criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
Community Transmission
December CC

Starfighter Assault Thread

2456743

Replies

  • 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

    Fair is fair. But it's ultimately a preference thing. While you might enjoy baseline odds that are favored toward the defense (say), I think more people wold prefer a 50/50 starting win probability. Then whichever team has the better round wins, and not "offense wins only if they have the WAY better round."
  • Another thing I like to add is Aim Assist on and off option specifically for Starfighter control. They should implement this as it's annoying when my ship suddenly turn toward an unwanted target by itself when I'm trying to go after another one.

    As far as I know, the current Aim Assist only applies to infantry (not sure about ground vehicles though).
    PSN: FriedPizza773
  • 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

    Fair is fair. But it's ultimately a preference thing. While you might enjoy baseline odds that are favored toward the defense (say), I think more people wold prefer a 50/50 starting win probability. Then whichever team has the better round wins, and not "offense wins only if they have the WAY better round."

    And that’s fair
  • I have never rotated to Endor, it seems to only bounce between hulk and the shipyard. Perhaps I get bored and quit before it rotates further...

    I understand making it fair, there are ways to implement an against the odds and still be fair. Ties are basically paper ships with blasters fast but one good hit and gone. x wings tougher armour and longer firing before cool down. Rebalancing according to lore, could perhaps balance it out. But I completely understand why it is the way it is, nobody likes to "lose."

    I am a complete Noob, but at the minute winning or losing doesn't matter in itself, so I just play the objectives and hope for the best.
  • More maps, more DS ships (to even them out and then add more Hero ships on both sides), better map rotation (I never see D'Qar), remove revenge targets and maybe add in some reinforcement ships between regular and Heroes. And maybe remove the arrows too, but those don't bother me that much.

    That's my entire list.
  • 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.

    Don't get into a continuous circle fight.
  • jimeuph86 wrote: »
    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.

    In the X-Wing series (TIE Fighter and up) you could actually target the warhead, outmaneuver it, and then destroy it with your laser cannon. However, you could eventually be overwhelmed by several warheads.

    As far as detecting a weapons lock, I'm assuming active scanning by the fighter's sensors is required to feed targeting information to the warhead. Also, the warhead's guidance system would need to track the target. Passive sensors on the target fighter would theoretically be able to detect this.

    On the imp to alliance ratio...
    I'm up for adjusting the ratio if you make the ties more fragile. I know I keep referencing the X-Wing series, but it only took two laser hits with fully charged weapons to destroy a TIE with any other fighter in the game. If you didn't have your lasers supercharged, it took 3 or 4 hits.

  • Couldn't help but pitch in with my 2 pence:

    I agree with reducing the HUD a bit, but I also agree with the removal of the lead indicator. I get that it would make things more difficult for the average players, but if older games like the Rogue Squadron series and even the original Battlefront 2 could manage it, I don't see the issue with it. Add the increase in speed and you would have a nice game mode that I'd actually have to put effort into in order to get kills (I'm almost topping every leaderboard in my SA matches and I'm actually starting to not play it because of it. I'm not a *****, I don't take satisfaction in easy kills with no challenge)
    'Mors est tantum impedimentum' - Death is only an obstacle
  • 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.

    And at long range I can zoom in, make the circle bigger, and almost every shot hits you. Go ahead and try to maneuver out of that.
    giphy.gif
  • hsf_
    1913 posts Member
    Any other suggestions?
  • Different modes are needed. I’m glad I don’t play too often or it would be real stale by now. Almost getting there though.
  • Voidwalker_98
    97 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    I meant to add more to my post, but something happened and I had to cut it short so I'll continue.

    I'd be able to see the lead indicator stay as long as it was purely a lead indicator and didn't have the aim assist to go with it. I mean, just look at Crait and the way it's to damn hard to hit the Ski Speeders with the TIEs. Having the lead indicator as purely a circle telling you where you need to shoot to hit the moving target is a lot better - Think of the way War Thunder has done it.

    I also like the idea of reinforcement style ships like the B-Wing and TIE Defender. I'd actually love to fly the larger vehicles like Larties (LAATs) and U-Wings, but that's just me.

    To be honest, I could see the Rebels using N1s since the whole idea is that they used what they could get. It's not hard to imagine that possibly at some point in time the Rebellion aquired some N1 starfighters from Naboo, just maybe give rebel N1s a dirtier and worn appearance to give the idea of it being salvaged like the AT-RTs.

    I find it funny how when EA released BF1, everyone was whining with the lack of space combat... and now it's the opposite. I do love the idea of attacking ground surface targets though, maybe one of the battles could be a clone wars battle where the Clones have to stop an advancing Droid AAT armoured column on the plains of Naboo.

    I actually read on the Wiki that the TIE/vn (Silencer) is more of a planned production craft than, say Vader's X1. Now I can help but imagine a less OP TIE/vn as a standard First Order ship, or maybe as a reinforcement ship. Perhaps an SA or GA map where the Resistance attacks a secret R&D base and for GA the ships for the First Order is the TIE/vn and for the SA map it's the only ship available for the First Order.

    Nothing would please me more than to have the ability to free look in cockpits though... the lack of that feature when you're the kind of person who likes to watch his surroundings when flying is rather... inconvenient. It's another reason why I loved the Rogue Squadron series... speaking of which, I wish we had a first person mode for ground vehicles too. I'd love to be in the cockpit of the AT-ST as I'm firing away at rebels, blasting away at clone fortifications while aiming down the sights of the AAT's siege cannon or seeing the battle unfold from atop an AT-RT...

    Whoops, got carried away there for a second.
    'Mors est tantum impedimentum' - Death is only an obstacle
  • @jimeuph86 I agree with what your saying about torpedoes being easy to dodge... It's why I only use em against objectives or bombers at close range... unless I'm flying the TIE silencer and I see the Falcon, then it's almost an obligation to fire the mag-pulse warheads just to see their health dwindle. Evasive manoeuvres would allow munition speeds to be increased without making them a guaranteed hit. Although imo even when guided munitions hit, I feel they don't really do any major damage unless it was Luke's torpedoes or Kylo's death missiles... I don't even bother with Concussion missiles.

    I also like what you're saying about the TIEs and the whole idea that they should outnumber the rebels. The whole purpose of the TIE/LN was to swarm the enemy with overwhelming numbers because the Imperial Navy didn't care much for the starfighter side of combat, hence the fact Imperial TIEs don't have shields or a hyperdrive. I'd love to see that in BF2, but because of how easy it is to get kills in SA atm, I can only see it unbalancing everything in the Empire's favour.

    DICE love to overbalance some areas while ignoring others. All the default infantry weapons have the same stats even though a short barreled E-11 would have less range than the A-280. They even gave TIEs torpedoes when they never once had those on the TIE/LN or TIE/in just to give them a missile attack. Yet, when it comes to health they actually took canon into consideration and gave TIEs and Vultures no shields and less health than the X-Wings and ARC-170s, but that then means that they are automatically at a disadvantage.

    EA CFO Blake Jorgensen said for 2015 BF: "The one thing that we are adhering to ... is you can't make a game in Star Wars that violates the canon ... meaning you can't take something from the future and bring it back into the past"

    Yet we have Rey slicing droids, Kylo shooting clone pilots down and Rebels running around with First Order FWMB-10s...

    Man, I like this game... but it doesn't make me not wish a different company had gotten the licence from Disney.
    'Mors est tantum impedimentum' - Death is only an obstacle
    • Remove Tallissan Lintra, I mean, why is she in the game at all? Just because she was mentioned (!) and appeared for 10 seconds in Star Wars 8?! Or this gender issue, because a woman MUST be mentioned regardless how unknown she is in the SW universe? Instead, add Wedge Antilles or at least Biggs Darklighter.
    • Increas BP costs for hero ships, but make fullfilling objectives more worthwile
    • add the gunboat (Alpha-class Xg-1 Star Wing)
  • I don't really have any problems with the avenge - revenge marker, since I'm typically Black One and outrunning at least 4 TIE fighters that I likely killed before. I can see why it would be a problem for my team mates and enemies I killed before, though.
    “Until we reach the last edge, the last opening, the last star, and can go no higher.”
    Rest in peace, Carrie Fisher.
  • Darkaid wrote: »
    I don't really have any problems with the avenge - revenge marker, since I'm typically Black One and outrunning at least 4 TIE fighters that I likely killed before. I can see why it would be a problem for my team mates and enemies I killed before, though.

    My issue is that it immediately makes you more of a target for tryhards than you need to be. If a tryhard sees that he just got killed by Darth Vader, knowing that Vader's squishy he's going to try to chase down his villain until he gets a kill to get satisfaction for the death.

    In GA, he would try to avoid the area where he knew Vader was, because Vader would pwn him, and he'd have no way to be sure what this location is because of the lack of any revenge marker.

    Second system is better.
    giphy.gif
  • Huntsman572
    94 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    As far as "looping" if you found yourself in a circle fight it was a miscalculation on your part. Never end up in the middle of the furball if you can help it. If you do end up getting pursued, you're better off using teammates or fancy flying around space debris to scrape them off. Your goal is to do as much damage as you can per life, not survive forever. While flying evasively look for targets of opportunity. If all you've done for the last minute is fly in circles, you've done nothing for yourself nor your team, and you often would have been better off simply dying and respawning.

    I do agree that hero ships need help. Some of them are simply targets. Rey's Millenium Falcon has no point and is doomed from the moment it spawns, Maul is garbo, Luke, Kylo, and Vaders ships are...ok. Han and Chewie are as doomed as Rey, but at least until they go down they operate as the best bomber in the game. Slave 1, one of my favorites, at least has a defensive mechanism and can survive for some time as long as you don't over commit to the fight. Yoda is a bit flimsy but if well flown is quite good.

    Poe is easily the best ship in the game. It's hard to spot as a hero ship and has great defensive and escape capabilities along with the extra bite of dual protons for attacking objectives. Poe is the easiest to hop into and fly without dying for the rest of the match.
    Post edited by Huntsman572 on
  • Poe is easily the best ship in the game. It's hard to spot as a hero ship and has great defensive and escape capabilities along with the extra bite of dual protons for attacking objectives. Poe is the easiest to hop into and fly without dying for the rest of the match.

    I can last longer in Tallie's A-wing than Poe's ship. Iden's is made of tissue paper and needs a serious health buff.
  • hsf_
    1913 posts Member
    To be totally honest with you, I think all the hero ships should be at the 5k-8k health(5k for interceptor heroes, 8k for fighter heroes), with Slave 1 and both Falcons at around 15k health.
    It would also be nice to have a few counter-measures on the Falcon, perhaps a bunch of rockets which fire out behind in several directions(non-homing rockets), a couple of auto cannons or perhaps an EMP which overheats blasters in a certain radius, similar to the officers except scaled up.
  • Maul is garbo

    Hey! I'll have you executed for blasphemy if you spread lies like that. The Scimitar is my second favourite after the TIE Silencer mainly because of that insane rate of fire. Get a heat buildup reduction star card and you have a ship that can cloak, lock-on for extra damage and has a main weapon that can destroy ships faster than the Death Star destroyed Alderaan.

    There's only two things that kill me when I'm flying the Scimitar or the Silencer:

    1) Being disabled and left vulnerable by Yoda's Ion Pulse or a Y-Wing's Ion Cannon

    2) My fancy flying backfiring on me and directing me right into debris or asteroids

    Neither of which happen too often...
    'Mors est tantum impedimentum' - Death is only an obstacle
  • Well my 2 centss on this.

    I've pretty much been playing starfighter assault more than anythiung else since the game came out. Revenger markers are there, cause if you get a revenge kill you get more BP than a regular kill (iirc, it is something like 250 BP against 100 BP), so by removing the marker, you lwoer your BP earning chances. As such you might want to ponder on that.

    In terms off ground attack map to add to Starfighter Assault, an obvious one would be the Starfighter Attack on Starkiller Base. Perfect example of where Resistance Fighters are trying to take out a ground target.

    As to what some of you are suggesting for hero ships, are you for real?! 15k HGP for some of them. Yeah, I can see all the lower level pilots in a game rage quitting when theyt get ganked by those babies if they were introduced. Let's be a little more realistic here me thinks.

    As to earning Battlepoints, the key is tro focus on your team's objectives, and if you are the attacking team, take out a turret here and there. You do that, you earn plenty of battlepoints, even if you don't get a lot of dog fighting kills. I know a few players who when it is an "attack" mission if I see that player;s anme on my team I quit the game, as that player never does objectives, just solely dog fights, and we lose te map by a little bit because we just miss out on an objective, which causes the mission to end for us as a loss. I mean, do the Lucerhulk Mission over Ryloth as the Separatists and see how many Battlepoints you earn by taking out the three Republic Cruisers. There is around 7k or more battlepoints in doing that alone.

    Yes, the Falcon needs some work as you get killed if you fly it as son as it appears. It needs either something to maike it more maneuverable, or a bit faster. In the game it is to slow. Same for Boba Fett.

    By the way peoplke want to take out Tallie Lintra? Um, excuse me, but remind me in which film did Yoda fly in combat in a starfighter again?! Tallie may have been a "bit" character in The Last Jedi but at least she was a fighter pilot, unlike Yoda. To me Yoda is the one who should be out, with Wedge, Ob-Wan or Biggs as possible replacements (all three were shown flying fighter combat in the movies).

    Thing is the Imperials/First Order/Separtists need a new hero ship added. The Rebels/Resistance/Republic have 6 (namely Han's Falcon, Rey's Falcon, Luke Skywalker, Tallie Lintra, Yoda, and Poe Dameron) whilst the Imperials/First Order/Separatists only have 5 (namely Darth Maul, Kylo Ren, Boba Fett, Iden Versio, and Darth Vader). Seems a bit unfair to me that.
    51bvn954fmlp.png
  • Maul is garbo

    Hey! I'll have you executed for blasphemy if you spread lies like that. The Scimitar is my second favourite after the TIE Silencer mainly because of that insane rate of fire. Get a heat buildup reduction star card and you have a ship that can cloak, lock-on for extra damage and has a main weapon that can destroy ships faster than the Death Star destroyed Alderaan.

    There's only two things that kill me when I'm flying the Scimitar or the Silencer:

    1) Being disabled and left vulnerable by Yoda's Ion Pulse or a Y-Wing's Ion Cannon

    2) My fancy flying backfiring on me and directing me right into debris or asteroids

    Neither of which happen too often...

    Yep, these are my favourite ships too.
    I'm not sure how anyone ever gets shot down flying The Scimitar, the cloak makes it very easy to escape any situation and it melts bombers in one quick burst. The Silencer has insanely powerful main guns, the coolest torpedo sound effect and can out-turn most other ships with the right card.
    You will fall, as all Jedi must.
  • New_Roosterman
    543 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    Psybernaut wrote: »

    Yep, these are my favourite ships too.
    I'm not sure how anyone ever gets shot down flying The Scimitar, the cloak makes it very easy to escape any situation and it melts bombers in one quick burst. The Silencer has insanely powerful main guns, the coolest torpedo sound effect and can out-turn most other ships with the right card.

    The reason people get shot down is because of when and where they activate the cloak. Ive been in an X-Wing firing on Maul when a pilot often cloaks. Does my opponent not think I cannot still see the blue, blurtred outline of Maul's ship and the smoke it is giving off?!

    As such I just keep pumping my lasers as I follow Maul and he blows up. It is a bit hard, but not impossible. You just have to concentrate.
    51bvn954fmlp.png
  • @New_Roosterman

    I feel that the Falcon should get a defensive ability like the ARC-170 where one of the quad turrets targets enemies behind. At least Slave 1 has the Seismic Charge to help protect the rear, Rey and Han might as well just suicide into an asteroid if someone gets behind them because relying on teammates is more foolish than licking a live plug socket.

    I do believe all Jedi had an Eta-2 Actis-class interceptor - the force made them very skilled pilots. Obviously if every other Jedi had an interceptor, the Grand Master of the Jedi Order would at least have a custom made one. In the Clone Wars series, Yoda did have an extremely modified Eta-2 starfighter, although it looks massively different from the normal Eta-2 in the game.

    As for the Scimitar's cloak, I use it in addition to maneuvering. It's surprising just how much of a crutch the lead indicator circle is when people can't seem to hit you much when you're cloaked or using the lock-on jammer on the Hyena Droid Bomber or the TIE Bomber. Activating the cloak and using the surroundings as cover makes the Scimitar hard to deal with. My favorite tactic on the Resurgent-Class SD map is cloak and fly under the Destroyer, baiting the enemy behind me before melting them with the cannons. Works every time.

    @Psybernaut The Mag-Pulse Torpedoes are fun to use. Unless I see a bomber or the Falcon, I save them for objectives because they're too powerful to risk missing by firing at a fighter. Missiles feel almost useless against other aircraft because they're so easy to evade. I use the Jammer on the TIE Bomber as a normal countermeasure for laser cannons because I don't even need it to evade missiles.
    'Mors est tantum impedimentum' - Death is only an obstacle
  • Hero ships aside, did anyone else see that Dennis confirmed there are more maps coming to SA? He started responding to the community Q&A thread. He even hinted that some of them will be on planets, and not in space.

    Quoth Dennis: "Absolutely, more flying maps are coming. I don't think they all need to be in space."
  • hsf_
    1913 posts Member
    Hero ships aside, did anyone else see that Dennis confirmed there are more maps coming to SA? He started responding to the community Q&A thread. He even hinted that some of them will be on planets, and not in space.

    Quoth Dennis: "Absolutely, more flying maps are coming. I don't think they all need to be in space."

    So hyped!
    A surface battle over Coruscant sounds nice...

    Yes! More hyped!
  • A surface battle over Coruscant would be so amazing!

    I wish they would add Bespin, Jakku and Hoth also. Even if they just import the old maps from Battlefront 2015.
  • I also want to suggest a surface battle over Scarif. If we ever do get it, we might be able to get a chance to fly TIE Striker.
    PSN: FriedPizza773
  • Revenger markers are there, cause if you get a revenge kill you get more BP than a regular kill (iirc, it is something like 250 BP against 100 BP), so by removing the marker, you lwoer your BP earning chances. As such you might want to ponder on that.

    I pretty much only play SFA as well and I had no idea about this. Thanks for the tip.

    The more thought I put into what I want changed in SFA, the more I think Criterion made an almost perfect mode. So the ONLY changes I request are: more maps, more ships. More, More, MORE!

    Oh, and the suggestion that the Falcon get a rear cannon ability... I like that one too.
  • ...
    So the ONLY changes I request are: more maps, more ships. More, More, MORE!

    I agree. Maybe add some different Objectives.
    Maybe some Reinforcement-Class ships (cheaper than hero Ships, but not as powerful) for when all the Hero ships are taken and you're sitting on a bunch of BP. There's a thread here somewhere with ideas for that.
    https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/98321/starfighter-assault-reinforcement-ideas

    Falcon with a rear-facing cannon. Would it be on the top or bottom of the Falcon?

    Gunfighter Ballads and Trail Songs
  • The more thought I put into what I want changed in SFA, the more I think Criterion made an almost perfect mode.

    I like SFA, but I wouldn't go that far. As much as I'll admit Criterion improved vehicle mechanics, collision detection with objects and terrain is not their forte. On so many different occasions I've crashed into objects when my ship didn't actually impact anything, which makes me think either ship or terrain hitboxes are larger than they seem.

    But it's miles better than that... 'thing' they released back in 2015. A lot less handholding with aiming thanks to removing that horrible lock-on system that didn't even work if the enemy ship was turning. I spent more time hitting turning TIEs for zero damage than I'd like to remember. I'd still prefer to see an unassisted aiming system, even if it's just the lead indicator without the auto-aim, but at least it's a lot better.

    @Rook008 Well in the Rogue Squadron series the Falcon's cannon that was able to turn and shoot behind you actually depended on whether you were in cockpit view or not, lol.

    And Reinforcement ships would be so good... just wonder what the First Order and the Resistance would have.

    Clones could have the V-19 Torrent and/or Larty gunship (If you wanted a form of heavy reinforcement. LAATs were pretty heavily armed. Repulsorcraft though so it would be for in-atmosphere fights only)

    Droids could use... erm... let me delve into the wiki for a sec...

    Ah yes... they could use standard models of the Belbullab-22 (Grievous' ship), 'Nantex-class territorial defense starfighters' (Geonosian fighters from Ep.2, but they would only make sense on Geonosis so...) or Rogue-Class starfighters (also known as MagnaGuard Fighters). And purely just to fill the same role as the LAAT, they could also use the HMP Droid Gunship.

    Rebels could have B-Wings, possibly salvaged N1 fighters and maybe a U-Wing for heavy duty (although I believe U-Wings only had the front cannons as armament so it wouldn't have the same role as the Clone Larty)

    The Empire could use the TIE Defender and maybe TIE Striker for in-atmosphere engagements. I'd love to see the TIE Hunter resurrected... but I doubt Disney and EA are that nice.

    Like I said, I dunno about the Resistance and FO... the Resistance MG-100 StarFortress SF-17 would be WAAAY to large for the way Battlefront 2 plays (If it was OG BF2, I'd see no issue, but that's because ships could have multiple seats and combat was slower and more strategic than SFA.) and other than production variants of the TIE/vn (Silencer) the First Order lacks anything for an enforcer as well (those Atmospheric Assault Landers only have a single F-Z0 Anti-personnel blaster which would be too underpowered to engage vehicles)
    'Mors est tantum impedimentum' - Death is only an obstacle
  • I also want to suggest a surface battle over Scarif. If we ever do get it, we might be able to get a chance to fly TIE Striker.

    And the Tie Reaper.
  • @Stalemate

    Not to burst your bubble, but...

    The TIE Reaper is a transport. It's like the U-Wing in the sense it only has a pair of laser cannons and mainly transports troops... but at least the U-Wing doubles as a gunship capable of mounting side door weaponry. I don't expect to see a pilotable U-Wing, but TIE Reapers would be about as useful as an FO transport.

    Unless they do something like the Scarif battle in the 2015 DLC which i doubt will be a good idea, the TIE Reaper would be more of a background ship.
    'Mors est tantum impedimentum' - Death is only an obstacle
  • @Stalemate

    Not to burst your bubble, but...

    The TIE Reaper is a transport. It's like the U-Wing in the sense it only has a pair of laser cannons and mainly transports troops... but at least the U-Wing doubles as a gunship capable of mounting side door weaponry. I don't expect to see a pilotable U-Wing, but TIE Reapers would be about as useful as an FO transport.

    Unless they do something like the Scarif battle in the 2015 DLC which i doubt will be a good idea, the TIE Reaper would be more of a background ship.

    I'm aware they are a transport for the Death Troopers. Still be cool to see though even if it's just AI in the background or something.
  • Billkwando
    2018 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    So many bad ideas in this thread..... (not all, but a lot). This is an arcade flying game, not IL-2.

    -Too much circling? Have you ever played a flying game before??? How about you try upgrading your engines for better deceleration? The first purple I got was that.

    -I find it highly ironic that people who complain about arrow markers, circling, and it being too "casual friendly" are asking for a dodge button. Really.

    -Yes, let's do away with the revenge marker, so that experienced players can continuously pick off the low hanging fruit, filling the less experienced players with impotent rage, because they don't have a chance in the world of tracking down the person who keeps "picking on them". Yes, people should play objectives, but let's face it. Dogfighting is where it's at, and "returning the favor" is probably the biggest part of that.

    -Same for taking away the triangles. Have any of you ever played Ace Combat? It's pretty much customary in arcade air combat games to be able to choose a target and stick with it. Honestly, I wished the arrow worked better, but that's why we have hard lock on some ships. For the orange arrow, how else are you supposed to dodge and know who's behind you? The whole "click left on thumbpad" thing to see behind you is terrible, because you have to take one of your thumbs off the sticks. Better that you have to click one, or both sticks, for rear view. Only then would taking the orange arrow away be marginally reasonable. (or maybe an alt click, where you can click one stick to engage view mode, and then use the other stick to spin the camera around and see what's behind beside you....would be really cool in cockpit view)

    -As far as the aiming circle, it's hard enough to judge distances in this game as it is. As I like to say, "objects in space are closer than they appear" (right before you crash into them). It's not that easy to see where your shots are going, especially when you're flying and already trying to dodge old refrigerators and pickup trucks (or rocks) floating in space.

    -Yes torpedoes are useless, I will concede that, but we all get hit by one every now and then, don't we? A skill/timing based dodge system, such as in Ace Combat: Assault Horizon (maybe the only good thing about that game) might be what we need here, if we must have a dodge button. I know they tried, with the spinny circle triangle thing....

    If anything, as I posted recently, I think they need to make the markers better/more clear/more visible from across the map.

    I get the desire to make the game better/more hardcore, but this is Star Wars. It's for casuals. We want the SA playerbase to expand, and making it harder and harder for casuals to catch up and learn would just kill this mode.

    As it stands, I've been playing SA almost exclusively for a month, and I haven't topped the leaderboard in one single game. Yeah sure, I suck, ok.......but with many of these changes you guys are proposing, the gap between the top players and the lower tier players would only widen.

    I mean, it sounds like that's what you're asking for, right? To make it harder for lesser skilled players to kill you, because you already know how to kill them?


    BTW I didn't say anything about hero ships because I feel your pain, and I honestly don't have an opinion/don't know what to do about them.
    ZI7BNkU.gif
    ^Maximum the Hormone - Alien^
    (Sorta like an insane Japanese SOAD, but w/ 3 vocalists and slap bass)

    Gamertag: Billkwando PSN: Billkwando YouTube: Billkwando
    Find me in HvV, pushing people off of stuff and watching them fall, like a cat.
  • Can people stop claiming the TIE/IN never had missiles, when we have EU material (see, e.g. "In the Shadow of Yavin") establishing that TIE/INs were, in fact, given upgrades in the form of multipurpose launchers? Legends material isn't canon, but it's still a resource for creators, and any information therein can be used in new products. Which is what Criterion did, in this case.
  • GodKC
    245 posts Member
    Silencer wrote: »
    • Remove Tallissan Lintra, I mean, why is she in the game at all? Just because she was mentioned (!) and appeared for 10 seconds in Star Wars 8?! Or this gender issue, because a woman MUST be mentioned regardless how unknown she is in the SW universe? Instead, add Wedge Antilles or at least Biggs Darklighter.
    • Increas BP costs for hero ships, but make fullfilling objectives more worthwile
    • add the gunboat (Alpha-class Xg-1 Star Wing)

    I spent 5,000 credits on her, leave her alone.
    - GodKC

    If you're looking for a teammate for HvV or GA, send me an invite online.

    XBOX Gamertag: GodKC
  • I was playing Starfighter Assault a bit today and thought of one thing I would change. I think.

    When you damage an Objective (like a Cruiser) you get BP. But it seems like the person to actually fire the last shot that destroys it gets a lot more?
    Explanation: I was flying around killing stuff when I saw what looked like a team member in a Bomber crash into a Cruiser. I put a few blasts in, it blew up, and I happened to look down and I think it gave me 500 BP. For a 1-second gun run. Shouldn't that BP go to the player that put the most work into destroying the Objective? Like that Bomber that was probably dumping everything he had, including his ship :) , into the Cruiser?

    Anyway, I could be wrong about that. I never really studied how much BP is rewarded for playing the Objective.
    Gunfighter Ballads and Trail Songs
  • Yeah, unfortunately, it typically gives the bonus to the person who does the killing blow. Like you said, you get some BP for damaging it, but it is easy for, say, an interceptor to dogfight the whole time, getting a good score from that, and then grab the killing blow from a bomber who did most of the work.
  • I'm not keen on removing the missile lock warnings, but the missiles need to go A LOT faster and be way more accurate. The only time they hit now is if the other person completely ignores them.

    They should make maps with fleet vs fleet, I dont know why they all have to be attack/defense. Should have both sides have a capital ship they have to protect, and an enemy one they have to destroy. Support ships could be in between doing damage to the objectives and make them worth taking out or protecting.
  • Rook008 wrote: »
    I was playing Starfighter Assault a bit today and thought of one thing I would change. I think.

    When you damage an Objective (like a Cruiser) you get BP. But it seems like the person to actually fire the last shot that destroys it gets a lot more?
    Explanation: I was flying around killing stuff when I saw what looked like a team member in a Bomber crash into a Cruiser. I put a few blasts in, it blew up, and I happened to look down and I think it gave me 500 BP. For a 1-second gun run. Shouldn't that BP go to the player that put the most work into destroying the Objective? Like that Bomber that was probably dumping everything he had, including his ship :) , into the Cruiser?

    Anyway, I could be wrong about that. I never really studied how much BP is rewarded for playing the Objective.

    While the killing blow obviously gets a sizable amount of the BP, my experience has been that you have to be alive to get the BP. I have focused on an objective extensively, died, and the objective is destroyed right after. No BP for the objective destruction (BP for damage dealt along the way though). I have had other situations where I put time in on an objective but have to evade, get caught up in a dog fight, and just kind of...wander away from the objective. When the objective finally gets destroyed, I see a big bump in BP immediately after, even if I wasn't involved in the "killing blow."

    Think of it like a continuous character. You start as "player A" until you die then you become "player B" with the next spawn. You can accrue BP throughout the mission regardless. But if you deal objective damage with player A and die, why should player B be given the objective kill bonus? Yes, it is still you either way, but you died, so you don't get a bonus. If you manage to deal damage with player A and stay alive until the objective is destroyed, BP bonus. Actually a decent way of keeping everyone from turning into kamikaze pilots and turning their ships into piloted missiles for easy BP.

    I will say it does suck when you put a lot of effort into an objective and get smoked right before it pops. Or when you're chasing down a hero ship, doing the dirty work and someone else flies into frame, drops a couple of random hits in and gets the kill. You're left with that lovely "kill assist" notification as a parting gift. Grrrr.
  • If I crash into an objective does it even do damge to it? I know on bf 2015 it did. Not so sure on this game?? Anyone confirm this?
  • Billkwando
    2018 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    grimmace2 wrote: »
    Rook008 wrote: »
    I was playing Starfighter Assault a bit today and thought of one thing I would change. I think.

    When you damage an Objective (like a Cruiser) you get BP. But it seems like the person to actually fire the last shot that destroys it gets a lot more?
    Explanation: I was flying around killing stuff when I saw what looked like a team member in a Bomber crash into a Cruiser. I put a few blasts in, it blew up, and I happened to look down and I think it gave me 500 BP. For a 1-second gun run. Shouldn't that BP go to the player that put the most work into destroying the Objective? Like that Bomber that was probably dumping everything he had, including his ship :) , into the Cruiser?

    Anyway, I could be wrong about that. I never really studied how much BP is rewarded for playing the Objective.

    While the killing blow obviously gets a sizable amount of the BP, my experience has been that you have to be alive to get the BP. I have focused on an objective extensively, died, and the objective is destroyed right after. No BP for the objective destruction (BP for damage dealt along the way though). I have had other situations where I put time in on an objective but have to evade, get caught up in a dog fight, and just kind of...wander away from the objective. When the objective finally gets destroyed, I see a big bump in BP immediately after, even if I wasn't involved in the "killing blow."

    Think of it like a continuous character. You start as "player A" until you die then you become "player B" with the next spawn. You can accrue BP throughout the mission regardless. But if you deal objective damage with player A and die, why should player B be given the objective kill bonus? Yes, it is still you either way, but you died, so you don't get a bonus. If you manage to deal damage with player A and stay alive until the objective is destroyed, BP bonus. Actually a decent way of keeping everyone from turning into kamikaze pilots and turning their ships into piloted missiles for easy BP.

    I will say it does suck when you put a lot of effort into an objective and get smoked right before it pops. Or when you're chasing down a hero ship, doing the dirty work and someone else flies into frame, drops a couple of random hits in and gets the kill. You're left with that lovely "kill assist" notification as a parting gift. Grrrr.

    O

    M

    GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

    THAT probably explains why I've never been on top of the leaderboards. I crash into objectives A LOT, because I figure "shoot till you crash = more damage/more points"

    I've been trying to do it less lately, but I definitely did it a lot until very recently (read: yesterday, lol)

    If I crash into an objective does it even do damge to it? I know on bf 2015 it did. Not so sure on this game?? Anyone confirm this?

    I don't know, but I don't think it does, because I've crashed into objectives with zero health left in them, and not finished them off.

    I really do hate pounding an objective, only having to pull away to AVOID crashing, and then someone else gets the last hit and all the points. It seems like it should scale more, or aware no BP until it blows up, but then divide the points up according to how much damage each player did. (but maybe it does and I just wasn't realizing, because I was dead or died by the time it happened)

    Kinda reminds me of Phantasy Star Universe, where the team would fight together to defeat a giant boss, then right as it dies, and the reward boxes dropped, the host would kick everyone from the room before they could grab anything, and then take all the boxes for themselves. (fortunately that was rare)
    ZI7BNkU.gif
    ^Maximum the Hormone - Alien^
    (Sorta like an insane Japanese SOAD, but w/ 3 vocalists and slap bass)

    Gamertag: Billkwando PSN: Billkwando YouTube: Billkwando
    Find me in HvV, pushing people off of stuff and watching them fall, like a cat.
  • hsf_
    1913 posts Member
    Personally, I think the larger kills like cruisers etc should give a global amount of BP say 250? And 500 for the person who got the killing blow.

    Also, I feel missiles and torpedoes need a bit of a buff, maybe just a few percent more accurate.
  • I need: more maps;
    More hero ships
    More "normal" ship like B-wing or TIE Defender
    Fix the invisible crash
    Remove avenge/revenge target
    No, No and NO add the evasive maneuvers. The evasive maneuvers is just for noobs.

  • Billkwando
    2018 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    Remove avenge/revenge target

    Can anybody give a logical reason for why people keep asking for this?

    If your goal is to see a lot more players quitting in frustration, never to return, then carry on.


    Recently, I ended up shooting the same guy down like 5 times in the course of half a match. I felt so bad I ended up sending him a message, the very next time I died, saying "Sorry man, I wasn't intentionally chasing you around".

    He never did end up "returning the favor", and was gone the next round/match. However, because of the revenge marker, at least he had a chance to.

    It's way too hard to see player names from across the map (or any distance) to expect players, especially newer ones, to be able to track down who shot them.

    The Avenge marker, sure whatever. The Revenge marker though, no way.

    Still, if you can present a valid argument about how removing the Revenge marker will improve everyone's player experience (not just yours) I would love to hear it.

    ZI7BNkU.gif
    ^Maximum the Hormone - Alien^
    (Sorta like an insane Japanese SOAD, but w/ 3 vocalists and slap bass)

    Gamertag: Billkwando PSN: Billkwando YouTube: Billkwando
    Find me in HvV, pushing people off of stuff and watching them fall, like a cat.
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!