Pilot Archive
Thread: How to Fix the Jedi Fighter.
JediNg wrote:
For those of you using the real life examples of things that are old and are still good, IE Cars and fighter planes, you have to remember the galactic empire/republic is VERY old. They have had this level of technology for over a millennia. Their rate cultural and technological evolution is much faster than ours. In "real life" terms, 20 years in their time could mean the difference in 200 years to us in terms of technological evolution.
Wrong. Galactic Civilization has pretty much tapped out advancement in the terms of starfighter development, meaning that the rate of change is slowing, not quickening. The shift from prequel to OT times is a shift from fancy to practical, but it is not by any means an advancement...it's a change in developmental mindset. The X-wings and TIE Fighters may be more practical than the twenty to thirty year old fighters, but they're not more advanced--just more efficient.
The N-1 is supposed to perform similarly to an X-wing. Difference? The N-1 cost ten times as much to build, as they're all hand-built.
Vegitaa wrote:
Coran_Sienar wrote:
Deep Space is the absolute fastest way to gain Faction Points in the game. But nobody likes grinding Faction Points.
Well, thats because once you hit 66,000 faction points whats the point anymore? There needs to be something added to JTL that will attract overt pilots.
I proposed a space station capture mechanic a longtime ago that required POB ships and fighter support, would have tied into GCW and such... maybe it's an idea that is finally possible. I'll repost it today.....
More usage for prestige would help, I think.
Then again, we really do need more usage for FP points first... 
extacly, ships like the eta-2 were a max effort design where cost wasnt much of an issue, so i can see it being superior to a mass produced fighter like a tie-interceptor even though its older.
Halyn wrote:
The shift from prequel to OT times is a shift from fancy to practical, but it is not by any means an advancement...it's a change in developmental mindset. The X-wings and TIE Fighters may be more practical than the twenty to thirty year old fighters, but they're not more advanced--just more efficient.
The N-1 is supposed to perform similarly to an X-wing. Difference? The N-1 cost ten times as much to build, as they're all hand-built.
Gaitan wrote:
Yep Vegitaa, but my concern is that the compromise and good answers were getting buried in the posts that wandered off into the realm of personal attacks or technical "proof" why PvPers were screwed and now the game sucks, etc.
When the focus was fairness, it was getting lost in the shuffle. While I think setting the YPR on the new ships to reasonable levels is a great (and better yet *workable*) solution, I think that setting the YPR lower while also knocking down the mass would be punitive and unfair.
Ah yes.. but, Tomo has been involved in this discussion. When this info gets sent to the Dev's his job really begins by filtering this stuff and getting to the "maet and potatoes" of the issue. I know it sounds foolish (been in 2 beta's and 1 alpha with SOE) but I'm going to go out on a limb and put my faith in "the system".
Tomo tells them what we think and what we feel is fair.The Dev's look at that data, and hopefully we recieve what we asked for. A man can dream...
Ducimus wrote:
I personnaly feel the best solution is to lower the YPR rates to be roughly in scale with a ship of its given mass. That way we don't create any more "prenerfs", and nobody has to refit any ships because of mass changes.
That's exactly what I would see too, partially because I do not trust the developers to tinker with mass on already existing ships.
Would work great for all the heavies and the ARC. Can see a bit of an issue with the Jedi Starfighter being turned into a sluggish medium mass fighter though, it should have been designed as a low mass, ultra-maneuverable fighter from the get go...
Can someone people inform SOE that beta testing is a healthy thing to do? 
I still think the heavy scyk, and tie fighter are better then the jedi fighter and grevious. You get 6k more mass, and the only thing you loose is a questionable gun spot. I perfer running with a re'd lvl 10, over two lvl 7's anyways. I had a fight 5 vs me, 4 of them had jedi fighters and 1 had a greivous. I jumped them initialy and killed them all. Second time I killed 1 and then they got me (every dog gets lucky 
). 3rd attack I killed them all again . 4th wave I killed them all but one he got me just as I turned towards him. I must admit I think these guys are not experienced at pvp. But those heavy variant beginner ships imo are the stuff. I fly the scyk.
Fuss
Fuss wrote:
I still think the heavy scyk, and tie fighter are better then the jedi fighter and grevious. You get 6k more mass, and the only thing you loose is a questionable gun spot. I perfer running with a re'd lvl 10, over two lvl 7's anyways. I had a fight 5 vs me, 4 of them had jedi fighters and 1 had a greivous. I jumped them initialy and killed them all. Second time I killed 1 and then they got me (every dog gets lucky
Fuss
Factory churning out me some new 5560ish max damage IR2's now infact.
Halyn wrote:
JediNg wrote:
For those of you using the real life examples of things that are old and are still good, IE Cars and fighter planes, you have to remember the galactic empire/republic is VERY old. They have had this level of technology for over a millennia. Their rate cultural and technological evolution is much faster than ours. In "real life" terms, 20 years in their time could mean the difference in 200 years to us in terms of technological evolution.
Wrong. Galactic Civilization has pretty much tapped out advancement in the terms of starfighter development, meaning that the rate of change is slowing, not quickening. The shift from prequel to OT times is a shift from fancy to practical, but it is not by any means an advancement...it's a change in developmental mindset. The X-wings and TIE Fighters may be more practical than the twenty to thirty year old fighters, but they're not more advanced--just more efficient.
The N-1 is supposed to perform similarly to an X-wing. Difference? The N-1 cost ten times as much to build, as they're all hand-built.
Not wrong. Improvements always happen. And at the age the galactic republic/empire is at, what would be big changes to "us" would be trivial to them. like being able to go 573859327x faster than the speed of light as opposed to 537634476x.
Image Rec's better than Spacebomb 2's? Honestly I think I have Comcusion 3 launchers in mine. Never have used missles much though...
Ducimus wrote:
Alyxian wrote:
Best fire 2, with reward shields and heavy armour (with all that mass) one might not do the trick
Yah i know that worries me. What was the percentage on WO3 and WO4 anyway? Maybe ill just run WO 4 and try and be a skilless missleboy. Figures, only now when i can't fly an oppressor do i consider this.
Not to get too off topic, but Yeah, PvP...IR's all the way...the get tone way faster, and you can pack 6 in each tube instead of 3-4 like the spacebombs.
Not to mention, the IR does not fall for Chaff as easy as the spacebombs.