Space battles?

[Schetter]

All you people going 'Yea they should include space battles because that would be cool" need to chill out and take this into consideration: do you want an game that is well put together, stable, and bug free or a game that is buggy, glitch-prone, and as a result, less fun to play because they tried to tackle too much in one game? Also - would you like SW:BF to come out this September or in 2005?

 

Hmm?

 

Whether space combat in SW:BF will be feasable depends on how their game engine handles gravity. In BF:42, it's handled rather half-a**ed since there was no real need to make it as detailed as in, say, UT2004. Try turning the gravity down to about -1 in a BF:42 server and you'll see what I mean, especially if you try and get in a plane. Whether they make the gravity as 'fluid' as in UT is up in the air - they don't really need to, but it would be a nice touch. It would open the door for space mods and custom space maps, but I really don't think this game needs it as a part of the retail package.

 

There are plenty of games, PC and console, to quench your starfighting thirst. It's not like space battles should have any large effect on what is going on with the battle on the ground, so including simultaneous space/ground battles is almost pointless (and a netcode logistical nightmare). Besides, there'll be plenty of opportunity for y'all to tool around in your snowspeeders on Hoth.

 

I run a BF:42 squad that plays the game competetively in various online leagues, and I'm looking to create a new division for this game when it comes out. I'm looking at it from a competetive standpoint, and this game really does not need these ridiculous space battles. Calling in strikes from space is cool, but that's about all that's necessary. Anything more and you might as well just create another title.

 

Leave space to the modders and let the designers deliver the retail package they set out and promised to make. If its so ridiculously easy to create space battles (like Lt. Havoc points out below) then let the community build them and let those who want to play those maps play them.

 

This game is not and should not be thought of as the game to end all SW games, otherwise you're going to be sorely disappointed. This game was obviously designed with BF:42 in mind and a newer, Star Wars version of BF:42 is what we're going to get.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Amen.

 

you're my new best friend:D

[Huntsman]

There are not plenty of starfighting games. In fact, in recent years they have really dropped off the radar. There are CERTAINLY NOT any multiplayer Star Wars games that place us n space. There are one or two maps created by modders of existing games and that's it. ...and that's not enough, not by my reckoning. In any event, these games are always limited by the game engine which wasn't made to fully impliment the vision of the modder.

 

You may consider space battles " ridiculous" and you are welcome to your opinion but I do NOT share it....and nor do many others. Weaving around Star Destroyers in an epic battle in multiplayer is what I've sought for some time out of the STAR WARS game.

 

As you say it should be "ridiculously easy to create a space map" so we shouldn't be asking too much from the developers...

 

This game is indeed as you say "obviously designed with BF:42 in mind and a newer, Star Wars version of BF:42." Hell everyone wants to hop on this new cash cow band wagon but it does not use the same engine as BF1942 and I would rather wait a bit longer for the game to be released and get everything I want rather than have it rushed out.

 

You seem to see space as extra and unnecessary. Along this vein, shall we take out air combat in BF1942? It is the same. Space combat is as intergal a part of the STAR WARS universe as much as air combat is part of the full WW2 experience.

 

The point of these kinds of games in to integrate the full combat experience of a scenario whether it be WW2, Star Wars or anything else...and in STAR WARS, that experience would be incomplete without space.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by Huntsman

1.There are not plenty of starfighting games. In fact, in recent years they have really dropped off the radar. There are CERTAINLY NOT any multiplayer Star Wars games that place us n space. There are one or two maps created by modders of existing games and that's it. ...and that's not enough, not by my reckoning. In any event, these games are always limited by the game engine which wasn't made to fully impliment the vision of the modder.

 

2.You may consider space battles " ridiculous" and you are welcome to your opinion but I do NOT share it....and nor do many others. Weaving around Star Destroyers in an epic battle in multiplayer is what I've sought for some time out of the STAR WARS game.

 

3.As you say it should be "ridiculously easy to create a space map" so we shouldn't be asking too much from the developers...

 

4.This game is indeed as you say "obviously designed with BF:42 in mind and a newer, Star Wars version of BF:42." Hell everyone wants to hop on this new cash cow band wagon but it does not use the same engine as BF1942 and I would rather wait a bit longer for the game to be released and get everything I want rather than have it rushed out.

 

5.You seem to see space as extra and unnecessary. Along this vein, shall we take out air combat in BF1942? It is the same. Space combat is as intergal a part of the STAR WARS universe as much as air combat is part of the full WW2 experience.

 

6.The point of these kinds of games in to integrate the full combat experience of a scenario whether it be WW2, Star Wars or anything else...and in STAR WARS, that experience would be incomplete without space.

 

1. Check your sources, XvT featured multiplayer support. Oh by the way...there are plenty of starfighting games:

-XvT

-XWA

-XW

-Tie Fighter

-Rogue Squadron

-Rogue Squadron II

-Rogue Squadron III

-Jedi Starfighter

-Starfighter

-Battle for Naboo

 

Number of ground based Star Wars title:

 

-Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds

-Dark Forces

-Jedi Knight I, II & III

-Bounty Hunter

-Jedi Power Battles

-etc.

 

Only one focuses on the grunts and it's SWGB. The rest are more like adventure games.

 

2. Of course. They should make that after they make this.

 

3. There's a difference. I'd rather have them focusing totally on the game now instead of wasting time making space maps.

 

4. Marketing will stop that. The game comes out at the same time the OT DVD comes out. You won't make them wait.

 

5. You seem to forget that there have been WWII games that concentrated only on one part of warfare. There have been air combat only games. This game focuses on planetary battles, not space ones.

 

6. No. There have been no Star Wars game that focused on planetary battles(with the exception of SWGB but that's an RTS and not an MMOFPS). This game obviously doesn't integrate the "full" Star Wars experience.

 

 

I've played enough Star Wars flight sims in my life to want a game that focuses mainly on ground war.

Keep in mind that this is not supposed to be the ultimate Star Wars experience as BF:1942 was not the ultimate WWII experience.

[yaebginn]

I agree with lukeiamyourdad, I think. I do enjoy flight sim games, but there are too many for my taste. While I dont want the flyign part to be crappy, I want it to be mainly focused on the ground battles.

[Schetter]

Originally posted by Huntsman

There are not plenty of starfighting games. In fact, in recent years they have really dropped off the radar. There are CERTAINLY NOT any multiplayer Star Wars games that place us n space. There are one or two maps created by modders of existing games and that's it. ...and that's not enough, not by my reckoning. In any event, these games are always limited by the game engine which wasn't made to fully impliment the vision of the modder.

 

You may consider space battles " ridiculous" and you are welcome to your opinion but I do NOT share it....and nor do many others. Weaving around Star Destroyers in an epic battle in multiplayer is what I've sought for some time out of the STAR WARS game.

 

I'd enjoy a good SW starfight sim just as much as you would that takes advantage of present-day advances in computer and internet technology. However you all are proposing that LucasArts inject a flight sim into a ground based game - and furthermore should figure out some magical way to have the ground war and the space war intertwine into some massive SW orgy.

 

As you say it should be "ridiculously easy to create a space map" so we shouldn't be asking too much from the developers...

 

This game is indeed as you say "obviously designed with BF:42 in mind and a newer, Star Wars version of BF:42." Hell everyone wants to hop on this new cash cow band wagon but it does not use the same engine as BF1942 and I would rather wait a bit longer for the game to be released and get everything I want rather than have it rushed out.

 

You seem to see space as extra and unnecessary. Along this vein, shall we take out air combat in BF1942? It is the same. Space combat is as intergal a part of the STAR WARS universe as much as air combat is part of the full WW2 experience.

 

The point of these kinds of games in to integrate the full combat experience of a scenario whether it be WW2, Star Wars or anything else...and in STAR WARS, that experience would be incomplete without space.

 

LIKE I SAID - there's ample room for the mod community to make maps such as this for those interested to dink around on. Obviously the marketing guys decided that a game like SW:BF would sell better than yet another SW flight/vehicle sim at this point due to the current gaming climate. It's not a matter of creating a supergame for all us SW fans to totally get off on, it always has and always will be creating a product that sells and that people can play enjoyably. Scope, scope, scope. Hmm...what's a game that tried to take on too much and sucked until they patched the crap out of it....hmmm...SW:Galaxies ring a bell?

 

Also - LIKE I SAID - there will be ample opportunity for you pilots to flex your muscle on maps like Hoth in the Snowspeeders and the like...Speeder bikes on Endor, etc.

 

Space is not extra and unnecessary in terms of the entire SW universe - I'm not an idiot. I'm saying it's unnecessary when considering the intended scope of this game.

 

Your comparison of my arguement against the air support in BF:42 is out of context - it is NOT the same. Starfighters aren't built to go on straifing runs over planets - about the only exception is that of the TIE Bombers, and that can be easily coded in as AI air support that 'pilots' can call in on an area. Not to mention that a pilot that knows his stuff can upset the game balance in BF:42 dramatically. Rock-paper-sizzors my a$$. One pilot can dominate an entire team in BF, hardly consider that fair. Sure, air support and combined arms were a main element in the overall strategical makeup of WWII historically, and should recieve some representation in the game. However you can't tell me that this scenario ever happened in any WWII battle: infantry unit spots tank, radios directly up to pilot requesting air support, pilot swoops in about 30 ft over the ground and lands a 50 lb bomb square on the turret, then reloads the bombay out of the stash of 15 such bombs that it carrys. GIMME A BREAK. So, in response to your question, yes, I'd enjoy seeing planes either nerfed or taken out of the mix in BF:42.

[jangofett804]

If you want a good space combat game, just go buy Rogue Leader or Rebel Strike. Battlefront should be ground-combat only.

[Huntsman]

"LIKE I SAID - there's ample room for the mod community to make maps such as this for those interested to dink around on. "

 

...and I already made an arguement as to why mods are inferior to the game being built to include the dynamic.

 

"One pilot can dominate an entire team in BF, hardly consider that fair...So, in response to your question, yes, I'd enjoy seeing planes either nerfed or taken out of the mix in BF:42."

 

Sounds like someone needs to practice with the anti air weaponery.

 

"Your comparison of my arguement against the air support in BF:42 is out of context - it is NOT the same. Starfighters aren't built to go on straifing runs over planets"

 

Again, I'm looking for space battles...I'm sure we'll see them in the game as air support anyway. While it is true that they would be in an exclusive role (all starships), rather than complimentary role in an integrated scenario (ground units and air units) I am arguing on the side of completeness. Again, space battles are a significant part of the Star Wars universe.

 

"Hmm...what's a game that tried to take on too much and sucked until they patched the crap out of it....hmmm...SW:Galaxies ring a bell?"

 

What games isn't released needing to be patched to hell....better yet, name a single massive multiplayer game (as Galaxies is) that was released in a complete state.

[Huntsman]

Originally posted by DarkLordTrooper

If you want a good space combat game, just go buy Rogue Leader or Rebel Strike. Battlefront should be ground-combat only.

 

DarkLordTrooper , I'd like you to take the time to read my posts before responding to them in the future. I said MULTIPLAYER.

[Huntsman]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

1. Check your sources, XvT featured multiplayer support. Oh by the way...there are plenty of starfighting games:

-XvT

-XWA

-XW

-Tie Fighter

-Rogue Squadron

-Rogue Squadron II

-Rogue Squadron III

-Jedi Starfighter

-Starfighter

-Battle for Naboo

 

Number of ground based Star Wars title:

 

-Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds

-Dark Forces

-Jedi Knight I, II & III

-Bounty Hunter

-Jedi Power Battles

-etc.

 

 

Roger, but as you've said XvT was the only multiplayer but it looks like it might have sucked.

 

Anyway, I'll be looking towards Galaxies I suppose once the Space expansion is released. The pics I saw looked breathtaking. I am just loathe to pay a monthly fee tho :-(

 

Was I looking for the FULL STAR WARS combat experience in this game? Yes, I was kinda hoping.

[Schetter]

"Sounds like someone needs to practice with the anti air weaponery."

 

Sounds like someone has never played BF competetively in a clan in the upper-eschelon. Don't turn this into a flame war. I post a page full of arguements and that's all you have to refute it? Pfft, nice comeback.

 

"Roger, but as you've said XvT was the only multiplayer but it looks like it might have sucked."

 

Sounds like someone has also never played the game. XvT was AWESOME and I'd still play it had it not been stolen and if I wasn't too lazy to not want to try and dig another copy up.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Lol. You really need to play BF1942 with good players to see how planes are overpowered. Even anti-air weaponry are no match for them.

 

XvT was awesome, the graphics kinda sucked but the game was great.

 

I could also say that space battles is a significant part of Star wars and want it added into say Kotor2. Can it be done? No.

Even if we could do that with the engine, Kotor is an RPG as SWBF is a ground based shooter.

[Huntsman]

nolimitclan.com

 

Look for Huntsman. I used to captain my own squad but retired from that position. NoL plays competitively in a number of leagues.

 

I'll grant you I haven't played vanilla BF in awhile, mostly DC and BFV but when I used to play vanilla I really didn't have much of a problem. I just don't know what to tell ya bro...

[Schetter]

AA guns used to be effective until all the n00b pilots complained and they nerfed them in a patch. Not to mention that the top pilots these days will altitude whore if you start flaking them and then just come down vertically on you with their engine off, rendering your gun useless if you even notice them coming in on you.

 

It takes 7-10 direct/really close hits with the flak gun to take down a plane in BF. How's that balanced? I mean, you can't even take out infantry with the flak without 4 hits.

[Huntsman]

Ah yes...going into a steep dive was my tactic when they released the Coral Reef map. As I remember, I took off, ascended above the clouds the whole route to the enemy carrier, and used the minimap to locate the carrier.

 

Once above the enemy carier I'd go into a steep dive (I loved the whine sound this created) dropped my load then pulled up below the deck of the carrier, letting the momentum created by the dive carry me to saftey.

 

There was a disadvantage to doing this on Coral though, it took quite a bit longer to line up the bombing run....and if you have enemy bombing your carrier at the same time, you're in a bit of a time crisis. I usually just made the vertical attack my first surprise attack then came back in from varying angles horizontally as close to the water as possible.

 

I haven't played vanilla BF since probably a month or two after the release of the Battle of Britain map though.

[Schetter]

Wow. That puts you at patch 1.4? Yea, that would explain your view.

[lukeiamyourdad]

It's easier to destroy tanks with the flak guns then to destroy aircrafts:p

[Huntsman]

Originally posted by Schetter

Wow. That puts you at patch 1.4? Yea, that would explain your view.

 

Well, I guess it's a good thing I went to DC and never looked back...

[Huntsman]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

It's easier to destroy tanks with the flak guns then to destroy aircrafts:p

 

AS IT SHOULD BE!

 

Come on, who wants to get shot down? What's the fun in that I ask you!?

[joesdomain]

I personally think anti-air units should not be used in some of the maps. Such as Hoth map! The empire can use one of it's at-at walkers to shoot the snowspeeders. Really there is no need for anti-air in the endor map since there is no aircraft seen in the movies except a Imperial Lamda Class Shuttle landing on top of the landing platform.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by Huntsman

AS IT SHOULD BE!

 

Come on, who wants to get shot down? What's the fun in that I ask you!?

 

Actually, I do. Well, not me but I like to piss off people and kill their fun

[yaebginn]

If you saw the trailer(second one) and the screen of the Jedi Starfighter on Kamino. You can kind of see what its like. I'm gonna go watch the trailer again, cyas.

[SITH_ShadowCat]

Originally posted by joesdomain

I personally think anti-air units should not be used in some of the maps. Such as Hoth map! The empire can use one of it's at-at walkers to shoot the snowspeeders. Really there is no need for anti-air in the endor map since there is no aircraft seen in the movies except a Imperial Lamda Class Shuttle landing on top of the landing platform.

 

The anti-air unit your referring to is the same as the anti-vehicles unit, or the heavy trooper unit, its just that the rocket launcher they use is effective against both ground and air vehicles. I just hope we don't see abunch of bazooka lamers running around spamming the game with explosions, this counts for grenades too. Plus, regular troops can probably take out an air-craft without the need of a heavy troop at the side, kinda like how the ground troops from Force Commander shot at the air unit incase one forgets to bring the anit-air.

[Schetter]

Interesting how the AA debate pertaining to BF got turned into a SW:BF one. *shrug* oh well...at least kinda back on topic.

 

I think the new gameplay footage featured on Gamespot pretty much clears up any confusion about this - seems there will be limited space play but the physics of it definately seem to be pretty childish.

[Lt. Havoc]

I'm looking forward to the ground based combat of Battlefront and I'm especially excited about the speeders and At-ATs but I still feel there should be space battles even if they are pure space battles (meaning starships and fighters only).

 

I still say from a design and development aspect the space battles would be far easier to create. It would require 1/100th the work to create a space map than to make a land based map. Any mappers out there can tell you this. Basically for the maps its fill the sky box with the appropriate space backdrop texture, define the out of bounds, set capture points (which could look like nav bouys or spacestations) and place the objects (the ships). Modeling the starships doesn't have to be a huge undertaking. What's the bare minimum we need to see on Star destroyers as players?

1. The exterior.

2. The interior of the bridge from which players can pilot the ship and use turbolifts to transfer to other parts of the ship.

3. The Hangar where the fighters will spawn.

4. Turbolaser batteries.

 

Think of how the carriers are in BF1942. They usually have 2-3 spawn positions. Use this method. When the maps starts you chose where you'd like to spawn depending on what you'd like to do: defend, pilot or pilot fighters. In each of the 3 interior sections set lifts so that if & when players approach it automatically takes them to another parts of the ship. What it means is you don't have to have an intense interior and resource taxing model. No hallways, barracks, mess halls etc. Do this for a small range of objects like Cruisers, spacestations, SD and frigates. Those coupled with the already modeled fighters would be enough for some great multiplayer space battles.

 

Developers change their plans to meet demand or widen the range of game play. Look at the maps Coral Sea and Battle of Britain for BF1942, how much foot soldier work is there in those? I'm confident at some point, through some update or expansion they'll figure it out.