Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

How do you feel about time to kill in GSF?

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Galactic Starfighter
How do you feel about time to kill in GSF?

Devrius's Avatar


Devrius
06.23.2014 , 12:55 PM | #61
Quote: Originally Posted by Kuciwalker View Post
No. The implications of a long range / high tracking penalty weapon are that it does not want to joust. Jousting means that the enemy is getting closer, which means the enemy's angular velocity is rapidly increasing, which is the worst case for a high tracking penalty weapon. The goal is to engage at range and stay at range to make it easiest to minimize the tracking penalty.
That may be the implication, but in reality? Head-on and peeling for a team mates are the best occasions for minimizing accuracy penalty. You can keep a bead on an enemy trying to pass you after their "burst" with Retros long enough to make him regret the head-on.



Quote: Originally Posted by Kuciwalker View Post
Quick-charge is not that much weaker than directional and the rapid recharge is actually really really good versus railguns. Plus the added mobility makes it much easier to evade the gunships entirely.
It is much weaker then Direction in that scenario, the 40% less capacity and the double forward shields make boosting in a zig zag fairly safe until you get within Heavies range, with Quick Charge it a coin toss. The added mobility I have found is much more of an issue in Dominion matches, in TDM switching between the "Fs" will keep you flying well enough.

I'm not saying Directionals are always superior to Quick Charge, there are 2 schools when it comes to Strikes: build to their strength and palliate their weaknesses.

I much prefer the 1st while you favor the second, saying that Quick Charge is superior is stating an opinion as fact.
You claim the active is of marginal value, I claim that if used right it's a huge asset.

Nemarus's Avatar


Nemarus
06.23.2014 , 03:48 PM | #62
Saying that the active ability of Directional Shield is of marginal value is the most blatantly incorrect thing I've ever heard you say, Kuci. And that's unusual for you.

How often do you actually take significant damage to both arcs at the same time? I'd say almost never. The ability to distribute damage done to one arc across both arcs (by readjusting energy) is far more useful than Quick-Charge's active. It effectively doubles your effective shield-based hit points. Let's say you hit my 2160 aft shields with an Ion Railgun blast of 1850, leaving me with 310 shields on my butt. You start charging up your slug to finish me off (or at least cripple my hull).

I press "2". Now my aft shields are 2470. Is my front naked? Who cares. I'm not being attacked from there.

And as for Large Reactor on Directional Shields, there is indeed a synergy there, since Directional's active can transfer the whole capacity of an arc from one side to the other (not just the base). So the bigger your shield capacity per arc, the bigger the swing caused by Directional's active ability. In the above example, instead of suddenly "recharging" 2160 shields (if I took a Turbo Reactor), I could recharge an arc by 2520 with the touch of a button.

Quick-Charge's active, regardless of Reactor choice, can only ever help me recover 648 shield to an arc. 648 vs. 2160 or 2520.

And that's to say nothing of the many and frequent tactical situations where you know it is safe to stack shields on one side in order to win a joust or linger on a target long enough to get the killing blow, even while under fire. And in some of those situations, higher capacity is indeed more valuable than 2.6 second earlier regen. As Ramalina said, it depends heavily on fighting style, environment, and the types of enemies you face.

When I'm holding a satellite in my Rycer against half a team of enemies, I'll choose Directional/Turbo, because I can't reliably get 3 seconds of safety. I keep my shields balanced, changing angling as required to bolster a weak arc that suffers damage.

When I'm skirting the edge of a TDM furball in my Decimus, lobbing in HLC shots and Concussion Missiles, I want to make sure I can joust safely with any Strikes, Scouts or other Bombers who peel and attempt to close on me. For this purpose, Directional + Large, angled forward, serves me better.

I'm honestly shocked that you get so focused on the various regen curves that you neglect to consider varying tactical situations, and how those situations favor one shield/reactor combo over another.

I would expect someone who frequently flies a Gunship, especially, to value the ability of focusing shields to front or aft. In a Gunship duel, having a full arc of shields on your backside does nothing for you. But if you're able to switch that entire arc to your front in order to absorb an extra slug, then I'd think that's pretty useful. Or how about when you get flanked and need to run? Isn't it nice to have double-shields on your backside then, to buy your allies more time to come to your aid?

Though I suspect you've never even considered any of that due to the "mandatory" choice of Distortion Field on T1 and T3 Gunships.

I remain bemused about how many people think Directionals are "too hard" or that S2E is weak. Do they offer base Evasion and an extra missile break? No. But they are still hugely powerful when used correctly. And honestly missiles just aren't that big a deal. Especially on ships with Power Dive, I find I rarely ever find myself wanting a second break.
Shayd/Callem - Leader of <Eclipse Squadron>, The Ebon Hawk
http://EclipseSquadron.enjin.com Imperial GSF-focused guild

"Serve the Emperor above all others."

Altheran's Avatar


Altheran
06.23.2014 , 04:09 PM | #63
Quote: Originally Posted by Nemarus View Post
I remain bemused about how many people think Directionals are "too hard" or that S2E is weak.
Come on, who did not have at least once a "Directional silly death" ?

You know, like the one where you're attacking a Gunship, try to put shields fore, but the Gunship released the shot while you they were aft for a reason... BOOM, one-shot.

There are people whose those death happen more than others, and often due to the player's error. Hence, the "hard to use" comments.

Nemarus's Avatar


Nemarus
06.23.2014 , 05:43 PM | #64
Quote: Originally Posted by Altheran View Post
Come on, who did not have at least once a "Directional silly death" ?

You know, like the one where you're attacking a Gunship, try to put shields fore, but the Gunship released the shot while you they were aft for a reason... BOOM, one-shot.

There are people whose those death happen more than others, and often due to the player's error. Hence, the "hard to use" comments.
Oh I certainly have them on occasion, though not nearly as often as I am saved by suddenly having full shields on the arc which is being attacked.

And saying that Directionals are "harder" is different from saying they're "too hard". Though there are some people around here (just two, actually) who deal only in absolutes. :P Components are either objectively judged as "optimal" in a mathematical vacuum, or else they are declared as not even warranting consideration or discourse.
Shayd/Callem - Leader of <Eclipse Squadron>, The Ebon Hawk
http://EclipseSquadron.enjin.com Imperial GSF-focused guild

"Serve the Emperor above all others."

Altheran's Avatar


Altheran
06.23.2014 , 06:29 PM | #65
Quote: Originally Posted by Nemarus View Post
And saying that Directionals are "harder" is different from saying they're "too hard". Though there are some people around here (just two, actually) who deal only in absolutes. :P Components are either objectively judged as "optimal" in a mathematical vacuum, or else they are declared as not even warranting consideration or discourse.
Ah, yeah sure. "Harder" doesn't mean "too hard", but I'm sure there are some people who tried, failed to the higher difficulty (the silly deaths), and concluded "too hard" without trying harder. That's what I failed to imply.

Personally, I'll admit Directional aren't my favorites. Quick-charge are, and I'm using a very atypical Reactor with them on my Starguard.

Verain's Avatar


Verain
06.23.2014 , 08:21 PM | #66
Quote: Originally Posted by Kuciwalker View Post
False? Real world systems detect radar pings, which you need to use to lock on to the target in the first place.
That's not at all how it works. The missile is detected. I had more typed up, but it's not really suitable for here.

I was able to find this for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Approach_Warning

In general, the missile is detected via one or more methods. You can't rely on radar because many missiles don't use it, and it would be trivial to fake or mask.

Quote:
No **** quick-charge is superior, it is in most ways just a straight-up better shield anyway.
I don't really believe this. I do like quick charge, but I really feel a lot stronger with directional. The engine trick is the big argument IMO, and it is a good one. The ability to double arc is super amazing, and that's on top of the natively stronger shields.

Quote:
No, actually you haven't. You made a strong well backed general case for large reactor. For turbo reactor you conceded that a regen delay of 1.2 seconds might make it worth taking turbo when paired with directional shields. In one thread.
It takes a LOT for it to be better. I've done the math several times too. You have to take damage, then stop taking damage, then take more damage before the three second window is up. And this has to happen a few times. And if you go awhile without taking damage, or too little without taking damage, or the damage you take is too much, then large wins anyway. Most of the math I've seen compares waiting six seconds with directional (large) versus waiting 1.2 seconds with directional (turbo). But why did the first guy not wait three? He should have that talent too, not have an unmastered shield component or whatever.


Quite honestly, it's not good to advise anyone to ever use anything but large. A pilot will need to be very experienced to realize that they are in the very niche situation that the others can offer anything of value. It is better in almost every situation.


Why don't you do the math here, if you dispute it?
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."