Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

"Multi-phase plan to revitalize GSF"

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Galactic Starfighter
"Multi-phase plan to revitalize GSF"

Verain's Avatar


Verain
10.13.2014 , 02:08 PM | #11
The first thing- a "multi-phase plan"- could be really bad for a player like me, because it could be a redesign. Here's an example of changes that would shatter my play:
> "We put this really cool ship in a raid. You can only get it in a raid, and it's this totally sweet type 4 strike. It's a rare drop, enjoy!"
> "Your gear level now changes (something something) related to ships, in order to tightly integrate GSF!"
> "This raid now drops a component. Get a burst laser on your Starguard! Just go kill DerpyMcDerpistan after fully gearing your character, joining a guild, and blocking off 6-12 hours a week!"
> "Ranked Warzone commendations will now convert to fleet requisition at (super favorable rate)"

Even milder changes, such as:
" We put a mirror of the Clarion, with no abilities but new art, on this raid boss!"
" You can spend warzone commendations to exclusively buy this cool alternative version of the Blackbolt!"

Would really make me sad.


Will they do this? They haven't TOUCHED on this kind of integration yet, but every time I play an MMO I'm always just SO worried that they will come up with something like this, claim it is to "reward the raiders", and then I'm given the "Raid Or Quit" prompt. But it'll be subtle. "Hey Verain, even though only raiders get the new bomber, you're fine, that bomber isn't that great, it's mostly a weaker version of the boy bomber." Sure, sure, that could be true.... but now I can't be a completionist in GSF without ALSO raiding. It's fair to beat up on completionists, right? Demand that they raid?



That is my big concern. That this will become some trick to make me play the rest of SWTOR, which, again, is not why I showed back up.



Now, what's better than cross server queues? That's the most exciting statement I've heard, but rest assured, it's simply GOTTA be hyperbole. Cross server queues are the best thing ever, in any game. They saved WoW PvP. The "community destruction" guy early on is full of it. PvP has been cross server in WoW since vanilla, and prior to that it was mother-may-I on many servers, with only one AV running, or the inability to get WSG complete, or just no pops for HOURS, no joke. And there was barely any pvp community back then.

What cross server probably did destabilize was pve, which had always been about guilds and play groups. The devs obviously feel that cross server five man dungeons (showed up late lich king, at which point all of lich king and all of BC and some of wow had been spent cross server pvp) were good for the game, so later in Cata they added cross server LFR, then later in MoP cross server Flex raids and now cross server normals and heroics (the heroics are being renamed mythic, and won't be cross server in the future). Is THAT good for the community? That's a MUCH bigger question.


But unlike raids, you can't raid-queue a GSF, or a warzone. It can't be done. The biggest group you can bring is a mere four players. So yes, cross server will SAVE pvp in this game, just as it did for WoW.





So what's better than cross server?




Honestly?






Server collapse to one server is one thing. The community is small enough that this could happen, but it seems really unlikely.
A more likely scenario would be to divorce your hangar from your character, and tie it to your account, then this allows you to queue from the launcher or something. In that world, there would only be one GSF server, and it wouldn't be anything else. Rewards and data could flow back and forth, giving the benefits of the cross server queue plus far far more- GSF would then be approachable to people who don't have the main game even installed on that box, their rewards lining up in the mailbox of a character for when they can log in for real.

But both of these are still unlikely- one very unlikely, one rather unlikely. Most likely is that what they have is not, in fact, better.




But that raid integration- I have to say, I've become so jaded with MMOs that I just always expect the worst out of the devs. I hope I'm wrong there.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

zaskar's Avatar


zaskar
10.13.2014 , 02:27 PM | #12
What is better than cross server?

Right now I'm 90% certain that BioWare has space in two EA data centers in the US and one in Europe. The only thing that makes these 'servers' is the labels. I believe they all run on the same hardware in each region. The only reason why there are servers is to break them up by interest, IE Roleplay, PVP, Carebear. I think they are going to do away with the labels and have two servers in North America, one east and one west. I think they will continue to have the localized versions in Europe.

Why do you think this Zaskar?

They have kept the @ labels for guilds in the database and display them. I would wager that they will "namespace" character names in their database so individual given names (first names) are no longer unique but part of the namespace that is tied to the account login name. It is only logical extension of what they have already done.

Something like Blizzard's battleID.

Gavin_Kelvar's Avatar


Gavin_Kelvar
10.13.2014 , 05:26 PM | #13
Quote: Originally Posted by MiaowZedong View Post
Oh actually, I can think of another idea. A server reshuffle where some servers will be designated GSF servers.
This sort of stuff seems unlikely since the OP makes it sound like this "better than cross server queue" is designed to save ground PvP too. I don't really see them divorcing warzones from all servers except the warzone specific ones. So it's gotta be some sort of reward system that strongly encourages people to play (maybe free CC? That'd get people to play although it'd have to be for something like a win and not joining a match to go AFK).
Aodhán Guilhem
Republic Strike Fighter Pilot
Jedi Covenant

Nemarus's Avatar


Nemarus
10.13.2014 , 06:07 PM | #14
Quote: Originally Posted by Gavin_Kelvar View Post
This sort of stuff seems unlikely since the OP makes it sound like this "better than cross server queue" is designed to save ground PvP too. I don't really see them divorcing warzones from all servers except the warzone specific ones. So it's gotta be some sort of reward system that strongly encourages people to play (maybe free CC? That'd get people to play although it'd have to be for something like a win and not joining a match to go AFK).
Yeah, not sure why people went off the rails there.

The "better than cross-server" thing was in regard to PvP in general. In fact, we'd be lucky if it even applies to GSF, since the devs seem to have a problem in recognizing when a problem for one is a problem for the other, and thus both need the same solution.

Example: they fixed warzone conquest objectives to discourage team-sabotage, yet didn't make the same fix for GSF conquest objectives.
Shayd / Callem / RK-4X / "Trynt" - Leader of <Eclipse Squadron>, The Ebon Hawk
http://EclipseSquadron.enjin.com Imperial GSF-focused guild

"Serve the Emperor above all others."

Danalon's Avatar


Danalon
10.13.2014 , 09:11 PM | #15
What's better to "revitalize GSF" than cross server queues? Give people incentives to play.

- Rewards. For example trophies for strongholds like they're awarded for everything in PvE. Or gear, lots of people play normal PvP eventhough they hate it because they can get gear for their characters there. This would shorten the queues but may also have a negative effect on the quality of the matches. Another reward might be the ability to make credits with GSF either by selling requisition, or components of a certain ship.
- Content - more maps, more modes (like assault in UT2k4). Or maybe some sort of Starfighter PvE including a story. In other words making GSF more interesting for people that aren't already playing.

In any case it would help a lot if GSF would be more connected to the rest of the game. Although I do fear the scenario mentioned by Verain where I have to raid to get ships/components for GSF.

ALaggyGrunt's Avatar


ALaggyGrunt
10.13.2014 , 11:49 PM | #16
What's better than cross-server queue? New maps and game types:

Make a map like a level of Descent (many very tight tunnels which make most evasive maneuvers very dicey), or that asteroid mining base in Rebel Assault II.
Getting rid of the blatant OPness of some components (distortion field/BLC/slug rail), or the total failness of stock components against certain configurations (charged plating with no piercing). Get rid of the total failness of some components and crew abilities (In Your Sights, Hydro Spanner, Rapids). Making T1/2 strikes useful in serious fights.
New game types:
Convoy defense/attack speaks for itself.
Carrier battle speaks for itself.
Board-and-capture operation, which could be integrated with WZ.
Assault on stations. That Star Forge is going down.
Multi-stage battles. Think "Your team has to dig resources out of someplace while dealing with the other team, and protect the mining ship as it returns to your base."

Flashpoints in space, which could be just about anything. Heh, if going against Revan or some other Big Scary Neutral, you might actually be able to get cross-faction teams going.
Conquest objective for MVPing in GSF.

Gavin_Kelvar's Avatar


Gavin_Kelvar
10.13.2014 , 11:56 PM | #17
Quote: Originally Posted by ALaggyGrunt View Post
What's better than cross-server queue? New maps and game types:

Make a map like a level of Descent (many very tight tunnels which make most evasive maneuvers very dicey), or that asteroid mining base in Rebel Assault II.
The once concern I'd have is that it might make evasion more powerful as the only way to evade blaster attacks if you can't easily take evasive action. Encouraging RNG defenses is, IMO, something we don't need. If it was done though so that it didn't skew in favor of evasion builds but rather tanky shield builds I'd be all for it.

Quote:
Getting rid of the blatant OPness of some components (distortion field/BLC/slug rail), or the total failness of stock components against certain configurations (charged plating with no piercing). Get rid of the total failness of some components and crew abilities (In Your Sights, Hydro Spanner, Rapids). Making T1/2 strikes useful in serious fights.
New game types:
Convoy defense/attack speaks for itself.
Carrier battle speaks for itself.
Board-and-capture operation, which could be integrated with WZ.
Assault on stations. That Star Forge is going down.
Multi-stage battles. Think "Your team has to dig resources out of someplace while dealing with the other team, and protect the mining ship as it returns to your base."
I agree with pretty much all. In addition to making the T1/T2 strikers competitive I'd also like to request replacing the T3 striker sensors with something actually useful on a striker frame like thrusters. It seems all striker models are held back in some way or another with odd component options that prevent them from reaching their full potential.
Aodhán Guilhem
Republic Strike Fighter Pilot
Jedi Covenant

Verain's Avatar


Verain
10.14.2014 , 12:15 PM | #18
Quote: Originally Posted by Gavin_Kelvar View Post
The once concern I'd have is that it might make evasion more powerful as the only way to evade blaster attacks if you can't easily take evasive action. Encouraging RNG defenses is, IMO, something we don't need. If it was done though so that it didn't skew in favor of evasion builds but rather tanky shield builds I'd be all for it.
I actually really like evasion builds, and evasion, and the RNG. I think RNG is something we need badly, in fact!

I do agree that there is a bit of a balance problem, because the vast majority of deadly things can be evaded. While there's no end of components that ignore damage reduction 100%, the list of things that avoids evasion entirely is VERY small- mines and drones is the entire list, and that's hardly a fair compare, as mine and drone damage is MUCH more "opt-in" than other forms.

I don't know if changing the meta here is really that correct, but I wouldn't mind if, say, Rapid Fire Lasers became super accurate or something. It is definitely strange that there's no soft counters to the build, and that every railgun suffers under the burden. A railgun that isn't evadable but is balanced around that fact would be interesting, as would a laser- much like the components that ignore armor pay a price in dps.


Quote:
I agree with pretty much all. In addition to making the T1/T2 strikers competitive I'd also like to request replacing the T3 striker sensors with something actually useful on a striker frame like thrusters. It seems all striker models are held back in some way or another with odd component options that prevent them from reaching their full potential.
I'm very opposed to the sensor change, actually. I like sensors, and it's good that it's a generally weaker component.


There are twelve ships in the game. Lets go through them REAL fast and notice a pattern:
Type 1 Scout- has sensors as its weak component.
Type 2 Scout- All strong components.
Type 3 Scout- has sensors as its weak component.
Type 1 Strike- Magazine probably weakest, notably lacks armor.
Type 2 Strike- Magazine probably weakest, notably lacks reactor.
Type 3 Strike- Sensors weak component.
Type 1 Gunship -Sensors weak component.
Type 2 Gunship- Sensors weak component, notably lacks armor.
Type 3 Gunship- All strong components, but lacks armor.
Type 1 Bomber- Sensor weak component.
Type 2 Bomber- Sensor weak component.
Type 3 Bomber- Magazine probably weakest,notably lacks armor.

The only ships that wouldn't trade out their components to become stronger if they could are the Type 2 Scout and the Type 3 Gunship. What you see about strike fighters isn't a weakness of strike fighters, it's the fact that the type 2 scout is overtuned. You would have expected him to have a magazine, not a reactor+armor.


Plus, the type 3 strike is probably the strongest strike. Obviously it would even stronger if it had all four of the flashfire components, because thrusters is better than sensors. But it SHOULD have sensors. It should be (and IMO mostly is) balanced around that fact. I think what needs to happen with strikes is a small boost to the baseline speed and turning, to take it a bit closer to scouts- but honestly, there's a TON of possible good strike fighter buffs. That's just the one I'd like. That would also substantially boost the value of the thruster on the starguard and pike.

The Pike is, IMO, in need of more than just secondaries. Lacking a reactor hurts him, but he was better before he lost his missile break timing. It's odd that he's all about missiles but lacks thermite and interdiction, and it's even stranger that he lacks retro thrusters. He seems worse at his job than the joke builds of the type 2 and type 3 gunships. I don't think you can fix him with secondaries. I think it would be cool if he lost his capacitor for an armor piece, but then gained some actually solid other component choices, along with general buffs to strike fighters that they could all benefit from.


For the record, I consider the Pike (Type 2 Strike) to be generally worst ship in game right now. I get that SOMETHING needs to be in that role, but I think he's further behind than he should be, and the thing he is supposed to be good at, he kind of isn't. A real shame, IMO. I think the Starguard is pretty poor, but he mostly fails by comparison to the Flashfire- if there was a two week period where no Flashfires could play, I think you'd see the Starguard actually being in that meta for reals.


As far as new game modes, of course I'm in favor. Board and capture couldn't happen with our game engine (our ships are much smaller than our characters, so that can never happen), but convoy fights, flag capture fights, murder ball, and variations (especially capture the flag variations, which a lot of games have had serious variations of) would all be great. The "take turns taking out the enemy fleet" would also be great. There's just miles of unexplored territory that the game engine totally could support.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

Gavin_Kelvar's Avatar


Gavin_Kelvar
10.14.2014 , 01:00 PM | #19
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post
I actually really like evasion builds, and evasion, and the RNG. I think RNG is something we need badly, in fact!

I do agree that there is a bit of a balance problem, because the vast majority of deadly things can be evaded. While there's no end of components that ignore damage reduction 100%, the list of things that avoids evasion entirely is VERY small- mines and drones is the entire list, and that's hardly a fair compare, as mine and drone damage is MUCH more "opt-in" than other forms.

I don't know if changing the meta here is really that correct, but I wouldn't mind if, say, Rapid Fire Lasers became super accurate or something. It is definitely strange that there's no soft counters to the build, and that every railgun suffers under the burden. A railgun that isn't evadable but is balanced around that fact would be interesting, as would a laser- much like the components that ignore armor pay a price in dps.
To perhaps clarify I mainly just don't want the meta to return to the beta days where evasion was the be all end all defensive stat. Not in the sense of them re-buffing evasion but rather creating a game mode where evasion would be more useful than other defensive options even in it's current state. Hence why I didn't like the map suggestion that gives minimal option for manual evasion, evasion would be very useful since you'd have RNG doing the evading for you and might outlast a ship build that requires manual evasion to keep their shields from breaking. I don't mind RNG in the sense of accuracy (since many FPS effectively have that with things like bullet spread), but I'm very iffy about it as a defensive stat. Personally I'd be fine with tweaking accuracy/tracking penalties in such a way that would allow a decrease in evasion as a defensive stat. More or less same result we have now (ideally with "miss" text added) but more feeling of the RNG being in the player's control.




Quote:
I'm very opposed to the sensor change, actually. I like sensors, and it's good that it's a generally weaker component.


There are twelve ships in the game. Lets go through them REAL fast and notice a pattern:
Type 1 Scout- has sensors as its weak component.
Type 2 Scout- All strong components.
Type 3 Scout- has sensors as its weak component.
Type 1 Strike- Magazine probably weakest, notably lacks armor.
Type 2 Strike- Magazine probably weakest, notably lacks reactor.
Type 3 Strike- Sensors weak component.
Type 1 Gunship -Sensors weak component.
Type 2 Gunship- Sensors weak component, notably lacks armor.
Type 3 Gunship- All strong components, but lacks armor.
Type 1 Bomber- Sensor weak component.
Type 2 Bomber- Sensor weak component.
Type 3 Bomber- Magazine probably weakest,notably lacks armor.

The only ships that wouldn't trade out their components to become stronger if they could are the Type 2 Scout and the Type 3 Gunship. What you see about strike fighters isn't a weakness of strike fighters, it's the fact that the type 2 scout is overtuned. You would have expected him to have a magazine, not a reactor+armor.
Fair point and I concede that the T2 scout being overtuned is a large reason we don't see strikers in very competitive matches. I guess I'd just prefer it if we didn't have to settle for having a weak component type in order to balance a ship, I'd at least like it if the weak component had options that were useful given the ship role and base stats. (Or for that matter given the shape of the meta where in concept the sensor component was clearly supposed to be useful on the T1 scout for recon purposes but in practice has little use).


Quote:
Plus, the type 3 strike is probably the strongest strike. Obviously it would even stronger if it had all four of the flashfire components, because thrusters is better than sensors. But it SHOULD have sensors. It should be (and IMO mostly is) balanced around that fact. I think what needs to happen with strikes is a small boost to the baseline speed and turning, to take it a bit closer to scouts- but honestly, there's a TON of possible good strike fighter buffs. That's just the one I'd like. That would also substantially boost the value of the thruster on the starguard and pike.
On this we agree, a buff to base speed and turning would be amazing. I guess my main gripe with sensors is that I don't feel it has much use on a strike fighter platform. I get that you don't want a ship to be overtuned but like the T2 scout but it feels weird that in order to do that means throwing on a component that isn't terribly useful to the ship. Maybe if they added more component types of that type that would allow for greater build variety (for example IFF that allows you to see allied shield/hull for a pure support build; obviously have greater diversity so if you wanted an offensive build there'd be specialized sensor components that help optimize one offensive aspect or another).

Personally I think if they added more sensor types it might also help the T3 scout since you could give it sensor options the T1 scout doesn't have and might give it more of a niche.
Aodhán Guilhem
Republic Strike Fighter Pilot
Jedi Covenant

Kcin_Trebla's Avatar


Kcin_Trebla
10.14.2014 , 01:29 PM | #20
Cross-server queues.

hummmm......
Well, I agree: it will for sure grant a wide availability of players and quicker match-startings but...
... have you ever tried a european server?
Heck sometimes a team is built up with people not havin' even the same alphabet to communicate -lol- .

Anyway, if ever implemented (quite unlikely imo) could be interesting and even funny, who knows?