Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

What GSF REALLY needs


ceryxp's Avatar


ceryxp
06.21.2021 , 05:33 AM | #21
Quote: Originally Posted by Ttoilleekul View Post
A quick comment on zooming out though - I don't think I would really want that, as it would make target's look further away.
I do not mean the same zoom level that we have with our character. I just want to move the camera back a little so it is easier to see what is around our ship.
≈~≈~≈~≈~≈ ≈~≈~≈~≈~≈ ≈~≈~≈~≈~≈ ≈~≈~≈~≈~≈ ≈~≈~≈~≈~≈ ≈~≈~≈~≈~≈
Just your average, opinionated, disabled, queer gaymer.

TrixxieTriss's Avatar


TrixxieTriss
06.22.2021 , 01:43 AM | #22
Quote: Originally Posted by ceryxp View Post
I do not mean the same zoom level that we have with our character. I just want to move the camera back a little so it is easier to see what is around our ship.
That would certainly help
Do you want to be a better objective pvper?
Click here for a “How to PvP Guide”

Ttoilleekul's Avatar


Ttoilleekul
06.22.2021 , 02:26 AM | #23
We have established guys that we can get the devs to change things in GSF. Two very recent examples would be the CQ rewards for GSF, and nerfing of Remote Slicing. Both of which happened due to campaigns / petitions by people on this forum. I am happy to start a petition to have some of these aspects changed, but we need to be very specific and relatively simple with what we ask for. If we ask for a multitude of complex things, it lessons the chances that we get anything. Also the more people put their name to the petition, the more chance it works.

For now I am thinking:
More GSF related Decos (let the devs iron out the particulars of this)
Fleet coms conversions (Fleet coms being able to buy cosmetics?)
Legacy unlock for Cartel ships.
Should I add a Zoom feature?
One thing I have always wanted to see is Co-pilot actor's voices not bound to certain abilities. So we can have the
audio companion of our choice with the ability of our choice.

Less likely but perhaps the most wanted
A new map.

This would be the biggest change to GSF since 5.5, if we ask for all of this. So it really would need your collective support. For now, this discussion thread has enough input to get the ball rolling in a more official manner, I think.
-Luc Nodaro
Link to My Youtube channel for GSF
Always happy to offer coaching / training for GSF.

philwil's Avatar


philwil
06.23.2021 , 12:52 PM | #24
Quote: Originally Posted by ceryxp View Post
I do not mean the same zoom level that we have with our character. I just want to move the camera back a little so it is easier to see what is around our ship.
i do believe now, you can change the distance your camera zooms.
Flux
Snuffleupagus, Sishyafiq, Baby Yodda, and many, many more
23k plus matches under my belt
Please dont take my advice. I know nothing.

Jaykagee's Avatar


Jaykagee
06.29.2021 , 12:28 PM | #25
Please add Ranking and Matchmaking... currently it's very rare to get a match that's evenly paired, at least on Tulak Horde. And it's just as frustrating winning a game without having had a chance to really participate as it is if you're the best on your side having shot down *one* opponent.

Ttoilleekul's Avatar


Ttoilleekul
06.29.2021 , 01:22 PM | #26
Quote: Originally Posted by Jaykagee View Post
Please add Ranking and Matchmaking... currently it's very rare to get a match that's evenly paired, at least on Tulak Horde. And it's just as frustrating winning a game without having had a chance to really participate as it is if you're the best on your side having shot down *one* opponent.
I really don't know how matchmaker could be fixed. I mean granted there are glaring issues with it, like when it puts four solo Aces on one side, or two premades on the same side. But, even if it didn't do those things, I am not convinced we would see significantly more balanced matches. I don't know how you would get matchmaker to figure out people's skill. And in GSF, skill makes the biggest difference. I understand at the moment its based on flying time. So two people with 1000 hours would be considered equal in matchmaker's eyes. But that is simply not true. It would have to base it on average damage and average kills. Legacy wide I guess. I think that would work. Then you could balance the good ,mediocre and bad players. But even then you wouldn't be factoring in ability to get those kills while staying within 5m of a node. Which can turn a match heavily one way or the other. So, I dunno, seems like an impossible task to balance matchmaker if I am honest. But, speaking candidly, you don't need to rely on matchmaker to get wins.
-Luc Nodaro
Link to My Youtube channel for GSF
Always happy to offer coaching / training for GSF.

DarkTergon's Avatar


DarkTergon
06.29.2021 , 01:40 PM | #27
Quote: Originally Posted by Jaykagee View Post
Please add Ranking and Matchmaking... currently it's very rare to get a match that's evenly paired, at least on Tulak Horde. And it's just as frustrating winning a game without having had a chance to really participate as it is if you're the best on your side having shot down *one* opponent.
matchmaking is definitely off, they need to fix it., Maybe even add in solo or grouped options. At least if everyone was solo, there's a better chance (however small) that the teams might be more balanced. It's not fun, spawing in and having a GS one shot you. Or you fire everything into your target, and tickle them, while they fire one, and boom.
They need a bracket, so new players can learn without 'pro' <redacted> players being the *&^& we see at the moment.


Edit: You get people who are supposed lovers of GSF, that keep trying to deny the reality of what most new players face, and that is HUGELY unbalanced matches, when match after match, you get the 'pros' sitting on spawn sites, or holding all 3 'nodes', it wears you down to a point where people don't care. So you get people who could be fans, but instead give up, and sit on nodes, or just fly aimlessly until they crash, when the 'warning' hits, so they can't get kicked.

I think I've seen one match in the last week, that someone actually said, come off the spawn spot, and don't be a <redacted>.
Beware, my friends, as you pass by. As you are now, so once was I
As I'm now, so you must be. Prepare, my friends, to follow me

“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”

Nee-Elder's Avatar


Nee-Elder
07.02.2021 , 12:44 PM | #28
Quote: Originally Posted by sharpenedstick View Post

GSF needs new rewards
imho, just like the regular 'space game on rails' , GSF needs a heckuva lot more than just mere shiny item "rewards"

GSF needs PVE missions (grouped & solo versions) , as well as all PVP maps to be accessible 24/7 as 'training areas' (for practice and learning the zones, hiding spots, power-up locations, etc. ) . Furthermore, it would be nice to have open free-roaming expansive zones for things like in-game player Events and/or Space-Mining (for new rare resources/materials ) .

Oh and also: GSF needs *JOYSTICK SUPPORT* , cuz no legit self-respecting gamer-pilot uses a silly mouse to fly.

Unfortunately, BioWare seemingly has either zero interest or zero budget$ to give GSF much of anything these days---> https://www.swtor.com/legacyofthesith ( no mention of GSF anywhere)
Never tell me the odds! - (Fix SPACE! 4.0ur *Community*)

Ramalina's Avatar


Ramalina
07.02.2021 , 02:36 PM | #29
Quote: Originally Posted by Ttoilleekul View Post
I really don't know how matchmaker could be fixed. I mean granted there are glaring issues with it, like when it puts four solo Aces on one side, or two premades on the same side. But, even if it didn't do those things, I am not convinced we would see significantly more balanced matches. I don't know how you would get matchmaker to figure out people's skill. And in GSF, skill makes the biggest difference. I understand at the moment its based on flying time. So two people with 1000 hours would be considered equal in matchmaker's eyes. But that is simply not true. It would have to base it on average damage and average kills. Legacy wide I guess. I think that would work. Then you could balance the good ,mediocre and bad players. But even then you wouldn't be factoring in ability to get those kills while staying within 5m of a node. Which can turn a match heavily one way or the other. So, I dunno, seems like an impossible task to balance matchmaker if I am honest. But, speaking candidly, you don't need to rely on matchmaker to get wins.
Not quite sure how they do the record keeping, but if you did something like:
  • Matches played (ideally per account, but they probably only have per legacy numbers readily available)
  • Weighted gearing of ships in hangar bar (a straight average is no good because things like tier 4 and 5 on primary, secondary, and system are disproportionately powerful)
  • Accuracy (need a weighting here for gunship/non-gunship) over the last 20 games
  • Medals over the last 20 games,

Then chuck all that into something like
Code:
GSF_Player_rating =  sqrt(Matches_played) + Gear_weight + 2*Recent_accuracy + 1.5*Recent_avg_medals + Recent_avg_damage
I think you could get a decent correlation between statistics that are already tracked in one way or another and player skill. The last 20 game average for accuracy and medals is largely to get at the meta change from 5.5, where old characters might have slightly misleading stats on some ships and as a bonus also captures things like really practicing skills in a ship class, getting mentored, or coming back from a long break, things that cause a potential for significant skill changes over a relatively short number of games. Makes the rating responsive to recent play by having some aspect that measure raw time and gear, but also looks at recent performance so that a vast history of long gone games doesn't mask the current level of skill. I like accuracy and medals over damage and kills because I think that avoids skewing from Dom matches and people that are doing well in a support role, where kills and damage might not capture things that are key to the outcome of a match, like smart beacon bomber use. Though I suppose a average damage over last 20 matches thrown in might make it even better by discounting things like everybody grabbing a bomber and heading to one sat to wait out a loss rather than trying to win. Actually, I like that enough so I'm going to edit my formula above.

Once you have that player rating, the other big step that's needed is balancing within the teams. That means selecting a pool of players big enough to make a match from the queue, then after that pool has filled you balance from that pool, not on a pick by pick basis from the queue. By basically "closing" the pool, and then doing a balance sorting, you avoid the sorts of "all good players on one team" fiascos we sometimes see in GSF. It won't ensure great balance, and if the queue doesn't have a sufficiently even distribution of player rankings before the pool for a match closes you could still get some very one-sided stomps. The tendency though, I think, would be to turn some of your 1000 - 50 and 50 - 3 sorts of matches into things more like 1000 - 270 and 50 -18 matches. Not close by any means, but your worst case matches wouldn't be as bad.

I think both are doable within the scope of things that Bioware can change, and would give us something significantly better than what we currently have. The tricky part is that to make it worthwhile, you'd also have to work out a similar rating system for ground PvP, because it's probably only worth doing as a project if you can improve matchmaking for GSF and Warzones based on the same underlying matchmaking algorithm.

I seem to be taking up matchmaker improvements as my next big GSF improvement lobbying effort. I think they've gotten ship balance to the point where in terms of tackling big GSF projects matchmaking is probably a decent choice to be next in line. Better tutorial and PvE would be nice, but the AI for that seems like it might be out of scope, especially since Squadrons now exists.
"A padawan's master sets their Jedi trial, Rajivari set mine."
- Zhe Lian, Sage.

Ttoilleekul's Avatar


Ttoilleekul
07.03.2021 , 02:58 AM | #30
Quote: Originally Posted by Ramalina View Post
Not quite sure how they do the record keeping, but if you did something like:
  • Matches played (ideally per account, but they probably only have per legacy numbers readily available)
  • Weighted gearing of ships in hangar bar (a straight average is no good because things like tier 4 and 5 on primary, secondary, and system are disproportionately powerful)
  • Accuracy (need a weighting here for gunship/non-gunship) over the last 20 games
  • Medals over the last 20 games,

Then chuck all that into something like
Code:
GSF_Player_rating =  sqrt(Matches_played) + Gear_weight + 2*Recent_accuracy + 1.5*Recent_avg_medals + Recent_avg_damage
I think you could get a decent correlation between statistics that are already tracked in one way or another and player skill. The last 20 game average for accuracy and medals is largely to get at the meta change from 5.5, where old characters might have slightly misleading stats on some ships and as a bonus also captures things like really practicing skills in a ship class, getting mentored, or coming back from a long break, things that cause a potential for significant skill changes over a relatively short number of games. Makes the rating responsive to recent play by having some aspect that measure raw time and gear, but also looks at recent performance so that a vast history of long gone games doesn't mask the current level of skill. I like accuracy and medals over damage and kills because I think that avoids skewing from Dom matches and people that are doing well in a support role, where kills and damage might not capture things that are key to the outcome of a match, like smart beacon bomber use. Though I suppose a average damage over last 20 matches thrown in might make it even better by discounting things like everybody grabbing a bomber and heading to one sat to wait out a loss rather than trying to win. Actually, I like that enough so I'm going to edit my formula above.

Once you have that player rating, the other big step that's needed is balancing within the teams. That means selecting a pool of players big enough to make a match from the queue, then after that pool has filled you balance from that pool, not on a pick by pick basis from the queue. By basically "closing" the pool, and then doing a balance sorting, you avoid the sorts of "all good players on one team" fiascos we sometimes see in GSF. It won't ensure great balance, and if the queue doesn't have a sufficiently even distribution of player rankings before the pool for a match closes you could still get some very one-sided stomps. The tendency though, I think, would be to turn some of your 1000 - 50 and 50 - 3 sorts of matches into things more like 1000 - 270 and 50 -18 matches. Not close by any means, but your worst case matches wouldn't be as bad.

I think both are doable within the scope of things that Bioware can change, and would give us something significantly better than what we currently have. The tricky part is that to make it worthwhile, you'd also have to work out a similar rating system for ground PvP, because it's probably only worth doing as a project if you can improve matchmaking for GSF and Warzones based on the same underlying matchmaking algorithm.

I seem to be taking up matchmaker improvements as my next big GSF improvement lobbying effort. I think they've gotten ship balance to the point where in terms of tackling big GSF projects matchmaking is probably a decent choice to be next in line. Better tutorial and PvE would be nice, but the AI for that seems like it might be out of scope, especially since Squadrons now exists.
I like what you say suggest in principle, but I feel like 20 matches isn't enough to take an average damage figure from. What if someone plays Tensor or Bomber for a bunch of matches and so tanks their average damage. Maybe 50 games? or 100?

I think kills needs to go in there somewhere too. I appreciate what you say about kills and damage, and I think your suggestions for other stats / factors are good, but the fact remains matches are so often (vast majority of the time?) determined by the players getting the most kills? Even in Domination, and especially when someone is doing those kills while on-node.

In order to provide balance, you need to offset players who can rack up large kills counts (be it in TDM or DOM) against a higher average skill level on the other side ( in the event there is no 2nd Ace available to match them against). SO for example, a match where Ace X gets 25 kills but the match ends 50-49, was a balanced match and matchmaker did a good job. The best you can hope for in terms of match balance when the pool has limited options for matchmaker to work with. But if it put the Ace on the other side, then that's a match that would've ended up 50-15.
I can't see how it would ever balance this scenario correctly if it didn't factor in kills?
-Luc Nodaro
Link to My Youtube channel for GSF
Always happy to offer coaching / training for GSF.