criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
Felucia Transmission
No Match for a Good Blaster

Starfighter Assault Thread

Prev13456736
hsf_
1855 posts Member
edited November 2018
So for those of you who enjoy Starfighter Assault, do you feel it needs any changes?

I personally have a couple of gripes, but I find this game mode to be fairly well balanced, especially when comparing it to Galactic Assault. As I said, I do have a couple of gripes and I think I'll start by mentioning the "looping" that goes on. It can be endless at times and it's often whoever breaks off first, dies first. I have a suggestion to fix this somewhat, but I'll talk about that at the end.

Hero ships - I find myself getting hounded as soon as I pick a hero ship. Especially an easily recognisable one such as the Millennium Falcon or Darth Maul's Scimitar. I find my best chance for survival as a hero is to pick one that isn't easily recognisable, such as Iden's TIE fighter or Luke Skywalkers/Poe Damerons X-Wing. Again, I will go through my suggestion at the end.

There is a lack of maps - I think there are only 5 Starfighter Assault maps? I understand that there must be some variation with the objectives, it must also be difficult to keep coming up with unique objectives but Galactic Assault has a few similar objectives on different maps(Naboo/Hoth for example). Perhaps create Starfighter Assault maps for each Galactic Assault map available and add a new game mode which incorporates both modes(This was on the original Battlefront 2 so maybe copyright issues?)

More ship classes - Possible enforcer class ships which require 1000battle points instead of 2k/3k like the heroes? You know, similar to enforcer units in Galactic Assault like the Wookie/Death trooper. You could always use the N-1 Starfighter from Naboo as the rebel enforcer class for example(I've no intention of discussing whether that would be canon or not, nor do I care). Maybe even use "recovered" ships from previous era's or even a variation of the LAAT.

This next suggestion is the one I said I'd talk about at the end, it will probably divide a lot of you, but I feel would resolve a lot of gameplay issue's. I personally wouldn't be against removing as much of the HUD as possible for Starfighter Assault. Things like the revenge markers, missile lock-on against you(just use the beeping sound), and the one what will probably get enormous no votes - remove the circle that shows you where to aim. I'm doing corkscrews, backflips, 90 degree turns and people are tracking those movements like an aimbot, I am doing the same to others too, it's way too easy to aim(in my opinion of course!)

I would like to go on record and state that Starfighter Assault is probably my favourite game mode. I also feel it's the one mode that needs the least amount of work done to it, it feels more polished and refined. Would like it added to Arcade too! ^_^
[Removed megathread tag]
Post edited by IronSoldier on

Replies

  • Evazan127
    8105 posts Member
    edited January 2018
    I say get rid of the arrow and improve hero abilities .
  • hsf_ wrote: »
    So for those of you who enjoy Starfighter Assault...

    ...tell me how I might be able to enjoy it (I'm serious). As it is, I'd rather pull my toenails out than play that endless circular nonsense.
    Can't beat 'em? Join 'em. Still can't beat 'em? Login to the forums and cry about it.
  • hsf_
    1855 posts Member
    hsf_ wrote: »
    So for those of you who enjoy Starfighter Assault...

    ...tell me how I might be able to enjoy it (I'm serious). As it is, I'd rather pull my toenails out than play that endless circular nonsense.

    That's your opinion friend, this is a thread for those of us that do play and do enjoy it. Each to his own and all that jazz.
    If you removed the circles without sacrificing something else people wouldn’t die, period.

    Without some sort of guide to show the orientation of the target fighter, it would be so simple for people being attacked to just fly so they put themselves between you (attacker) and some background clutter objects and just blend in with the background.

    Remember, some (most console players) people are viewing on 1080p TVs from 10ft away, not everyone is 1ft from a super high res computer screen.

    One compromise might be to retain some artefact that shows direction of the target, but not speed... (similar to how the circles for the speeders on Crait don’t show the correct distance).

    Either way, changing this mechanic will throw the balance between scrub ships and hero ships way out. Bobafett would dominate.

    The devs are not going to blow money on months worth of addional play testing to re-balance the ships and maps just to make the game less appealing to casuals. Does not make business sense.

    Agree revenge and current target markers should go, same with missile visual warnings. Bring back the evade button from bf1 and we’re all fixed.

    Fair points, when you say an evade button, do you mean like the double tap on Battlefront 2(2005), where if you double tap W you do a forward roll and go the other way, double tap D and you do a roll to the right etc? I think that could work personally.
  • hsf_ wrote: »
    I find myself getting hounded as soon as I pick a hero ship.

    Yep. Just had the best game of SA I’ve ever had-26-9 with 30 elims and first place for the first time ever - but only because of Slave I’s Seismic Charge, lol.

    It’s darn near impossible to shake enemies once their onto you, especially in the Falcon, which is literally a giant, round, flying bullseye.

    There needs to be either a) less incentive to hound enemy heroes, b) more incentive protect friendly heroes, or c) both.
  • hsf_ wrote: »
    I find myself getting hounded as soon as I pick a hero ship.

    Yep. Just had the best game of SA I’ve ever had-26-9 with 30 elims and first place for the first time ever - but only because of Slave I’s Seismic Charge, lol.

    It’s darn near impossible to shake enemies once their onto you, especially in the Falcon, which is literally a giant, round, flying bullseye.

    There needs to be either a) less incentive to hound enemy heroes, b) more incentive protect friendly heroes, or c) both.

    Probably the latter because it's 2 milestones to kill hero ships.
    Don't click unless you want to know the truth....
  • Getting more maps is my only big request. I sort of like @Talyn856's suggestion of adding some Rogue Squadron style gameplay, where the combat occurs on a planet (but in ships/planes). That does seem somewhat harder to implement, though it would be cool and would add variety.
  • hsf_ wrote: »
    I find myself getting hounded as soon as I pick a hero ship.

    It’s darn near impossible to shake enemies once their onto you, especially in the Falcon, which is literally a giant, round, flying bullseye.

    Fly among other ships so that someone on your side kills the player chasing you.
  • Blazur
    4468 posts Member
    hsf_ wrote: »
    So for those of you who enjoy Starfighter Assault, do you feel it needs any changes?

    Absolutely, we need more of it because it's dope as hell.

    But realistically, I think it's unfair that the dark side can only have 2 heroes out at once while light can have 3. They need to bring some balance to the force. I'd also like to see the dark side receive another hero to match the quantity of light.
    The greatest teacher, failure is.
  • Revenge/avenge mechanic needs to go. It keeps the real good pilots from putting in some real work on those who just got their flying permits.
  • Getting more maps is my only big request. I sort of like @Talyn856's suggestion of adding some Rogue Squadron style gameplay, where the combat occurs on a planet (but in ships/planes). That does seem somewhat harder to implement, though it would be cool and would add variety.

    Wouldn't be that hard to implement, it was the entire Fighter Squadron mode in the last game. They just need to be more creative with their objectives, instead of "kill each other and occasionally kill this objective."
    giphy.gif
  • Markings of enemy should be removed completely. Circles and so on. Harder spotting would keep the starfighters alive for longer and make combats more interesting. Maybe these spottings could be implemented as radars or something, that only work for seconds and then must recharge.
  • Markings of enemy should be removed completely. Circles and so on. Harder spotting would keep the starfighters alive for longer and make combats more interesting. Maybe these spottings could be implemented as radars or something, that only work for seconds and then must recharge.

    Won’t work on console. Besides, the aiming reticule doesn’t show up for laggers, who are a third of the player base.
  • hsf_ wrote: »
    I find myself getting hounded as soon as I pick a hero ship.
    There needs to be either a) less incentive to hound enemy heroes, b) more incentive protect friendly heroes, or c) both.
    Well, hero ships present a grave danger and should be removed as soon as possible. It doesn't have to do anything with rewards or milestones... At least it is why I do it.
    I had some great runs with hero ships but some do feel week or slow. Mostly do better with regular ships than heroes, only Yoda, Lintra and Poe ships feel perfect for my style. Slave and Falcon are big targets and slow but mostly I bump into something because I am used to flying smaller ships.
    More maps are incoming I hope.
    I have altered the post. Prey I don't alter it any further.
  • Good point @Voter_Colonel
    I have altered the post. Prey I don't alter it any further.
  • agre that falcon and slave have to be increased speed dramatically
  • Field of view from the 3rd person makes you feel like your actually going slower than swbf2015, and you hit more objects when flying. Lack of a radar and ability to avoid really keep me out of SA, its too easy to get behind ships and rack up 60 kills per game. I do enjoy flying in GA.
  • I love SA and agree that the ships should be faster, remove the Revenge/Target arrows as well as the incoming missile indicator (beeps suffice) and add reinforcements.
    Quick question as well, is SA compatible with a Joystick on Xbox One?
  • Phoenix13
    238 posts Member
    edited January 2018
    I agree with the OP, esp with removing the revenge tag and removing the lead indicator circle
  • hsf_ wrote: »
    So for those of you who enjoy Starfighter Assault, do you feel it needs any changes?

    I personally have a couple of gripes, but I find this game mode to be fairly well balanced, especially when comparing it to Galactic Assault. As I said, I do have a couple of gripes and I think I'll start by mentioning the "looping" that goes on. It can be endless at times and it's often whoever breaks off first, dies first. I have a suggestion to fix this somewhat, but I'll talk about that at the end.

    Hero ships - I find myself getting hounded as soon as I pick a hero ship. Especially an easily recognisable one such as the Millennium Falcon or Darth Maul's Scimitar. I find my best chance for survival as a hero is to pick one that isn't easily recognisable, such as Iden's TIE fighter or Luke Skywalkers/Poe Damerons X-Wing. Again, I will go through my suggestion at the end.

    There is a lack of maps - I think there are only 5 Starfighter Assault maps? I understand that there must be some variation with the objectives, it must also be difficult to keep coming up with unique objectives but Galactic Assault has a few similar objectives on different maps(Naboo/Hoth for example). Perhaps create Starfighter Assault maps for each Galactic Assault map available and add a new game mode which incorporates both modes(This was on the original Battlefront 2 so maybe copyright issues?)

    More ship classes - Possible enforcer class ships which require 1000battle points instead of 2k/3k like the heroes? You know, similar to enforcer units in Galactic Assault like the Wookie/Death trooper. You could always use the N-1 Starfighter from Naboo as the rebel enforcer class for example(I've no intention of discussing whether that would be canon or not, nor do I care). Maybe even use "recovered" ships from previous era's or even a variation of the LAAT.

    This next suggestion is the one I said I'd talk about at the end, it will probably divide a lot of you, but I feel would resolve a lot of gameplay issue's. I personally wouldn't be against removing as much of the HUD as possible for Starfighter Assault. Things like the revenge markers, missile lock-on against you(just use the beeping sound), and the one what will probably get enormous no votes - remove the circle that shows you where to aim. I'm doing corkscrews, backflips, 90 degree turns and people are tracking those movements like an aimbot, I am doing the same to others too, it's way too easy to aim(in my opinion of course!)

    I would like to go on record and state that Starfighter Assault is probably my favourite game mode. I also feel it's the one mode that needs the least amount of work done to it, it feels more polished and refined. Would like it added to Arcade too! ^_^

    I think simply removing the arrows/revenge arrow would be plenty. You would NOT be in an endless circle and you would actually have to use some sense of spatial awareness to be able to track and follow an enemy.
  • hsf_ wrote: »

    Fair points, when you say an evade button, do you mean like the double tap on Battlefront 2(2005), where if you double tap W you do a forward roll and go the other way, double tap D and you do a roll to the right etc? I think that could work personally.

    I just mean like the fighter evade button from the previous battlefront (2015). On Xbox it was just single dpad button to roll or do a quick loop.

  • I play SA exclusively, it's just fun for me, pure and simple.

    More maps would be nice as would the removal of the revenge target, because try as you might you just can't help but go after that orange marker :smile:

    I don't think removing the targeting circle would work, no way to tell what direction the target is going and for those of us that lag a bit we would be constantly shooting into empty space. The other problem with making ships harder to target and kill is that the attacking side would demolish their objectives pretty quickly and still have plenty of reinforcements left for the next phase.

    Unfortunately the chat system isn't the best otherwise when you're in a hero ship you could call out for help in removing the enemies on your tail. I keep an eye out for friendly hero ships because, as others have said, there's some easy picking behind them.
  • I agree with decluttering the HUD. The lead indicator needs to remain, however. What I would like to see is range to the target reducing the effectiveness of the directed energy weapons. Although the weapons do have a range limit, it seems the damage they inflict is constant throughout their range. I have two suggestions.

    1: The hitting power of the main armament decreases as the distance the energy bolt travels increases... maybe on a non-linear scale. (The power loss is more significant the last third of the weapon range)

    2. Increase the amount of dispersion for the weapons as the range increases. I think this would make conventional evasive maneuvering (jinking...etc) more effective.

  • AaronM1978 wrote: »
    I agree with decluttering the HUD. The lead indicator needs to remain, however. What I would like to see is range to the target reducing the effectiveness of the directed energy weapons. Although the weapons do have a range limit, it seems the damage they inflict is constant throughout their range. I have two suggestions.

    1: The hitting power of the main armament decreases as the distance the energy bolt travels increases... maybe on a non-linear scale. (The power loss is more significant the last third of the weapon range)

    2. Increase the amount of dispersion for the weapons as the range increases. I think this would make conventional evasive maneuvering (jinking...etc) more effective.

    Drop off damage already exists. Lasers dont work like guns. There is no recoil to lasers which means no dispersion. There is only travel distance. Lasers will always go in a straight line which is why the white circle forces you to lead the shot in front of the fighter instead of directly on the fighter. The farther you are the easier it is to dodge.
  • Revenge marker has to go.

    Either that or slap one on the player that just shot me in the back in GA.
  • Talyn856 wrote: »
    duvelsuper wrote: »
    AaronM1978 wrote: »
    I agree with decluttering the HUD. The lead indicator needs to remain, however. What I would like to see is range to the target reducing the effectiveness of the directed energy weapons. Although the weapons do have a range limit, it seems the damage they inflict is constant throughout their range. I have two suggestions.

    1: The hitting power of the main armament decreases as the distance the energy bolt travels increases... maybe on a non-linear scale. (The power loss is more significant the last third of the weapon range)

    2. Increase the amount of dispersion for the weapons as the range increases. I think this would make conventional evasive maneuvering (jinking...etc) more effective.
    The farther you are the easier it is to dodge.

    That's not actually true in practice. The farther you are away, the smaller correction your enemy needs to make to hit you every time you maneuver.

    It is true. The white circle is always the same size no matter the distance of the ship being chased. The difference is the size of the ship is smaller within the circle which means that there is a higher chance the laser will pass by above, below, or the the side of them (depending on how they are flying) because there is empty space within that circle as well. Where as when you are on their butt, their entire ship fits within the circle so as long as you shot within the circle it will always hit a part of the ship. So while you are correct that you require less corrections, you will come too realize that you require more shots than if the target was close. It still takes the same amount of hits but at range you will be missing more lasers which means you will have fire more giving the sense of damage dropoff.
  • hsf_
    1855 posts Member
    duvelsuper wrote: »
    Talyn856 wrote: »
    duvelsuper wrote: »
    AaronM1978 wrote: »
    I agree with decluttering the HUD. The lead indicator needs to remain, however. What I would like to see is range to the target reducing the effectiveness of the directed energy weapons. Although the weapons do have a range limit, it seems the damage they inflict is constant throughout their range. I have two suggestions.

    1: The hitting power of the main armament decreases as the distance the energy bolt travels increases... maybe on a non-linear scale. (The power loss is more significant the last third of the weapon range)

    2. Increase the amount of dispersion for the weapons as the range increases. I think this would make conventional evasive maneuvering (jinking...etc) more effective.
    The farther you are the easier it is to dodge.

    That's not actually true in practice. The farther you are away, the smaller correction your enemy needs to make to hit you every time you maneuver.

    It is true. The white circle is always the same size no matter the distance of the ship being chased. The difference is the size of the ship is smaller within the circle which means that there is a higher chance the laser will pass by above, below, or the the side of them (depending on how they are flying) because there is empty space within that circle as well. Where as when you are on their butt, their entire ship fits within the circle so as long as you shot within the circle it will always hit a part of the ship. So while you are correct that you require less corrections, you will come too realize that you require more shots than if the target was close. It still takes the same amount of hits but at range you will be missing more lasers which means you will have fire more giving the sense of damage dropoff.

    I always find hitting targets further away to be easier personally. The only time I find it more difficult is if there is a lot of debris.
  • More ships (enforcers, Heroes)
    More maps
    Faster hero ships
    Removing avenge - revenge thing
  • duvelsuper wrote: »
    AaronM1978 wrote: »
    I agree with decluttering the HUD. The lead indicator needs to remain, however. What I would like to see is range to the target reducing the effectiveness of the directed energy weapons. Although the weapons do have a range limit, it seems the damage they inflict is constant throughout their range. I have two suggestions.

    1: The hitting power of the main armament decreases as the distance the energy bolt travels increases... maybe on a non-linear scale. (The power loss is more significant the last third of the weapon range)

    2. Increase the amount of dispersion for the weapons as the range increases. I think this would make conventional evasive maneuvering (jinking...etc) more effective.

    Drop off damage already exists. Lasers dont work like guns. There is no recoil to lasers which means no dispersion. There is only travel distance. Lasers will always go in a straight line which is why the white circle forces you to lead the shot in front of the fighter instead of directly on the fighter. The farther you are the easier it is to dodge.

    Light does exert pressure on a solid object. I'm pretty sure in A New Hope that the turbolaser turret barrels on the death star had recoil dampeners. I would guess that in the Star Wars universe, the high energy release of pulsed laser weapons would impart some sort of recoil based on that scene. Don't forget that there would be other forces impacting the actual weapon hardware as the fighter maneuvers that would affect precision as well.
  • So they try to make it more realistic and you have to lead your shots. But at the same time it shows a circle. Just aim here. Seems pretty bass ackwards. What’s the point of leading shots if they show right where to shoot? Must be their logic and why this game feels so unfinished most the time
  • hsf_
    1855 posts Member
    Come on guys that's getting off topic, who cares about realism in a sci-fi video game anyway?
    First, get your facts correct, then distort them at your leisure
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson


  • hsf_
    1855 posts Member
    Getting back on topic, what would you guys say to more Starfighter game modes? Maybe do Heroes vs Villains in space(would probably require some balancing!) , perhaps some kind of Escort mode or maybe even just a deathmatch mode, as people tend to ignore the objectives half the time anyway.

    Or *drum roll* Starfighter Death Racing? You have to fly through markers like the Speeders vs the AT-AT's in a 4 vs 4 team racing mode with weapons.
  • hsf_ wrote: »
    Getting back on topic, what would you guys say to more Starfighter game modes? Maybe do Heroes vs Villains in space(would probably require some balancing!) , perhaps some kind of Escort mode or maybe even just a deathmatch mode, as people tend to ignore the objectives half the time anyway.

    Or *drum roll* Starfighter Death Racing? You have to fly through markers like the Speeders vs the AT-AT's in a 4 vs 4 team racing mode with weapons.

    I personally would like to see implementing a new Blast mode specifically for starfighters (in the way we already have for the infantries), with a decent number of players (perhaps 10 vs 10, or maybe 8 vs 8) and AI ships-to-ships combat about which ever side take out the most enemies win.

    We only have Starfighter Assault that offer matches that are always about one side being attacker and another side being defender, so we don't have something that are more basic. Of course I do love Starfighter Assault, and I always enjoying the feeling of being immersive in the way how each phases work during gameplay. It's just that I would also like to play a specific mode for Starfighters where player and AI ships from both sides goes directly after one another, as both side being attackers -- the solely objective for both sides to kill enemy ships.

    I think this mode can be implemented easily, as they can already use the existing resources from the same game. In fact, while using 6 existing maps from Starfighter Assault, they could possibly add a 7th, a Kashyyyk map from Galactic Assault as it may be large enough, and flying around those giant trees for cover from enemy fire sounds fun.
    PSN: FriedPizza773
  • joachimeberhard
    1477 posts Member
    edited January 2018
    I like the current hud system, would not want it changed.
  • Revenge markers are a pain, they just encourage a vicious circle of killing / being killed by the same person over and over.

    Technology to assist aiming is more than feasible, though I did like the 2015's lock on then fire method.

    Evasion moves like the 2015 version offered would improve things. Even if it requires a sequence of buttons to achieve a loop the loop, making it skilled to some degree?

    Torpedoes need no warning for locking on, why would an enemy computer tell your computer that info? Just proximity alert when about to hit, enough to give you enough chance to dodge.

    Dodging torpedoes at the minute seems to easy, 2015 seemed more likely to be able to hit you.

    AI players setting is on too easy, up the difficulty allow them to be extensions of the other players in the game rather than just being points fodder.

    Obviously more maps, would anybody mind if they copy and pasted from the previous game? Add new stuff with the new films.

    Especially with the servers being hit and miss, add an arcade SA mode please.

    Balancing the ships to make them more like the movies, for example ties faster and more manoeuvrable than x wings, but ties with less armour.

    One thing always bothers me is that the empire/first order has vastly greater numbers, but that is never reflected in these games. 2:1 ratios but huge winning bonuses for the side that is out numbered? Kind the point of the rebellion is to overcome greater odds isn't it?

    SA has been more fun to play than GA or HvV etc. Would love to see a VR stand alone flying game for star wars, little upset that they teased it with the 2015 game and haven't released it this time round.
  • MovieFan555
    118 posts Member
    edited January 2018
    jimeuph86 wrote: »
    Balancing the ships to make them more like the movies, for example ties faster and more manoeuvrable than x wings, but ties with less armour.

    One thing always bothers me is that the empire/first order has vastly greater numbers, but that is never reflected in these games. 2:1 ratios but huge winning bonuses for the side that is out numbered? Kind the point of the rebellion is to overcome greater odds isn't it?

    Well, I'd argue gameplay should come before lore, to an extent. Point #1 can be done while still maintaining balance, but it requires proper balance, and I'm not so trusting of the game to do this correctly. As it is, I'm pretty sure TIEs are already more maneuverable. Not sure about HP or speed, though.

    Point #2 seems like it'd be frustrating for some (many?) players. Yes, the rebellion overcoming long odds is a big point in the movies. But imagine they implement that in the game, where the baseline win% is far from 50%, depending on which side you draw. Let's say it's 25%/75%. I'd actually find that kind of annoying. More often than not, the baseline win% would determine which side won, rather than which team had the better round.

    Suppose the offense slightly overachieves and the defense slightly underachieves, but only enough to get to 40% offensive win probability. That would turn out as a win for the defense, even though the offense actually had the better round (in a relative sense). That would feel kind of annoying.

    Plus, between rounds, you'd go from "probable win" to "probable loss" to "probable win" to "probable loss"... It's much harder to stay excited when you already feel like you know the (probable) outcome at the start.
  • MovieFan555
    118 posts Member
    edited January 2018
    Point #2 seems like it'd be frustrating for some (many?) players. Yes, the rebellion overcoming long odds is a big point in the movies. But imagine they implement that in the game, where the baseline win% is far from 50%, depending on which side you draw. Let's say it's 25%/75%. I'd actually find that kind of annoying. More often than not, the baseline win% would determine which side won, rather than which team had the better round.

    Continuing on this point, @jimeuph86, do you like space Endor? At the moment it has the least balanced baseline win% of any map. Sure, you could argue that that makes the times when you do win as Imperials feel cooler. But the rest of the time -- in the more usual case of a routine Rebels win -- it totally cheapens the end outcome. The Imperials lost, but they were supposed to.

    If you keep the baseline win% at 50/50, at least both sides feel like they're in it from the start.
  • Point #2 seems like it'd be frustrating for some (many?) players. Yes, the rebellion overcoming long odds is a big point in the movies. But imagine they implement that in the game, where the baseline win% is far from 50%, depending on which side you draw. Let's say it's 25%/75%. I'd actually find that kind of annoying. More often than not, the baseline win% would determine which side won, rather than which team had the better round.

    Continuing on this point, @jimeuph86, do you like space Endor? At the moment it has the least balanced baseline win% of any map. Sure, you could argue that that makes the times when you do win as Imperials feel cooler. But the rest of the time -- in the more usual case of a routine Rebels win -- it totally cheapens the end outcome. The Imperials lost, but they were supposed to.

    If you keep the baseline win% at 50/50, at least both sides feel like they're in it from the start.

    I love that map, hardly have any issues with it
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!