-Redesign capture satellites to be less merry go round / monkey chased the weasel. (Sure it can make things a little interesting but honestly how often do fights for satellites degenerate into flying in circles accomplishing nothing, that's not very fun.) It may be interesting to have different satellite designs even in one map, some obstructive types like our current satellites and some more open that look more like a small shipyard repair dock or something to that effect. Give us more diverse objectives to capture/defend and don't just have one type or another on a map.

-Limit mine & sentry spam and keep mines & sentries from being spawned withing X kilometers of spawn jump points. Mines and sentries add a nice dynamic to the game but when it comes to the point where one satellite or spawn point has 10+ sentries & mines littering the hell out of space it gets absurd especially with the addition of fighters.

-Reduce Cluster Missile range from 5km to 4km, it really doesn't feel like a short range missile especially with how short the lock-on is. A mid or long range should beat it to the punch when the mid/long range starts the lock when the short range is still short of its target. A stronger diversity in the ranges brings more tactical thinking to the game rather than everybody rushing to unlock clusters as soon as they can.

-Redesign capture satellites to be less merry go round / monkey chased the weasel. (Sure it can make things a little interesting but honestly how often do fights for satellites degenerate into flying in circles accomplishing nothing, that's not very fun.) It may be interesting to have different satellite designs even in one map, some obstructive types like our current satellites and some more open that look more like a small shipyard repair dock or something to that effect. Give us more diverse objectives to capture/defend and don't just have one type or another on a map.

We are all asking for this.

-Limit mine & sentry spam and keep mines & sentries from being spawned withing X kilometers of spawn jump points. Mines and sentries add a nice dynamic to the game but when it comes to the point where one satellite or spawn point has 10+ sentries & mines littering the hell out of space it gets absurd especially with the addition of fighters.

No. As it is the only reason one would ever use a Charged Plating Strike or an Assault Bomber is to effectively dive in a mine field and take the sat. Making so we can't spawn our mines/drones around objectives would not only make bomber irrelevent but also most heavy DR build.

-Reduce Cluster Missile range from 5km to 4km, it really doesn't feel like a short range missile especially with how short the lock-on is. A mid or long range should beat it to the punch when the mid/long range starts the lock when the short range is still short of its target. A stronger diversity in the ranges brings more tactical thinking to the game rather than everybody rushing to unlock clusters as soon as they can.

Problem with Cluster isn't its range or its lock on. Problem is how easily it can be spammed. IMO it should have the same recharge time as Conc.

I'm not saying sentries and mines should be restricted from satellites, I'm saying they should be restricted from the vicinity of the jump points where people spawn into the actual game. I've run across a few games where all three spawn ins were flooded with sentries and mines making it impossible to do anything. Rare but it does happen.

Well, personally I always believed that all mines should be restricted to one per user (and per variant), only to have a common point between all mines to have a good starting point for mine balancing...

And it does happen that it would make satellites more difficult to flood (thinking of some people that choose the 6 mines build)

About the satellite shape : I agree.

Their highly obstructive nature limits the ship classes able to take down a defender to bomber and GS. If the defender knows what he's doing, then it's hellish to clear a satellite with Scouts and Strikes. A Scout may sometimes be efficient enough, but the current satellite shape is Strike's bane.

Some people want to buff Strike, but frankly as long as the shape will be as now, even if they're buffed to the verge of being OP, they'll still have to use ridiculously complex maneuvers that often includes to momentarily abandon the sat, which sometimes result in a turret spawning... They'll still be hardly worth in domination.

So, anything that is reducing the obstructive nature of objectives is good for me. Even changing the shape of Satellites.

-Limit mine & sentry spam and keep mines & sentries from being spawned withing X kilometers of spawn jump points. Mines and sentries add a nice dynamic to the game but when it comes to the point where one satellite or spawn point has 10+ sentries & mines littering the hell out of space it gets absurd especially with the addition of fighters.

Agreed.

And agreed whatever they can do to clear the bombers out of the game once and for all! I'm not kidding and I have a nicely equipped bomber too, so I know what I'm saying.

I'll also suggest: reduce mines/weapon-drones' ammo to 3 shots/missiles then they will just sit there waiting to be destroyed; reduce mines/weapon-drones' damage to 1/3 of what is now; set weapon-drones' deploy capability to 1 per bomber: I.e.: till the mine/drone is destroyed you can't deploy another; make all drones/probes (not mines) of a bomber going offline if the bomber that deployed them goes more then 3kms away; make bombers only capable to carry light lasers; make all drones/probes self-destruct if the deployer-bomber is destroyed; make bombers (if they don't coordinate togeather) to be the natural meal for scouts and strikers and not the other way around as it is now.

No seroiusly, the most fun and greatly enjoyable game I had was in a match with both teams choosing only scouts and strikers. No matter what level/equipment/whatever you have, those matches always end in a quite balanced result. And since I'm playing (and paying) for having fun, I'm really sick and bored seeing a whole map captured with no options for the other team in less then 1 min and team-deathmatches ending 50 to 10. These things are ridicoulous.

I would like the addition of more objective types and designs. But I like the current system for capturing satellites. A single pilot, if he flies well enough, can keep the enemy from capturing a satellite just by keeping alive. Nothing is more epic then heroically holding of the enemy while outnumbered and flying frantically, (and dying bravely in a while, usually). I was once on the losing side of a domination match 999 to 1000. If one of us could have held out at a satellite one more second, or captured a satellite one second faster, the outcome would have changed.

As a frequent bomber pilot, I want to keep the instant mine activation. Without it, bombers are just a tasty meal for T2 scouts, with it, we can fight back a bit.

As a frequent bomber pilot, I want to keep the instant mine activation. Without it, bombers are just a tasty meal for T2 scouts, with it, we can fight back a bit.

Without it fighters and scouts would be tactically inclined to defend a bomber in team play. It's a bit much that a tailing scout or fighter can be taken down in one or two mines with so little effort simply because of lack of a timer. I understand wanting to be able to defend one's self but there are limits to what's reasonable. It can frequently give a bomber invulnerability or near to it on satellite maps.

I don't know if the guy above is trolling or not but something I forgot to add to comments on mines is it would be nice if there were a 1-2 second arming delay. Currently they act as instant aft missiles if bombers are being chased, which is a bit much. Sure they could have an IFF in them for immediate deployment but there's still a vicinity issue with blast radius if you want to get into the realistic things in star wars of all places. It's about balance.

They already have an arming delay -.- L2P

EDIT : It,s a deployment delay, once deployed it explode instantly. This deployment delay is what keep the mines from becoming aft missiles. A good pilot can explode them or avoid them completely.

They already have an arming delay -.- L2P

 

EDIT : It,s a deployment delay, once deployed it explode instantly. This deployment delay is what keep the mines from becoming aft missiles. A good pilot can explode them or avoid them completely.

I've hit the boosters and burned away as soon as they pop up plenty of times only to be hit in the *** by them so that's not exactly true. If it's out in the open and you're trailing 4k behind sure easy enough but if you're stuck in tight spaces such as satellites or satellites burrowed within asteroids it becomes a very big problem, bombers become invulnerable and other bombers are essentially denied entry.

I've hit the boosters and burned away as soon as they pop up plenty of times only to be hit in the *** by them so that's not exactly true. If it's out in the open and you're trailing 4k behind sure easy enough but if you're stuck in tight spaces such as satellites or satellites burrowed within asteroids it becomes a very big problem, bombers become invulnerable and other bombers are essentially denied entry.

Try to fly a Charged Plating bomber instead. You go where you want. If the enemy team don't fly BLC scout or gunships you're sure to cap or at least force 4 or 5 of them to try to get you off their sat.

There is one simple thing they can do. Ships come with 10,000 points ready to distribute OR have some unlocks already open.

The barrier to entry into GSF is gigantic for new players. No one is asking for a handout but give new players a chance to buy some upgrades.

There is one simple thing they can do. Ships come with 10,000 points ready to distribute OR have some unlocks already open.

 

The barrier to entry into GSF is gigantic for new players. No one is asking for a handout but give new players a chance to buy some upgrades.

I think this is a great idea. GSF has been around long enough that this doesn't cheapen anyone's investment. Make it a starter quest or something.

There is one simple thing they can do. Ships come with 10,000 points ready to distribute OR have some unlocks already open.

 

The barrier to entry into GSF is gigantic for new players. No one is asking for a handout but give new players a chance to buy some upgrades.

That's not really an issue, I took the stock ships on a new character and scored top damage, kills, and objectives. There's just a short but sharp learning curve for new people who just start off and don't really know what they're doing yet. If anything that will merely serve as a crutch and inhibit some learning to a point.

I think this is a great idea. GSF has been around long enough that this doesn't cheapen anyone's investment. Make it a starter quest or something.

There is a tutorial already in place that gives the basics of the game, but I'm guessing most don't use it. It wont teach you how to out fly an opponent but it gets you on your feet so you aren't completely lost. The rest comes by playing, observing, and reflecting.

It's still helpful. There are many components that grant critical advantages that aren't default selections. If a new pilot comes in, will he/she be naturally attracted to improving what they've got, or try the new components that are just better than the defaults? The easier they can access pretty basic needs like missile break or armor pierce, the better.

I'd argue that a better request would be to have upgrades simply removed since they really don't offer any unique style and just let people pick whatever load they want. And even then you'll have "best setups." This would serve for easier balance passes.

I'd argue that a better request would be to have upgrades simply removed since they really don't offer any unique style and just let people pick whatever load they want. And even then you'll have "best setups." This would serve for easier balance passes.

Upgrades are part of the RPG experience built into GSF.

You can try and fake it all you want, but there is a vast different between an upgraded ship and one without. A SMALL hand up for new players would never be a bad thing. I have had several friends start playing GSF and the first thing they always say is how night and day it is playing a vanilla ship and one even partially upgraded. I played from the start so for me, its not a big deal. You forget how brutal it is for new players.

Can we please get away from the "well I did it so everyone else should have to slog it out too" attitude?

All that said, your idea of just offering all upgrades would be better than what we have now.

GSF needs a PvE alternative, less expensive last tier upgrades and a few more game modes.

The 1st one sounds unlikely but somewhat possible.

The second would diminish the one thing keeping the lights on (the ship reqs to fleet reqs)

The third would require quite a bit of work, depending on the mode/modes even more so then PvE so it's very unlikely.

I think this is a great idea. GSF has been around long enough that this doesn't cheapen anyone's investment. Make it a starter quest or something.

That or at least taking out the cost to open a new component. I find this the most annoying for any new ship (and I alt a lot, so I run into it all the time). This makes it easier for people to try things out on a ship and lets you actually invest in those components. A little boost for how slow things start out would be nice... I pretty much don't play new ships I unlock until I get a few dailies and weeklies out of the way so I have things unlocked that I want.

About the satellite shape : I agree.

Their highly obstructive nature limits the ship classes able to take down a defender to bomber and GS. If the defender knows what he's doing, then it's hellish to clear a satellite with Scouts and Strikes. A Scout may sometimes be efficient enough, but the current satellite shape is Strike's bane.

Some people want to buff Strike, but frankly as long as the shape will be as now, even if they're buffed to the verge of being OP, they'll still have to use ridiculously complex maneuvers that often includes to momentarily abandon the sat, which sometimes result in a turret spawning... They'll still be hardly worth in domination.

While I don't disagree with anything you said I've often thought part of the problem was the very small capture radius which doesn't play well at all with most of the blaster options available to strikers, the best of which have high tracking penalties. To some degree the same is true for scouts since BLC is really the only viable blaster for that. Maybe if they lowered tracking penalties for all blasters (except BLC) it would help?

For example give RFLs the same tracking penalty of BLCs; LLCs get the current tracking penalty of RFLs, Quads/LC get the current LLC tracking penalty; HLC get the current tracking penalty of Quads.

I don't really feel that the satellite shape is a problem, even for strikes.

Go vertical, and it offers no more line of sight protection than a sphere or cube that occludes the same area.

Very few people do this when fighting on sats, but that's a lack of piloting skill, not an issue of sat design.

Some new GSF content would be nice, particularly a new game mode or two.

Might also be a good idea to change the default component choices on ships so that a beginner doesn't have components that they should switch out of as soon as possible.

If I'd were to put simply why I think the shape is so detrimental to Strikes I'd say that it has to be compared to a Gunship.

Both a Gunship and Strike (in a striky build, not a scouty one) are absolutely similar in regards of a satellite. If they want to have enough punch, they must exit the capture range. If they want to be in the capture range, they only have cannons.

The difference between both is that the Strike can't perform correctly, even at distance, because it can be denied the use of his missile trivially, making it perform mediocrily at most.

And going vertical, will work only on those doing circles around the lower part. A real evasive target use the solar panels, the antennas... Which will deny the Strike its ability to launch a missile.

On the other hand, the Gunship from distance just has to not release the shot at the wrong time. It doesn't matter for the Gunship if its target decides to do turns around solar panels. He just has to wait out for when he won't be behind those. For this very reason, he doesn't have to care too much about going vertical even if the target do dumb circles.

At the moment, against a real evasive target, the satellite acts like a grid or successive bars, an area with plenty of litlle object obstructing LoS periodically. Used correctly, it nullifies the use of almost all missiles.

In other words, Strikes just doesn't suffer from the same level of hindrance created by odd shapes. If the satellitte were to be changed into a ball, the Gunship performance would likely change only by a little. The Strike performance would be fabulously improved.

As far as lowering tracking penalties... Yes it would help. But it would help anyone, and not adresses the efficiency of striky Strikes particularly. And after all there's the maneuver work around, so I'm not sure it would make any ship significantly better.

And to be frank, I'm quite okay with the tracking penalties as they are now. I don't expect long range cannons to be good in turning fights, and they (penalties) are high enough so that in high turning fights, only a Scout can do something thanks to the help of systems. Actually, I wouldn't like that LLC becomes as efficient as BLC is now, I find abnormal for cannons to be efficient on its own in the particular situations of high turning fights... ...I'd prefer that systems are used to mostly unlock these situations rather than cheezy burst like it's used with BLC (because BLC is just soo good that you don't even need that system ability in the first palce)

And after all, these fights are Scout territory, I'm okay that Strikes may end not that fitted for it.

I don't really feel that the satellite shape is a problem, even for strikes.

 

Go vertical, and it offers no more line of sight protection than a sphere or cube that occludes the same area.

That's not quite true. More importantly, by going vertical you almost have to hold still, so you'd better hope that you have real numbers on the sat. You have to be almost directly below the satellite for it to be flat for you- if you go a bit north, south, east, or west, then the massive pillar hanging down provides LOS.

If you are beneath the satellite looking up, you have a VERY small cone from which you can attack everything on the bottom. It's really little. Mostly what you'll get out of this is a couple seconds of firing, which a ship can avoid by going topside.

Meanwhile, the other big deal? Is the vanes. These provide convenient missile lock breaks to a ship on either side who just dips under or above them, and really shut down anyone approaching vertically. Unlike a sphere or cube, you don't have to fully commit to that side, just dance in and out quickly.

Being on top is similar, though it offers less defense. If you are anywhere but the middle, the large top protuberances can offer LOS, and so can the smaller top parts.

There are some solid pilots that would like satellites to offer less defenses by being less geometrically interesting. I'm not really one of them. I'm more on the side of "maybe it shouldn't be so hard to hit with a laser at deflection" or "maybe there should be a little more aoe". I think the lamest change was making mine explosions respect LOS- we were fine until then.

But I would rather have no change to satellites than overly aggressive changes. I think that the really deviant strategies of "scout can hide forever" that we saw early on are mostly gone.

Might also be a good idea to change the default component choices on ships so that a beginner doesn't have components that they should switch out of as soon as possible.

Agreed. I think the easiest thing here would actually be to reduce the unlock cost on ALL components to 100, or free. That way a new player would quickly realize he can try out a WHOLE BUNCH of combinations for almost nothing, but that he needs to invest in one once he decides. Right now, it's cheaper to get the first upgrade on your RFL than it is to switch to a good gun, and once you do that you think of the ship as "having RFL", because switching that makes you wrong- you are way less likely to try, and the fact that you need to pay so much and play so long to try out every component means that only veterans have ever done that. Experimenting with every component should be something a pilot does right away, abetted by a cheap or free cost, rather than something you get around to after mastering a ship entirely and then mastering a whole other component of the same type.

And you could just add ship req to ships that unlocked them corresponding to that amount, and it would probably not cause any negative waves, while being overall a great change. I'd also like to reduce the stock damage on pods but make them armor piercing, then make what is now the "ignores armor" upgrade into an "increases damage" upgrade. This would leave mastered pods the same, while giving all two shippers a ship and a weapon that can actually ignore armor.