for a teammate, or focusing a high priority target. Grouping with others in essence elevates competition by improving one's team coordination. Grouping is a means for individual players to improve their play together. Grouping also makes more strategies and ship builds available -both contribute to the breadth and depth of the game (just look at all the GSF guides created by groups). This is how grouping improves the competition and health of GSF. The community and health of GSF is dependent on the collaboration of players, not segregation.

Improving the competition of the GSF should involve more players grouping to improve their play as a team, not knocking groups that want to improve together down for the benefit of people who refuse to group. Testing "steel against steel" without grouping in a team game is akin to competing with a crutch.

As you clearly pointed out, the GSF community is small. This is why separate queues will do more harm than good. If anything we should be pointing at the matchmaker for creating imbalanced teams that result in lopsided matches.

So you claim that groups are more damaging than beneficial to GSF. What what ways?
  • Self-destructors
  • Players leaving at the start or middle of matches
  • Verbally abusing other players
  • Players not queuing

Players not queuing is within their right. & while it does reduce the pool of players, it does not appear to slow queues down. Queues still pop back to back and multiple matches occur with or without the presence groups. There should be a penalty for leaving a match after accepting it. I may be wrong, but isn't there one in warzones? I know flashpoints and operations incur a queue lock.

Why are the other things the fault of players who group and not the individuals that commit such acts? It is not as if the game does not allow grouping & some players managed to exploit the queue such that they'd always end up in the same team.

Are there other acts that I left out?

Is the problem with all groups or just groups that perform better than others?

sharpenedstick's Avatar


sharpenedstick
02.12.2020 , 08:09 AM | #30
Quote: Originally Posted by cheese_cake View Post

As you clearly pointed out, the GSF community is small. This is why separate queues will do more harm than good. If anything we should be pointing at the matchmaker for creating imbalanced teams that result in lopsided matches.
So...unbalanced teams are bad?

I'm confused that you think so, since premades exist solely to create them.

At least we've advanced in one particular. None of these defensive premade players any longer deny they make their groups to stomp PUGs. It's refreshing that they've dispensed with the lie that they're just trying to find other elite competiton.

Are premades the only problem GSF has? No
Are they the biggest problem? Probably not

In fact, I explicitly said this in my first reply, before you all started the "MAKE YOUR OWN PREMADE LOLOLOLOL" gibberish.

But the reality is premades are bad for GSF. Don't want to split queues? Fine. Get rid of premades then.

Not being able to make youtube videos of your 1000 to 3 wins is a small price to pay for better, faster and healthier queues.