The learning curve is both long and steep. I am finally feeling like I can moving up and along it, and I've been playing intermittently since GSF launched. But I'm still a net negative in almost every TDM, and eager but unskilled in the objective mode.

 

I find this related to the sparseness of interface cues. The only thing you get a fully 3D indication on when not looking directly at them is enemy ships, and even then you don't get a range indicator unless you either lock them up or put your reticle on them. Friendlies? You have the 2D scanner, and that's it. Drones? Forget it, you have to eyeball them. The HUD is insufficient for maintaining situational awareness outside of your visual arc. And it's way too easy to "lose the horizon" on a lot of maps. If you end up inverted or sideways, the scanner map is a lot harder to use.

 

It appears that there's a gear gap, to me as someone who hasn't really delved into the intricacies. The recent updates making req easier to get has helped, but I'm hitting paralysis by analysis. I have no idea what gear and upgrades would fit my play style, and there's no way, in-game, to experiment safely. So I don't buy upgrades. I don't think the gear curve should be wiped out, but gear feels too important right now in GSF to me, and too long and steep a curve.

 

LEgacy GSF. Yes, please. Even in basic PvE/PvP, I can leverage my other characters' crafting abilities and money-making abilities to ramp up a new character. There's no crossover at all in GSF.

Is the learning curve too steep to get into?

 

It's way too steep. As others have mentioned, with the ground game, you have plenty of opportunities to master your abilities, movement, and combat without ever setting foot in a war-zone. For GSF, you're thrown into the thick of things right away, and there are a lot of skills to pick up in order to have a good match.

 

Take games like EVE online and SWG's Jump To Lightspeed. Players get plenty of opportunity to practice their flying skills without interference, and it makes all the difference. You can figure things out, try out different ships and how they handle, experiment with load-outs to see the difference they make to your game... you get the idea.

 

 

Is ship balance preventing you from playing?

 

I cannot say. I do not know the meta-game well enough to comment. That in itself, is a problem to be addressed, because I think the players should not have to rely fan sites to get this kind of information.

 

 

Are you not playing because you feel GSF needs something new to bring you back in?

 

Kind of. I'm not playing because I'm not a fan of ship combat, and GSF has done absolutely nothing to draw other kinds of players to it. GSF caters to players who love the idea of dogfight matches. Out of that diminished pool of players, only the die-hard players stick with it; because the barriers to entry are many and unnecessary.

 

GSF also has no impact on the rest of SWTOR. There is no need to play it. GSF simply doesn't compete well with all the other content SWTOR has to offer. You don't have to play it to progress. Why play it? By the way, given how GSF is implemented, I'm actually glad this is the case.

 

When I started GSF, it had been around for almost eight months or more. It was already dying down in popularity. Matches would take hours to appear. It was an exercise in patience to get a game going, and it was an exercise in frustration trying to learn the ropes. When matches stopped happening on my server, I stopped queuing for it, and I haven't queued since because the experience wasn't compelling enough for me to return.

 

 

Matchmaking issues?

 

Can't really comment because matchmaking is highly dependent on population size queuing. With my personal experience, I played maybe 30-35 matches in total. Out of that, only one game was fun.

 

In that one game, we were all newbies versus newbies, and OMG, it was fun because we weren't insta-killed by the other side. We made mistakes, crashed into obstacles trying to out maneuver each other, and laughed while we did so. It was fun because each player had a fair chance against the other players; each one of us could actually contribute something to the team. It was fun because we weren't food ships. It was fun because we were all learning the map together, exploring, getting kills and getting killed. Together.

 

My side lost, but it didn't matter. It was the perfect match,. Too bad it never happened again.

 

 

The fact that GSF is character based and not Legacy?

 

I hate how GSF is character-based and not legacy-based. It goes against everything that SWTOR has as a unique selling point. When I try to get people from other MMOs to try SWTOR, the legacy is one of the great selling points.

 

For me, SWTOR's legacy feature is the one thing that I miss most whenever I play another MMO. This one feature has been most effective at keeping me away from other MMOs.

 

On the other hand, I gloss over GSF and Space Missions when trying to entice other MMO players over. Why? These two features of the game are among SWTOR's weakest aspects.

 

 

So what would I like to see different about GSF?

 

I think you can solve a lot of the problems by having a PvE aspect to GSF. Don't bother with more of that tutorial though. Make a daily mission where the player hunts down a rogue ship or protects a convey from attack.

 

Just having a way for the players to explore the maps outside of a match would help considerably, but having that PvE aspect draws a larger audience than you would otherwise.

 

Finally, make it so that if not enough players queue for matches to crop up, players get treated to a match versus AI opponents, scaled down to match the number of queued players. Make 'versus-AI' a check-able option in the queuing UI, because some people only want matches against human opponents. Hell, make 'versus-players' a check-able option, as some people prefer fighting against AI opponents.

I mean seriously... If you don't know what we're talking about ask for clarification or try to find sources yourself. Here's what typical speedhack looks in space:

http://imgur.com/a/V9h4z

So there is no ship, engine or utility that would make such lack of trajectory in specified time with or without lag. If enemy on the right was lagging for example it would be stuck in position 1 for 3 seconds, than jump to position 4 then 5. Maybe he would rubberband back to position 3. But it would never be out of possible trajectory that ship could have in those 5 seconds and it surely wouldn't be possible to interact with objectives in real time.

 

The part I highlighted in blue is very clear evidence that you don't understand how SWTOR deals with latency in GSF. The only way a ship would stay at position 1 in your diagram in the presence of latency were if it were already at a full stop before the latency started.

 

However, despite your having proven quite clearly that you don't understand how latency works in GSF or know how to recognize it, I'm not going to outright agree with Verain that you must be wrong.

 

There are well documented speed hacks for the ground game, and GSF uses modified ground game mechanics so we should assume that there's a reasonably high possibility that using a speed hack that works in the ground game might have some effect if used during a GSF match.

 

If speed hacking in GSF is common on the servers and hours that you typically play, it should be fairly easy to find. It would be nice if you could provide a recording on youtube or twitch, but if your computer can't handle the graphics load of SWTOR plus a recorder if you can say where and when to look for it there's an excellent chance that you'll draw a bunch of experienced players interested in checking it out. If you can't record it, it should be easy enough to find someone who can.

 

If you want a detailed breakdown of the general principles of what's going on in terms of dealing with networking delays in GSF and the weirdness that can result, just make a thread titled "Explain GSF Lag to Me" or something like that. The short answer is maybe half a page to a page long.

 

The long term GSF community is passionate about the game, and exploits are not looked upon kindly. If you can provide detailed and conclusive evidence, you'll get a lot of help in mercilessly pestering Bioware for a fix.

this game is GSF, and not (insert flight sim here)

 

Wait...

this game is GSF, and not (insert flight sim here)

No... no,

this game is GSF, and not (insert flight sim here)

Ah, there we go. That's better.

 

Not only is GSF not other games you've played, it's not even a flight sim!

 

Not only is GSF not even a flight sim, it's not even a sim!

 

SWTOR isn't an RTS game. You probably wouldn't tell the devs to make SWTOR into an RTS game even though everybody is saying RTS games are great and of course it would me much better if it was just a wholly different kind of game so they should probably turn it into one.

 

I appreciate that you took the time to post your PhGSF Thesis here. It's a bit of a shame that you could have boiled it down to 'I don't like arcade space shooters, make it a simulator with realism plz' and saved yourself some time.

 

Space sims are great, I've played plenty. This isn't one. It is pretty unlikely they will suddenly turn it into one, or even that the engine for their game can accommodate one.

 

Star Wars Movie Combat isn't even 'realistic.' It's based on WWII movies with prop-fighters that George Lucas felt were pretty epic. The ships behave like atmospheric aircraft in space. There is no realism. There's no Newtonian Physics going on.

 

Let GSF be GSF. It is its own thing. There are lots of space sims for you to enjoy if that is what you want.

 

Aiming SHOULD BE HARD, however not difficult enough where it deters players from wanting to jump in and learn the mechanics of flying. Making the game too arcade can attract a casual demographic that in effect breeds a community around something that does not feel like authentic flight.

This is not authentic flight! There is no intention of it modeling authentic flight. It is not a flight sim. It's not going to be a flight sim.

 

Aiming is not ~that~ hard! If you pay attention to your weapon range, your target centering, and pick the proper moments to fire, you can be quite accurate in this game. It's challenging, but quite possible to get good at.

 

Nobody, (besides those who play gunships in this subjective game), and I mean nobody, wants the idea of an artillery based gunship that can sit back (With almost all of its incredibly survivable defensive abilities)

This is the part where you lose any and all sympathy I had that you didn't get a Star Wars Flight Space Simulator. Nobody wants it eh? Other than your carefully disclaimer-ed 'people who wanted it.' Did you poll people? Were you elected spokesperson of the GSF Flight Sim Fan Movement?

 

It is silly, and it is a copout for an exploitive playstyle that takes less skill (although this would be argued by its practitioners) for a construct that does not cater to authentic flight style simulations.

Good thing GSF isn't an authentic flight style simulation, then!

 

So, let's see. You've created a fiction that nobody wants gunships (except for people that do), and that it doesn't take as much skill to fly them (wow, those people who wanted them sure are lazy jerks) and that it is exploitative.

 

Clearly, you get blown up by gunships a lot. You should probably take the time to learn how to kill them. I even wrote a guide specifically about that. Give it a read, watch some videos, and maybe stop dropping thousand-word insults towards people who play a game within the rules it presents, using the tools it gives you.

 

Maybe also don't assume you speak for everyone (except for the people you don't speak for).

 

They're not going to stick a full-fledged realistic 'flight' simulator inside an MMORPG. GSF is the game they have, and it has some issues that need help and can be fixed. One of those issues is not 'it should be an entirely different game.'

 

- Despon

Posting the following on behalf of tunewalker, a veteran player who hasn't subbed in a while:

The Tutorial is crud, the fact that you do not have detailed tool tip turned on by default baffles me, but once you get that turned on and spend some time I did not have to much of a problem learning, its one of those games that easy to learn hard to master, but the game could definately suffice to have a better tutorial and detailed tool tips should be turned on by default this way if a player doesnt read what a component does its their fault.

 

Ship balance is only preventing from playing in the respect that I like strikes and I cant play a strike in a serious match so less likely to play.

 

Absolutely yes I stopped playing GSF because it had not been touched in years I came back BECAUSE I saw it in the patch notes, litterally nothing changed about the balance of the game, but it getting attention is enough to spark my interest in thinking that MAYBE we could see some new game modes or maps or even ships, or balance changes to spice things up.

 

I havent really had them to often, but cross server would be nice for this particular game mode simply because its hard for the Match maker to work when the pool is so small.

 

And there are pros and cons to making GSF legacy based, I personally dont want to have that happen simply because once I am done with one character I may jsut want to start from scratch on another it could be nice seeing how the changes effect new pilots if and when they come so that Ican give new pilots feed back and you feed back on how balance continues to affect low geared ships.

Not only is GSF not other games you've played, it's not even a flight sim!

 

Not only is GSF not even a flight sim, it's not even a sim!

 

SWTOR isn't an RTS game. You probably wouldn't tell the devs to make SWTOR into an RTS game even though everybody is saying RTS games are great and of course it would me much better if it was just a wholly different kind of game so they should probably turn it into one.

 

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. However, maybe you missed this part of Eric's post,

 

Galactic Starfighter, like all group content, is a system that we want to see being used by as many players as possible. This thread is to discuss the friction points that you see in GSF. Whether it stops you from playing frequently, or from playing at all, we want to understand that friction.

 

The point being again before we start cherry picking... This is GSF (Not insert flight blah blah) but these are some key highlights of why people myself, and many others who are currently and always have been big fans and have habitually played flight sims, dislike the current system of why GSF is. Solely because there are current people who do not want aspects of this to change, or whether their current modeling was was initially intended to be arcade is not the big takeaway here. They were asking for reasons as to what keeps people from playing GSF, and the combat style is one of, if not the most integral of these points that many feel is (and again, it isn't meant to be harsh or insulting but take it the way you feel it) watered down, and simplified version of any form of space combat that takes away from the enjoyment of it. Nobody is saying, that water will be turned into wine, but also saying that let GSF just be GSF is contradictory to the point of what is being asked for. There are numerous reasons why people don't like this current system.

 

I appreciate that you took the time to post your PhGSF Thesis here. It's a bit of a shame that you could have boiled it down to 'I don't like arcade space shooters, make it a simulator with realism plz' and saved yourself some time.

 

Ouch. Respectfully, I apologize that you could have summed your post up to, no we the entire GSF community like this arcade style and if you don't like gunships read a guide nub.

 

Space sims are great, I've played plenty. This isn't one. It is pretty unlikely they will suddenly turn it into one, or even that the engine for their game can accommodate one.

 

Star Wars Movie Combat isn't even 'realistic.' It's based on WWII movies with prop-fighters that George Lucas felt were pretty epic. The ships behave like atmospheric aircraft in space. There is no realism. There's no Newtonian Physics going on.

Let GSF be GSF. It is its own thing. There are lots of space sims for you to enjoy if that is what you want.

 

Here you lost me in the sense that I highlighted a few times that clearly we are talking about a game with wizard knights and realism is fleeting. While it is easy to say that star wars cinematic space combat was modeled around what ships may have behaved like if you apply atmospheric flight to space, these aren't the movies, they don't have to be binary. Nobody, (at least nobody that wrote my post) is looking for Newtonian physics to be applied to the game, but if the core talking point being delivered here is that "GSF isn't real so don't try to fix it", then no that's simply false because the core mechanics of the game can undoubtedly be amended or improved to maintain a style that is less cookie cutter, and takes more nuance, skill, and adaptability to play. The point again is "Let GSF be GSF" I'm sorry, again no. That is again contradictory to the exact reason why devs were even considering looking at feedback as to what people thought about the current state of GSF. Just because George Lucas created star wars combat space movie fighting that was inspired by WWII prop fighting, does not mean this game can't have some aspect of realism or authenticity pushed for or implemented by its creators or that they have to be one or the same. Now whether they actually can do it or will do it is another story entirely.

 

 

This is not authentic flight! There is no intention of it modeling authentic flight. It is not a flight sim. It's not going to be a flight sim.

 

Aiming is not ~that~ hard! If you pay attention to your weapon range, your target centering, and pick the proper moments to fire, you can be quite accurate in this game. It's challenging, but quite possible to get good at.

 

Maybe I need to clarify this for everyone too because you are correct, aiming isn't that hard.. more like it isn't hard... period lol. In addition to that though, even if the game were or were not completely "authentic", the construct we are talking about here of leading targets in dog fighting and how this current game engine rewards hits on just shooting the reticle.

 

Many people including myself don't care for this because of again what happens when you talk about the mechanics of dog fighting and real evasion, Not an artificial stat evasion that makes you invulnerable passively and increasingly for windows of time. It should be based around a pilot's ability to evade being hit while also being able to effectively land a hit on said target. That is what the whole game is centered around. The current system doesn't reward true maneuverability.

 

This is the part where you lose any and all sympathy I had that you didn't get a Star Wars Flight Space Simulator. Nobody wants it eh? Other than your carefully disclaimer-ed 'people who wanted it.' Did you poll people? Were you elected spokesperson of the GSF Flight Sim Fan Movement?

 

Let's see... how active is the GSF community? The driving point isn't to poll maybe to poll the 50 people who play this current GSF system it was again

 

Galactic Starfighter, like all group content, is a system that we want to see being used by as many players as possible. This thread is to discuss the friction points that you see in GSF. Whether it stops you from playing frequently, or from playing at all, we want to understand that friction.

 

Point being whether taken away or not by devs of why myself, many people i know that actively play flight sims, plus many more in communities i have grown to be a part of among other flight sims feel this way. I apologize that this is not the current paradigm of thought amongst possibly the current GSF community, but hey I don't want to assume for a community, I can only speak for myself and those I've talked to.

 

Good thing GSF isn't an authentic flight style simulation, then!

 

So, let's see. You've created a fiction that nobody wants gunships (except for people that do), and that it doesn't take as much skill to fly them (wow, those people who wanted them sure are lazy jerks) and that it is exploitative.

 

Clearly, you get blown up by gunships a lot. You should probably take the time to learn how to kill them. I even wrote a guide specifically about that. Give it a read, watch some videos, and maybe stop dropping thousand-word insults towards people who play a game within the rules it presents, using the tools it gives you.

 

Maybe also don't assume you speak for everyone (except for the people you don't speak for).

 

And here is where I will never get on board with the type of approach that the current community clings to in regards to the game's state of affairs. If you want to know subjectively whether I have issues killing them, it's another story entirely that I can sum up for you easily. Short answer, no lol, but that isn't the point now is it. Whether people who play said class would love the narrative presented by those who dislike said gunships to be solely "they're too hard" is another matter. Clearly the converse is that people who feel inclined to play these classes are going to protect this style of game play because they've simply grown into what it is, but for answering the question of why many people outside this mini game dont want to play GSF, then yes, this aspect about gunships is a strong driving point that many don't care for. I can give you specific names, or communities if you like in fact. That's the great thing about demographics of people, is that it can cater to more than just the sole population that play GSF currently. Additionally, it has nothing to do with "chasing down and killing 1 gunship and getting mad because darn nobody can get one raaar." This will always be the reflex argument by those that play this, to push a guide and dare i say assume those who dislike it are unable to combat it. The real reason is people among many communities (although you can poll the current GSF community that solely plays them) don't want to play a game in which it is saturated and comprised of this type of play nearly 80% of the time in a GSF match. Again I don't have to speak for the entire GSF community, or even really the GSF community at all in that matter, but I do know why many people are opposed to these gameplay mechanics

 

They're not going to stick a full-fledged realistic 'flight' simulator inside an MMORPG. GSF is the game they have, and it has some issues that need help and can be fixed. One of those issues is not 'it should be an entirely different game.'

 

- Despon

 

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.

Edited July 9, 2017 by niemi

The part I highlighted in blue is very clear evidence that you don't understand how SWTOR deals with latency in GSF. The only way a ship would stay at position 1 in your diagram in the presence of latency were if it were already at a full stop before the latency started.

 

However, despite your having proven quite clearly that you don't understand how latency works in GSF or know how to recognize it, I'm not going to outright agree with Verain that you must be wrong.

 

There are well documented speed hacks for the ground game, and GSF uses modified ground game mechanics so we should assume that there's a reasonably high possibility that using a speed hack that works in the ground game might have some effect if used during a GSF match.

 

If speed hacking in GSF is common on the servers and hours that you typically play, it should be fairly easy to find. It would be nice if you could provide a recording on youtube or twitch, but if your computer can't handle the graphics load of SWTOR plus a recorder if you can say where and when to look for it there's an excellent chance that you'll draw a bunch of experienced players interested in checking it out. If you can't record it, it should be easy enough to find someone who can.

 

If you want a detailed breakdown of the general principles of what's going on in terms of dealing with networking delays in GSF and the weirdness that can result, just make a thread titled "Explain GSF Lag to Me" or something like that. The short answer is maybe half a page to a page long.

 

The long term GSF community is passionate about the game, and exploits are not looked upon kindly. If you can provide detailed and conclusive evidence, you'll get a lot of help in mercilessly pestering Bioware for a fix.

 

The fact you highlighted just that one part and skipped the next part about rubberbending tells me all I need about your good will to discuss things vs attempt to discredit people. Hint - yes that part naively presumes ship is at full stop at 1. It really doesn't matter. And since I'm a game programmer, I seriously doubt you can explain to me what should or should not happen between client and server during network latency.

 

As for the rest, it's the typical "stuff" we found on PVP forums - "you HAVE to prove to ME there are hacks! your reward will be that I PERSONALLY WILL inform the devs". Like ***? LonelyWookiee posts in the dev feedback thread and you two attack him for being a fool. I just confirm that my buddies and I are aware of the problem he's talking about. Don't we have a right to communicate that feedback to devs WITHOUT passing the YOU filter?

 

But to be fair, I don't mind recording it, it's just pretty boring to go through all the trouble just to sway your personal opinion.

The good part about GSF is that matches have a lot of players. This gives less of an opportunity for a skilled player to dominate a match and more time for newbies to find other newbies to kill or gang up on a skilled player.

 

However, matches can still end up in a spawn-camp scenario where new players just spawn in to get blown up.

 

My idea is to add a Capital Ship Shield, a buff giving 100% extra shield capacity to all new spawns for 10 seconds.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Eli_Porter

oh something I do find annoying are players that are like skipping all over the place like frogs, it gets real hard to fight against that, not sure if it's a bug or just me that need to figure out how to kill them

 

OOH yes I forgot to mention, it would be really nice to be able to see the distance to our wing mans , it gets real hard to figure out who's where in a Space and that makes the game harder to play.

 

A third person type scroll out like we have in normal pvp would help... my normal pvp scroll is 70% and I can see 360' around myself at all times.

Hey folks,

 

This week, we are creating three separate forum threads for GSF discussion. You can head to this thread to get links to each of them.

 

Galactic Starfighter, like all group content, is a system that we want to see being used by as many players as possible. This thread is to discuss the friction points that you see in GSF. Whether it stops you from playing frequently, or from playing at all, we want to understand that friction.

 

Here are some things to consider to get the conversation started:

• 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?
  

 

Let us know your thoughts!

 

-eric

 

I played GSF when it came out and enjoyed it for a bit, but then lost interest. The reason I lost interest was the lack of maps and the GUI for putting your ship together. Neither of which has really improved. I think the lack of maps needs no explanation, so let's make a couple of points about the GUI.

 

The GUI has a menu structure with things that you need to open and close. At the same time you have a huge 3D picture in the middle of the GUI that I don't need. I just find this sub menu structure annoying. Another thing is that you put your ship together and when you get into a match it doesn't automatically pick the ship you just put together. I hated going into a match and forgetting this and then ending up with a an alternate ship I didn't want to play and is poorly equipped as it is.

 

Anyways, hearing from other players about GSF also holds me back from going into it again. Two ships come to mind that I hear a lot about: Gunships and Bombers.

 

The maps are part of the problem I think. Allowing campers to camp the objectives gives long range fighters too much of an advantage. Objectives should at least have slow-moving objects that can block line of sight at a distance that it can block los but that hiding behind these objects doesn't put you in range of capping. There is just too much open space that favours the longe range fighters in my view.

 

As far as bombers I'm not sure. I hear stories about how they can hide behind their mines and bombs and if that's so maybe these bombs and mines should be targetable so you can blow them up from a distance and that these explosions would damage ships from either faction. Now, I do not know if that is currently possible or not, but I would see that at least as a balancing factor if people can indeed hide behind their mines. Maybe bombs or mines should expire after a certain time or they should have temporary effects like detonations that cause clouds that block los for a limited amount of time. I would need more info on how bombers actually work though but because of that lack of knowledge and the comments I've heard, I just believe bombers are a problem and it may not be true but it's something that makese me hesitant to even give it a go again.

 

What I do think is that camping should be discouraged and that if objective camping is the thing, that people need reasons to have to move. Maybe have some choice areas for camping have some electrical storms that affect you if you stand still or move too slowly ( the higher your speed, the less damage you take). This is just one example of forcing movement.

 

The learning curve, though I don't mind myself as much as a problem for many others from what I can tell. I think this problem is exacerbated by the relatively slow speeds of the fighters in general. Getting killed and then having to spend a lot of time getting back into the fight only to be sniped off again by some invisible enemy can actually nearly flatten a learning curve. You need some survivability to stay in the fight to learn from it or you need to have more speed getting back into it, so you don't spend most of the fight getting to the combat rather than being in it.

 

And that lack of speed is something that generally is annoying ...it's not fun.

 

As far as it being character based instead of legacy based...yeh I just had one character dedicated to doing GSF when I played it. I had no inclination to build up other characters and so when I played other characters I would have to relog to do GSF, so that creates another barrier to actually doing GSF. It's not the hughest problem but it adds to the total.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Eli_Porter

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

#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

Each of these questions are excellent topics and are a good indicator the Dev Team has been doing their homework.

 

 

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.
  

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Sorrai

• 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!

GSF.. issues I see that could be addressed. 1] Learning curve might be offset by allowing players to use any ship/weapons load out in tutorial or at least the user's collected ships. Secondary weaps seem to be the hang up for most.. IE lock on times & targeting methods. 2] I have inconsistent braking function.. sometimes it stops.. others it will speed up then coaster brake stop.. tap or hold key don't seem to matter. After that of course I'd like to see better gimbles [review old MS "freelancer" flight mechanics for instance]. 3] Fix the paint jobs.. ie republic scout. 4] One or two more battle scenarios.. a single faction & a dual faction could be nice. Explore the use of NPC ships/characters to fill in faction rosters during light queue times. Explore concept of "uprising" type battle scenario..players attack a fleet detachment, for instance. 5] For marketing purposes, of course a few more ships available for CC's.. one new design of each class & faction for instance. That's all I can think of at the moment. Shout back if you need to & thanks.

1) Being character only hurts casual player participation. Make a Legacy wide option.

2) Bombers ruined GSF for me. I played daily prior to Bombers being added - now, I play, at best, once a month, usually less. Limit them to only certain maps or game types...in objective based arenas, I think they have too much dominance.

3) Players have ruined GSF for themselves. New players don't even have a chance to learn anything before being destroyed. Experience is the biggest factor in GSF, and I appreciate that, but new players just don't have a hope.

4) Lack of development. No new maps or game types in years.

 

I'd love a reason to enjoy GSF again, but I just can't given the current state of the game. I blame bombers, but I know it's not the only factor.

2) Bombers ruined GSF for me. I played daily prior to Bombers being added - now, I play, at best, once a month, usually less. Limit them to only certain maps or game types...in objective based arenas, I think they have too much dominance.

3) Players have ruined GSF for themselves. New players don't even have a chance to learn anything before being destroyed. Experience is the biggest factor in GSF, and I appreciate that, but new players just don't have a hope.

Addressing your points in reverse order... new players do have it rough, but there is plenty of hope available to them if they seek out the knowledge that will enable them to compete. This knowledge should be delivered in game, and in a properly developed game there would be some means to gradually allow people to build up their skills. Even without that, though, resources exist to help new players and on populous servers, those players are facing off against people roughly in their experience bracket. Check out my

for some more on this.

 

Most of us who are GSF veteran pilots were thrown into the fire just like you, and in a more lethal era of GSF where it was (believe it or not) even harsher on new pilots. If you can accept that it is possible to become skilled and competitive in GSF through patience and practice, then it should be no real problem to seek some outside instruction in the absence of in-game materials... and I very much hope the devs dramatically increase the quantity and quality of in-game tutorials for GSF pilots.

 

To your first friction point: bombers are a problem solved through knowledge and application of the techniques necessary to remove them. The problem comes in when the majority of a team doesn't have the necessary understanding of the situation to deal. This is, again, an issue with knowledge distribution and application.

 

If you were playing Rock, Paper, Scissors, and you were never told there was Paper, so you figured you just had Rock and Scissors and that's it... it'd be a pretty frustrating game where you frequently lose once your opponents realize you don't know there's also Paper. Is the solution to remove Rock? Or to let the uninformed know that Paper is part of the game, and that it counters Rock?

 

Proper tutorial resources would solve many of the problems reported in this thread.

 

- Despon

Hey there folks! My name is Bret Hoffman and I am a Senior Designer on SWTOR and one of the devs who originally worked on GSF. I wanted to thank you all for your in-depth and well thought out responses. Keep it coming! We are definitely reading and collating all the feedback in this thread as well as the other two we created.

 

Keep that feedback coming in, and, once again, thanks for your thoughts!

 

Happy hunting pilots!

 

Oh just wondering what you been up too for the last few years?