Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Add Starfighter Mode Without Gunships And Bombers,so it would be Gsf "Dog fight".

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Galactic Starfighter
Add Starfighter Mode Without Gunships And Bombers,so it would be Gsf "Dog fight".

SeCKSEgai's Avatar


SeCKSEgai
08.17.2017 , 09:37 PM | #21
I mentioned my interest in the regular game not to disregard yours but to represent experiencing a broader sense of the general population as a whole - it's not particularly healthy which only means GSF suffers for it indirectly.

My main view of GSF is that they excessively monetized it without thinking of the consequences, primarily the impact it would have on gameplay. When it failed to become a popular mode, it simply fell by the wayside like space missions.

I think most people could agree that a match making lobby would be nice. I think most of the regulars would reluctantly agree that major improvements are extremely unlikely given the state of both GSF and the game as a whole.
Réiyn - Maryss - Rölánd - Monéy - Retrocide - Reiyñ

Rélentless - Reíyn - Rölañd - Tàtiana

Verain's Avatar


Verain
08.17.2017 , 09:58 PM | #22
Quote: Originally Posted by SeCKSEgai View Post
My main view of GSF is that they excessively monetized it
Are you mistaking this for Star Conflict, comrade?
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

caederon's Avatar


caederon
08.17.2017 , 10:21 PM | #23
Quote: Originally Posted by SeCKSEgai View Post
My main view of GSF is that they excessively monetized it without thinking of the consequences, primarily the impact it would have on gameplay. When it failed to become a popular mode, it simply fell by the wayside like space missions.
If anything, they did not monetize it enough and what little they did (and it was quite little) was enacted in a haphazard and slapdash way that didn't make a lot of sense then and doesn't now. They have rectified that somewhat with the changes to how cosmetics are purchased, but failing to offer Cartel versions of all the ships has always been in my view a huge mistake... in fact had I been in charge of it, I'd have offered multiple designs for each ship that had some visually analogous SW counterpart.

In what way do you think they 'excessively monetized' GSF?

- Despon

Verain's Avatar


Verain
08.17.2017 , 10:24 PM | #24
Quote: Originally Posted by caederon View Post
In what way do you think they 'excessively monetized' GSF?
+1, really want to know this. Is it like, the Skybolt? The pink/purple lasers?
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

SeCKSEgai's Avatar


SeCKSEgai
08.17.2017 , 10:42 PM | #25
Placing a huge focus on upgrades but making it cost cartel coins to convert ship req into fleet req.... basically charging extra to utilize something otherwise going to waste, even a credit sink would have been a lot more reasonable.
Réiyn - Maryss - Rölánd - Monéy - Retrocide - Reiyñ

Rélentless - Reíyn - Rölañd - Tàtiana

Xarko's Avatar


Xarko
08.18.2017 , 06:00 AM | #26
I thinks bombers are ok, but yes you could make GSF better by simply removing things. Remove burst laser, we all know its broken and remove rail guns to "fix" team deathmatch mode. There will never ever be any updates or balancing anyway.

caederon's Avatar


caederon
08.18.2017 , 08:07 AM | #27
Quote: Originally Posted by Xarko View Post
I thinks bombers are ok, but yes you could make GSF better by simply removing things. Remove burst laser, we all know its broken and remove rail guns to "fix" team deathmatch mode.
So, let's say that those exact changes happened.

Removing railguns in TDM means no Ion Railgun, which means that heaps of bombers piled up in one of the many areas they tend to pile have now become largely impossible to dislodge. At best, you are suddenly looking at TDMs where nobody can or will move out of bomber nests. You've also removed Burst Lasers, so not only have you removed the only two reliable tools (BLC and Slug Railgun) that can kill a Type 1 Bomber with Charged Plating, but you have also removed the best 'dogfighting' laser. BLC is really the only one that can deliver good performance at short range in turning fights (aka 'dogfights'). How does this help 'fix' TDM? Your changes have created an environment where it is extremely hard to kill anything, anywhere on the map. It certainly does not encourage or facilitate more 'dogfighting.'

For Domination matches, you've generously only removed BLC... so what does that do? Well, on the smaller side of the scale it means that the Type 1 Gunship no longer has any close-range defense or offense and can no longer effectively fight to hold a node in close. This is a skill not enough players practice anyway, so maybe in the grand scheme of things it's not a huge loss except for those who actually -do- engage in that sort of flying to win games for their teams. It also means that the Type 3 Gunship's close-fighting abilities are compromised, though it does at least have Cluster Missiles for that. Both are weaker now against scouts/strikes, and in the case of the T1G, that weakness is magnified quite a lot. "Good," you may say. Well, with a weaker T1G that is now very vulnerable to pressure, you will have considerably less Ion Railgun support which you may recall is essential to keeping Bombers in check. Ion Railgun is the only reliable means of clearing out bomber munitions, with the added benefit of weakening shields of whatever it happens to hit. So you've made Bomber spam stronger.

Removing BLC also has a massive effect on the Type 2 Scout. In Domination, when an area is free of mines and drones (usually because they have been Ion'd but also when a Scout beats the Bomber to a node) the T2S is a primary Bomber-killer. It is really the only reliable ship for killing Type 1 Bombers with Charged Plating in areas with difficult sight-lines like Kuat Mesas B or Lost Shipyards C, where the Bombers can use line-of-sight to keep away from direct railgun fire. So you've again made Bomber spam a much stronger tactic by removing a primary tool for ridding yourself of them. Was this your intent?

BLC is really the only laser that you could classify as a 'dogfighting' weapon. It has good accuracy at high deflection angles, meaning you can fire it off-center and still hope to hit. All of the other lasers require you to have your nose on the target, and your aim centered, to have a good chance of hitting. Complicating this more, the other short range lasers (Light Laser Cannon and Rapid Fire Lasers) both require that you have prolonged time on target to do significant damage. This isn't going to happen with any ship that isn't sitting still, and ships in a dogfight don't sit still.

Your changes, which may seem simple and appealing ("get rid of the stuff that most often kills me") have far-reaching consequences that would make the game far more Bomber-centric, which in my opinion would make it worse. They would not in any way help to make it more of a 'dogfighting' game, which is a phrase that I'd love people to define when they call for it because I'm not convinced they even know what they are asking for.

- Despon

Xarko's Avatar


Xarko
08.19.2017 , 04:09 AM | #28
Quote: Originally Posted by caederon View Post
("get rid of the stuff that most often kills me")
Not gonna pretend I read all that projecting. I dont get killed by burst lasers or rail guns, I get killed by my own mistakes and lack of focus, usually go with 2 death or less. Ive been here for a quite some time. Yes, removing the most broken stuff wouldnt make GSF perfect, or even good, but it would still be better than this.

AlrikFassbauer's Avatar


AlrikFassbauer
08.19.2017 , 04:29 AM | #29
I must say that this "dogfighting" (what an awful word, by the way !) is what actually had drawn me intom GSF, because that was the only mode available in X-Wing, TIE Fighter, XvT and X-Wing Alliance (apart from that mines, and launching missiles at capital ships doesn't count) and I quite enjoyed that.

I remember playing a strike fighter, dying all of the time, then switching to the ranged ship (Gunship), because in ALL games, no matter which genre, I prefer long-range classes, especially in offline RPGs.

After I had switched over to that, and finally could make myself useful instead of dying all of the time, I read angry calls and cries over the chat window of people (like me) who were using totally overpowered gunships. I felt guilty, because I had drained the fun out of them, because I could finally do some kills, but they weren't able to see where that came from or perform good enough evasive actions.

So, for me, this was a really bad moment : U felt completely totally useless until I unsed "my" gunship, but as soon as I did so, I got (implicitely) shouted at [because the chat entries were not mentioning my name but my ship type, then] for ruining the game for others.

I felt guilty, and I had a miserable moment for the rest of the play time.

Knowing that I'll totally suck on everything else but the Gunship that's one underlying, worse reason for me not to play GSF anymore : I don't want to ruin other people's fun. That's an ethical thing for me. In my opinion, it is unethical to ruin other people's fun just to boost the own ego.

I knew you wouldn't understand my reasoning, as I always do when I explain to other people how I thing (around too many corners and far too deep anyway), so I never posted this so far.

In the end, I still long for balanced "dogfighting". But knowing that I'd melt within the range of a scout within 2-3 seconds without knowing why, and melting AS A scout within seconds, too, I won't play GSF anymore. It's not fun for me, and I don't want to take the fun away from Newbies (Veterans are hardened, they are an entirely different thing).

I'm just too strange for most people with my thoughts.
Complex minds
will create
Complex problems.

caederon's Avatar


caederon
08.19.2017 , 08:56 AM | #30
Quote: Originally Posted by AlrikFassbauer View Post
I don't want to ruin other people's fun.
No matter how balanced a PvP game is, you will be ruining other people's fun by winning or by outperforming a person in a way that is meaningful to them even if it is not reflected on the scoreboard.

No matter how balanced a sport or any competitive game is, you will be ruining other people's fun by winning or by outperforming a person in a way that is meaningful to them even if it is not reflected on the scoreboard.

Quote: Originally Posted by AlrikFassbauer View Post
That's an ethical thing for me. In my opinion, it is unethical to ruin other people's fun just to boost the own ego.
Is all ruination of fun solely in service of boosting someone's personal ego?

In a team game, you are part of a group. You have an implicit responsibility to help your team succeed by performing well. If you perform well, you may ruin other people's fun. Does that mean that helping your team to succeed is, in your worldview, an act born of aggrandizing one's personal ego? Or is there another motivation (like, say, 'wanting to help your team') that could be driving this constant ruination of fun? Or, is helping your team to succeed then unethical?

What role does the fun being had by your teammates play in this equation? Is there justification, ethically, for increasing the amount of fun that they are having by ruining the fun that others are having? Is there a point of balance where your efforts add more net fun to the overall player pool than they subtract from it at which it becomes ethically acceptable to continue in such ruinous ways?

Quote: Originally Posted by AlrikFassbauer View Post
<stuff about gunships>
There will always be players who complain about a given ship class, and there will always be players who will shout others down with or without any justification other than 'they feel like it.' People are awful. Welcome to humanity.

- Despon