For the last few months, I've been trying to make contact, through private messages, with any of the community team regarding GSF.

 

After my encouraging discussion with Jesse Sky at the Anaheim Celebration Cantina event, I continued to ping members of the community team, to see if anything had come of that discussion.

 

Last week, I got a response from NickAvola. I didn't say anything then, because I wanted to make sure he was cool with me sharing that information with the rest of you, or to give him the opportunity to make a post himself.

 

Today he let me know that he's fine with me sharing out the info, along with a little bit more encouraging news.

 

Here's the first response I received:

 

Howdy, Nemarus!

 

Unfortunately, I don't have much information on your follow-up with the honorable Mr. Sky.

 

I can, however, share with you that one of my more recent projects was a detailed report on player-suggested QOL improvements for GSF gameplay. These were collected from the past few months of feedback from within the GSF forums, so know that the Development team is aware of many of your Community's longstanding QOL requests.

 

As an avid GSF enthusiast (I have a somewhat-unhealthy obsession with both ground and space PvP), many of these are improvements that I myself would also be excited to see. I have yet to hear back any substantial Developer feedback, although -- granted -- it has only been less than a week so no serious worries there. I will get back to you as soon as I hear anything -- positive or negative -- from the higher-ups.

 

Until then, I look forward to reading more from the GSF forum's constructive and helpful commentary (not to mention making use of the odd piloting tip for my own interests ).

 

Best,

Nick Avola

 

After I pinged him again this week, I've now heard back this response:

 

Hey there, Nemarus!

 

I have no problem with you passing along the info I sent you. I tend to leave the forum-posting to Eric and Tait, since my primary responsibilities take place behind-the-scenes (and are more analytical/administrative in nature). Feel free to share it with your friends/forum colleagues!

 

I have been notified by one of the senior GSF designers, indicating that he is taking a closer look at the suggested changes. He will be getting back to me as soon as possible with feedback. So no major updates for you as yet, but stay tuned. I'm still plugging away for y'all!

 

Best,

Nick

 

 

Obviously, this is encouraging news. First, it is great that Nick took the time to collect and aggregate our feedback, to present to the devs, and we should all be grateful for him doing so. Second, it's great that there still exists such a person as a "senior GSF designer" and that he is taking a look at the suggested changes.

 

Exactly what suggested changes did Nick bring to the devs? We don't know. I trust that it will not be anything too dramatic, especially given the "quality of life" phrase Nick used in the first response.

 

But personally, at this point, I would welcome almost any change. The current meta, while relatively solid, is long in the tooth, and we know that certain aspects of the game are very unfriendly to new pilots. At this point, I am ready for GSF to evolve--whether subtly or significantly.

 

Let's all keep our fingers crossed! And let's thank Nick for looking out for us.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Nemarus

Oh dear, the BioWare people DO read our forums? Then they've seen all our little fights and bickering... *hides head in shame*

 

On a more serious note, this is solid, positive news.

 

As for QOL, the biggest thing I could think of that they could do would be to add some kind of expanded teaching tools. Even if there were just a way to "challenge" a single player so you could go into a non-no-holds-barred area with someone and teach them 1 on 1. That alone would make teaching new pilots something that could be done, with them in the cockpit.

 

Balance pass stuff would be nice, and I of course have my own biases there... I honestly think most of it would be related to armor and armor ignore, and try to introduce a "gray area" in there instead of just have a rather binary "armor/no armor" and "armor piercing 100%/no armor piercing". If nothing else, I do think it would help diversity if armor piercing wasn't quite as necessary as it currently is. But if they didn't get to a balance pass, I'd largely be OK with that.

 

I'd be super enthused if we ended up with a 1v1 challenge mode and a new map or two.

Thanks for staying on them Nem, and for posting this. It's a little thing, but it's something, which is more than we've had in...too long. A reason to be tentatively optimistic, for once.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LvTfjnEbHk

 

 

(Santa = Head Developer of GSF, M and M's= GSF players )

 

No but seriously... So very very happy to hear this, I almost cried... THEY CARE... THEY CARE

 

Also QoL

 

Missile QoL changes (everything except clusters are highly unreliable/ useless)

 

Bug Fixes (Sabo Probe turning prevention being turned off by picking up the Slow. EMP Field on the nova being reduced in size by what it was last reported as... I am sure Others may name a few more)

 

Short Range lasers QoL changes (Rapid fire, and Light Lasers, these are very rarely used in top play, and the 2 starting ships start with one of them... the most useless of the 2 I might add)

While I remain somewhat optimistic, I'm hoping the devs don't read way into the forums that much for suggested fixes or it could result in some bad changes overall. Tweaks are better instead of big swings. I feel like that's what happens in ground pvp and hope that gsf can avoid that kind of thing. Little balancing would be nice, but I still would like to see some new maps/ships and other customizations to rejuvenate gsf.

Well, that's encouraging. I'm sure it won't amount to much for a long while (since it's hardly anything being tested on the PTS, for instance), but that's a whole lot more than we seem to have been getting as of late. I would love to see continuing bug fixes at the least, and continuing tweaks to the meta of the game.

 

Sure, I'd love more maps and such, but I would love that for ground pvp. Both types could use a little love there.

Great news, but also scary. The game has really good meta balance right now and it would be a shame if they changed anything about the meta ships. I do hope they try to give the weaker ships a slight buff and add more maps.

Great news, but also scary. The game has really good meta balance right now and it would be a shame if they changed anything about the meta ships. I do hope they try to give the weaker ships a slight buff and add more maps.

 

I don't disagree, but at the same time, I think that if they don't do anything to address accessibility--especially in terms of making the starter ships not quite such traps--there is a risk that GSF queues on every server may be dead within the year.

 

The current GSF is really fun for us die-hard veterans, but we all know it's not so fun for the general SWTOR population.

 

On the other hand, if they do make GSF a bit more accessible, then they have a good chance of getting the swell of new SWTOR players (that come from Episode 7 hype) to try it and stick with it.

 

Also ... I don't know about you ... but I really wouldn't mind the meta getting shaken up. I feel like we've played the current game to its fullest potential, given the current population. Even if some of my pet builds were nerfed, I'd enjoy learning how to excel in a new meta. One with better missiles and/or a wider variety of feasible primary weapons.

 

Even something as simple as making RFL, Ion Missile, and/or Plasma Railgun viable would be a welcome change.

QoL sounds like bugfixes. Edited May 21, 2015 by ALaggyGrunt

Thanks for all your efforts Nem, they are greatly appreciated.

QoL sounds like bugfixes.

 

Well tooltips and broken abilities getting attention would be nice and falls under QoL nicely.

 

It might also cover minor numerical tweaks such as were discussed in Verain's thread about easy fixes. That wouldn't really change the meta, or fix ships that are too broken to be in the meta. It would however make them noticeably less broken than they currently are. That's a good start.

If they don't do something about the controls it won't matter much. I shouldn't have to mess with third party software to try and fix the fact that their camera starts at ludicrous speed and goes up from there.

If they don't do something about the controls it won't matter much. I shouldn't have to mess with third party software to try and fix the fact that their camera starts at ludicrous speed and goes up from there.

 

 

At the risk of taking this thread in an inappropriate direction.... huh?

 

camera speed?

3rd party software?

 

I've no clue what you mean by these, as I have never had any real issues or complaints about the controls in GSF.

If they don't do something about the controls it won't matter much. I shouldn't have to mess with third party software to try and fix the fact that their camera starts at ludicrous speed and goes up from there.

 

Sounds to me like the dpi (or sensitivity) of your mouse is too high and needs to be tuned down.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Danalon

Just saw this thread. Actually a little shocked to see some news from Bioware about GSF. I haven't flown since the background patches in 2.9 or 2.10ish. If they actually commit to GSF again I might fly once again :

Is there any news on a possibility to get more maps in GSF.?

My to-do list, even though the OP said something was mentioned:

 

General:

1: Don't try too much change at once. Unpredictable things happen when you make a lot of changes, which can make a really big mess. Even improving network performance could make a really big difference to everything involving guns in dogfights, because targets would actually be where the game said they were.

2: Expand the tutorial. Soften the learning curve, because the jump from "Whee, I can shoot stationary targets!" to "What's a gunship? What's a mine? Why are there red glowy things around the sat? Deaddeaddeaddeaddead." is pretty brutal. If something isn't done about the learning curve, this game will die for lack of new blood.

3: Color-blind friendly mode. The big things are: "my shields/hull," and red/green boxes around friend/foe.

4: UDP networking if possible. TCP + lag isn't going to work here. I think it was so bad once I got shot by an invisible battlescout.

 

Shields:

Quick-charge is way too squishy to be serious on a scout, especially now that feedback shield is that much stronger. On a striker, the only reason to take them seriously is as an engine component in disguise.

Distortion field is so broken, it's used in 90% of the ships it can be fitted to. A big part of what makes it broken is the very limited selection of anti-evasion components. There are missiles, but with the lock break, anything but cluster spam isn't going to seriously threaten a ship with double lock breaks.

In general, with the snare/drain/no-regen/piercing components being so heavily favored, avoiding these effects is a lot better than being hit by them, so still expect a lot of distortion fields. I'd like to see a game where the other primary shield components can reduce or ignore some of these effects.

With the emphasis on burst damage, your reactor choices are: large. Reducing burst damage capabilities and increasing regeneration delay on shields would make burn effects and the other two shield reactors a lot more interesting choices, because there would be that many more running fights.

Charged plating is pretty binary: either it's totally effective, or totally fail. The component choices with armor piercing should start with at least some armor penetration.

 

 

Strikers:

Serious mobility issues.

No components which seriously threaten any of the three other classes.

T1 striker lacks close-quaters anti-armor guns or serious gun component buffs.

T2 striker honestly doesn't need the capacitor secondary as much as a shield secondary, especially if bigger missiles quit being bad jokes in serious games.

There's room on the T1 striker for a primary which has an ammo pool instead of energy cost, which would let it fire guns even when totally drained of energy.

 

Gunships:

These stack far too well until whoever is trying to kill them gets on voice chat. There was an 8v8 scout/gunship match which was supposed to happen, and I'm not sure what ever came of it.

 

Missiles:

Heavy missiles are too slow to get a lock on a highly evasive target. The answer to this could be to just make them lock faster, or make ships which can lock missiles faster (missile striker).

EMP missile has too little range and too much lockon time for sweeping mines on a hostile sat, especially if there's a hostile gunship in the area. If it could be dumbfired until it either hit something or ran out to max range, it would be a lot less of a deathtrap.

Firing point-blank (about the only way to land a heavy missile) is totally useless against someone with fast enough reflexes. There's a guy on the Bastion who can avoid a sab probe even if you throw it from 500m. Consistently.

 

Torpedoes:

Not sure how this would work lore-wise, but it would be interesting if these could be dumbfired with no target selected and ignore terrain. The big use for this mode would be to dislodge a tick bomber: a torp would be too slow to hit a moving target, but for those bombers that slip into a crack and not move, well... not so good any more.

The other thing you could do is have them remember the missile lock, so you don't have to complete a full lock unless you target something else before trying to hit your target again.

 

Thruster components:

With the emphasis on mobility, almost everyone takes regen thrusters. They're just a little too strong.

 

Guns:

There's plenty of anti-armor, but nowhere near enough anti-evasion.

 

Engine components:

Barrel roll offers too much mobility + a lock break, so even nerfed, it's a lot better choice than the converter components on strikers. Shield piercing makes the shield power converter really weak, and running dogfights mean strikers tend not to run out of weapon power anyway. On gunships, the lock break + mobility is essential for keeping the ship alive, so it's a better choice than weapon power converter.

Interdiction drive is weak: too long cooldown, high activation cost, no lock break. If it gave passive resistance to snare, it would be a lot more interesting component to use against interdiction mines/drones and other snare weapons.

 

Sound:

The I-just-got-slugged sound should sound a lot like the hull breach sound from Faster than Light.

Edited May 22, 2015 by ALaggyGrunt

Personally I Believe the meta is good where it is now, I hope no real changes are made to current abilities except for fixes to those that are broken right now such as sabo probe's T5. changing any one component can have a lasting affect on how things are played on to many levels for nerfs to any components. What we really need done is a better Tutorial to help those that are coming into GSF for the first time, so they have a better understanding and less of a learning curve for when they get into GSF for their 1st match.

 

Edit: oh I almost forgot New Maps would be great as well.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Toraak

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LvTfjnEbHk

Also QoL

 

I am really gonna get on you for this. This is, if not a pet peeve, at least a domesticated peeve that I feed at times.

 

Missile QoL changes (everything except clusters are highly unreliable/ useless)

 

See, this is not at all "quality of life". What you are asking for, is a BUFF TO MISSILES.

 

BUFF

 

BUFF

 

 

Not "quality of life". Yes, some quality of life changes are also buffs. Ex: adding a UI element that gave you a better heads up as to whether a thermite lock was going to drop for an enemy that looks like it will not do that, would be a quality of life change that was also a buff. Fixing that behavior would be a bug fix, that was also a buff (a larger one, in fact).

 

But "concussions are tuned too low" and "Ion missile is terrible" are not "quality of life". Enemies distorting missiles constantly is a design decision with serious balance ramifications, and none of that is "quality of life".

 

Note: I agree that missiles need buffs, as you well know. But don't call them QoL changes. That distorts what you mean, it's dishonest.

 

Bug Fixes (Sabo Probe turning prevention being turned off by picking up the Slow. EMP Field on the nova being reduced in size by what it was last reported as... I am sure Others may name a few more)

 

The sab probe thing is unquestionably a bugfix, because the talent breaks the whole move, and we know this is not intended. The EMP field we technically aren't sure if the bug is the tooltip being too large or the move being too small- but, I mean, it's the latter. We even had that as a buff, with communications, before the presumed accidental reversion of the radius. Even post-buff, it wasn't an amazing move, but it was definitely providing more interesting play.

 

Short Range lasers QoL changes (Rapid fire, and Light Lasers, these are very rarely used in top play, and the 2 starting ships start with one of them... the most useless of the 2 I might add)

 

Again, not QoL. These lasers need buffs. Well, rapid fire lasers need buffs, I can state with absolute certainty (and I have backed this up with math)- light lasers I personally feel could use a small buff, and I think a decent number of players feel that way, but it's nowhere near as solidly certain as RFL. But these lasers have great quality of life- they do exactly what they say they do, they are well documented, and they aren't in any way annoying or frustrating to use (except for their power level). When you click on enemies, they take damage or not, your weapon power drains at a predictable rate, everything is both functioning as documented (no bugs) and the UI expresses this to you, and you don't need to do any work behind the scenes to make them work (fine QoL).

 

 

 

 

Example Quality of Life changes:

 

> Railguns begin at max zoom.

> Visible "miss" text when you aimed correctly but your shot missed do to combat rolls (player aimed correctly, character missed)

> Colors not explicitly designed to grief the four main types of red-green colorblindness.

> Numbers available (speed, position, health, mana/breath, etc)

> Combat Log

> Artificial Horizon to complement the 2D map we have

> Visible allied health bars

 

 

Some of these would provide small buffs, some would just enhance the experience and help players learn to fly faster, but none would change the meta or fix components that are too strong or too weak.

 

Here's some that would be more arguable:

> Button to target "nearest guy currently trying to missile lock me"

> Icons distinguishing ship classes

> Button to "target nearest scout", "target nearest strike", "target nearest bomber", and the only one that could meaningfully effect play, "target nearest gunship".

 

These are all QoL changes, but they could also shift the meta somewhat. But what the UI is good at expressing, and what is not, definitely have effects on what ships are good.

 

----

 

Tweaks are better instead of big swings. .... Little balancing would be nice, but I still would like to see some new maps/ships and other customizations to rejuvenate gsf.

 

Agree totally on the first point: I would like to see more incremental changes. My big fear is that the meta becomes all about one ship type, and there's no way to counter it. For instance, if they nerf the battle scout down to where the pike is, the game would become Gunship Festival instantly, etc. That's part of why I'm in favor of bigger buffs where it looks safer, the strike fighters.

 

The second point, is a false dichotomy. If they task a guy with pvp balance, it's not like that guy was just as likely to be making a new map, and now we don't get that. The balance is not trivial, but it's nowhere near as pricey as new content. New maps would do the most to make the game fresh, but a few balance tweaks would go pretty far as well.

 

------

I don't disagree, but at the same time, I think that if they don't do anything to address accessibility--especially in terms of making the starter ships not quite such traps--there is a risk that GSF queues on every server may be dead within the year.

 

Nah, I'm not worried about that. That's like, when someone comes in and predicts how everyone else in the world will react to something, or claims to speak for just, everyone.

 

That's not to say I don't want exactly those changes- I do- but I don't think we'd be dealing with dead queues because RFL is trashcan. It's terrible that it is, but it's not going to kill queues or whatever. It would have done so long before now.

 

The current GSF is really fun for us die-hard veterans, but we all know it's not so fun for the general SWTOR population.

 

I disagree with this on two points:

 

1- I don't think that's accurate.

2- I don't care.

 

The first point is, I think a lot of players like GSF, and we see pretty reasonable queues on all servers at many times to back that up. A lot of players like GSF, but they don't all post in the forums. The second is, the pool of MMO players in inherently not going to be that great at a game like GSF, which offers mechanics very much divorced from it. I would hate a game that bends over backwards to appeal to people who can't pilot ships, for instance. Making the game more approachable doesn't necessarily mean that the bulk of SWTOR's playerbase will jump on it. Heck, putting a Clash of Clans minigame in SWTOR would probably get a lot of participation, and money, but changing a niche game into a non-niche game is the worst thing possible. Look at how poorly the space pve was received, despite being a very good implementation of what it was trying to do. GSF is good *because* it doesn't pull punches by pretending that three space doesn't exist, by giving people infinite turning radius, fixed velocity, and infinite acceleration, by giving them auto-target. It's not the ground game in space, and, while that would likely be more popular, screw that noise.

 

On the other hand, if they do make GSF a bit more accessible, then they have a good chance of getting the swell of new SWTOR players (that come from Episode 7 hype) to try it and stick with it.

 

Back to agreeing with you. I thought it was excellent that you got the response you did (and honest of them), but frankly, I don't find the metric thing compelling. Games that I see as successful, industry wide, no matter how in depth or shallow, have ways to get you to understand almost all aspects of them. Most don't go with a queueable tutorial that pops open a full screen window every four seconds while you are trying to boost, giving you a wiki page to read.

 

 

Also ... I don't know about you ... but I really wouldn't mind the meta getting shaken up.

 

Bite yo tongue! I'd like a deeper, better meta. I wouldn't want one different just because this one is "stale". The chess meta is stale, but chess is still good. If their changes broaden the meta to include the weaker ships by making them less weak, or reducing the power of the generally recognized as good components, then those are good changes. If the meta becomes all about a smaller number of ships, then no, it's a bad change. The change needs to make it better, not just different. Games with hyperactive devs and gear treadmills get to change the meta wildly every four months (and those changes are usually random and bad). GSF is clearly not aiming for that "lottery meta" like WoW arena does, and I'd be sad if it did.

 

Even something as simple as making RFL, Ion Missile, and/or Plasma Railgun viable would be a welcome change.

 

Agreed, but these are very safe changes. Taking stuff that isn't being used and improving it is normally safe. Note also that Ion Missile was buffed (and nerfed, probably by accident) and plasma was buffed (but not enough for viability). If we'd had devs working at this, we probably would have seen a few more changes already.

> Colors not explicitly designed to grief the four main types of red-green colorblindness.

 

For me flying Shipyards map is just terrible (specially Deathmatch, it feels somehow more cluttered). Sometimes I have to literally squint or shake my head to be able to see what's going on.

 

Some changes (nerfs) I would like to see that could improve QoL for new pilots:

 

- Gunships stack too well. I'll start by saying GSs are not overpowered, do they have some components that are too good? sure, but any good pilot can shut down any good GS pilot, so they basically keep each other busy. The problem with GSs is that they stack really well, IMO this is because they are easy to use. A nerf to weapon power management could help and it would also make Weapon Power Converter a viable choice.

 

The following changes also come down to being to easy to use:

 

- Cluster Missiles: increased cooldown or decreased damage.

- Burst Laser Cannons: Shotguns in space? you barely need to aim with this.

- Distortion Field: Increased cooldown would fix the missile breaker part of the component, but IMO it also needs less passive evasion while providing higher evasion rating on activation/

- Bombers: Like GSs, they stack too well. I have no suggestion for this, maybe reduce the range on their drones (minelayers are ok)

 

A great change that would really help everyone is not to have damage numbers appear exactly on top of the target you are shooting at. If you are using any targeted weapon other than Railguns and BLC (slow rate of fire) your damage numbers simply obscure your target, resulting at times hard to appreciate if the target is trying to maneuver in any way.

Edited May 23, 2015 by DresG

For me flying Shipyards map is just terrible (specially Deathmatch, it feels somehow more cluttered). Sometimes I have to literally squint or shake my head to be able to see what's going on.

 

Some changes (nerfs) I would like to see that could improve QoL for new pilots:

 

STOP IT

 

That's not "quality of life". Your list is a giant stack of meta-sweeping nerfs.

 

- Gunships stack too well.

 

No, they don't, and coming into an announcement of interesting stuff thread and whining about gunships is crap behavior.

 

Barrel roll is fine. Gunships are (mostly) fine, and, if tuned down, would need to be along with other top-meta tuning, such as nerfing scout burst. You do bring some of that up here, but labelling it as "QoL" is totally bunk.

 

IMO this is because they are easy to use.

 

Not content with asking for the meta to be redesigned from the ground up and labelling sweeping nerf requests to your hated class as "quality of life", you know begin smack-talk towards gunship pilots in an underhanded way.

 

- Bombers: Like GSs, they stack too well. I have no suggestion for this, maybe reduce the range on their drones (minelayers are ok)

 

Why are girl bombers OP but boy bombers fine? What meta are you playing in? Why are these labelled QoL?

whining about gunships is crap behavior.

 

Barrel roll is fine. Gunships are (mostly) fine, and, if tuned down, would need to be along with other top-meta tuning, such as nerfing scout burst. You do bring some of that up here, but labelling it as "QoL" is totally bunk.

 

Not content with asking for the meta to be redesigned from the ground up and labelling sweeping nerf requests to your hated class as "quality of life", you know begin smack-talk towards gunship pilots in an underhanded way.

How is saying GSs are not overpowered considered whining? I guess I forgot you always start whining when other people so much as mention GS and nerf within a single post. The changes I mentioned are aimed at powerful components (which are also the easiest to use), not so they become useless (thus really altering the meta), but to make them not the obvious choice for each ship when available. I did forget to mention TT and BO.

 

You seem like someone who needs to get therapy for PPD (paranoid). Get on that, bro.

 

Why are these labelled QoL?

They can provide a healthier GSF environment.

The problem is obvious Verain, we don't have a good dedicated GSF wide balance thread on page 1 anymore, so balance suggestions/arguments are landing here instead. Ditto for content threads and content suggestions.

 

I guess we could bump/necro old ones?

 

I don't really feel like making a new one, there's not really much new to discuss.

The changes I mentioned are aimed at powerful components (which are also the easiest to use), not so they become useless (thus really altering the meta), but to make them not the obvious choice for each ship when available.

 

The changes you posted are reasonably incendiary, and gutting top components is poor balance philosophy anyway. The goal of component diversity is a good one, of course, but there's a lot of UP components that need help most- in many cases their stated or implied function would, if properly balanced, actually get the meta to where it would be healthier (and is presumably intended).

 

Importantly, however, saying that "gunships r ez" is pretty much just naked aggression toward gunship pilots- classic class bashing and nerf herding.

 

I did forget to mention TT and BO.

 

Oh, so your random, off the cuff bash post that tries to encompass the entire GSF meta by crapping on things you don't like, was written so hastily that you left off TT by accident?

 

You seem like someone who needs to get therapy for PPD (paranoid). Get on that, bro.

 

Is this worthless ad hominem (and baseless accusation of mental illness, combined with an overly familiar coolguy signoff) a sign of your general lack of points and inability to argue based on points, as most ad hominem attacks are, or just something else you cobbled together and smashed the post button on? I guess we won't know until you get back to us later.

 

 

 

They can provide a healthier GSF environment.

 

 

No, they are dramatic balance changes. You know what the phrase is for balance changes? It's called "balance changes". Not "quality of life", which explicitly does not mean that. That's what the term means. This is a serious communication issue, because no matter what term a dev uses, players come in and pretend they are talking about game balance. It's tired, and it's wrong, and it's never even been right.

 

Quality of life is "you don't need to poison your weapons every time you zone into molten core". It is not "change the top meta ships in ways that unpredictable mess everything up, because it improves the quality of life of the pvp opponents. Incorrect!

Edited May 23, 2015 by Verain

Just some comments on previous posts. I'm not sure why people want more nerfs on barrel roll when its balanced fine. With regards to distortion field the thing you have to consider is this. Once its gone then here comes missile spam. People will spam missiles especially clusters. Not sure if people want the game to become that. Far as bombers go, imo the 100% accuracy on railgun drones needs fixed. If slugs have to abide by rngs so should they.

 

Bomber//gunship walls, yes I know people consider them a pain. Some of it is teamwork though. If your team isn't working together you're going to lose.