Darth Alec Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 that's a problem imean the AT-ST was king now some unown vehical suddenly come's and cruches the AT-ST, that's just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 The AT-ST is supposed to have a missile launcher, but like the AAT's missile launcher, was forgotten. I don't understand why the tank vehicles are just so tough. No tank should take so long to be destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Actually, if they only had done like in Bf1942 where side and rear armor are weaker then front armor. It would ease the job of the missile troopers and encourage them to sneak around the enemy and ambushing them. You have no idea how many light tanks I've blown up with a single shot to the rear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syzerian Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 This game has really random damage that hasnt really been thought out. It takes about 10 missiles to destroy a tank when a star fighter can destroy a tank in half a second and a tank takes ages just to destroy a star fighter when star fighters are ment to be fragile. Ive also noticed that snow speeders take almost no damage from the lasers of another snow speeder. Battlefront is also extremely unoptimised. My computer is capable of running games like BF 1942 and Far Cry with all graphics settings on max but the yavin and endor maps even on minimum settings are just unplayable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Originally posted by Syzerian 1)This game has really random damage that hasnt really been thought out. It takes about 10 missiles to destroy a tank when a star fighter can destroy a tank in half a second and a tank takes ages just to destroy a star fighter when star fighters are ment to be fragile. Ive also noticed that snow speeders take almost no damage from the lasers of another snow speeder. 2)Battlefront is also extremely unoptimised. My computer is capable of running games like BF 1942 and Far Cry with all graphics settings on max but the yavin and endor maps even on minimum settings are just unplayable. 1-It has random damage, true, but I've never been able to destroy a tank in a few seconds with a starfighter. Also, I think that even with FF on, you do less damage to friendlies. 2-I get no problem at all. My FPS is ok on both maps. Nothing weird at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt. Bannon Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 the problem from the snowspeeder is that its lasers do next to no damage. i've made strafing runs on spawn points only to have troopers get knocked down, get back up, and shoot me down. shooting an atst while in a snowspeeder is like throwing rocks at a carrier (without an army of ewoks to help) and the droid starfighter can take out a republic tank in one pass. the tie fighter can take out a combat speeder in one pass. the jedi starfighter does decent damage against the AAT, and the only redeeming value of the xwing is that it has missiles. it's lasers suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 The X-Wing torpedoes are just as useless as its blasters. The X-Wing was so much better in the movies. I don't understand why the Snowspeeder's blasters are so worthless. They should be able to take down an AT-ST, come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revan Solo Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Originally posted by TK-8252 The X-Wing torpedoes are just as useless as its blasters. The X-Wing was so much better in the movies. I don't understand why the Snowspeeder's blasters are so worthless. They should be able to take down an AT-ST, come on. Snowspeeder are exspecially built to defense infantery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaxSlinger Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Originally posted by Cyclone7 lock please... Why? You fanboys can't stand to face the truth that this game was a complete flop? What's it gonna take, over 95% of the servers to empty out? Oh wait, that's already happened hasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 lock please... Yeah, I agree. And let's remove links to reviews don't give SWBF a full 100% out of 100%! ..er, not... If someone thought SWBF wasn't good, too bad. SWBF has its good sides. However, you must be able to hear that without getting angry. SWBF is simply too simplified. There's no apparent reward for employing tactics; it's just "see-'em and shoot-'em". Sad. What problems do you have, it's great! Read the freaking posts in the thread.. People actually take time to answer that question. I don't understand why the Snowspeeder's blasters are so worthless. They should be able to take down an AT-ST, come on. Yeah, they should. If they can't, I don't see why not. In Galactic Conquest the AT-ST has been strenghtened, but still T-47 speeders can take it down. Snowspeeder [were especially] built to defen[d] infantery. Nope. Airspeeders (they're not only used in polar wastes) are simply tugs with blaster cannons. That's what the tow cable really is for -for towing things. I mean, doesn't the name "tow cable" ring a bell to you? The blasters are there for self-defense. Plain and simple. They're to take down threats to the trading facility the speeder is assigned to, yes, but no source says they're built especially to defend infantry. There's a SW universe outside of the movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Black Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle SWBF is simply too simplified. There's no apparent reward for employing tactics; it's just "see-'em and shoot-'em". Sad. If you don't like it, don't play it I played SW:Battlefront before I bought it, and chose to buy it *because* it was simplified. I like complex games like Battlefield: 1942, but not all the time. It's unfortunate you picked up the game thinking it would be something else, but it is fun for me and I like it. Perhaps, like someone else said, reviewers should NOT have compared it to Battlefield:1942, but instead to Unreal Tournament or Quake... it's much more fast-paced run 'n gun than Battlefield is. This is why people were disappointed - they wanted Battlefield: 1942 in space, and instead got Unreal Tournament in Star Wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 It's unfortunate you picked up the game thinking it would be something else, but it is fun for me and I like it. To be honest, I was basing that on what I know of the game, and from what I've seen from people playing it. I've studied it pretty extensively, though. I will play it as soon as I can, though. As for reviewers comparing it to BF1942: They most likely did because people wanted to know what it was like compared to BF1942. You're completely right that there should be diversity in games, though. I don't like CS, but I respect that people want simple games like that. On the other hand, while I like complicated games, I don't like many of those modern jet sims where you have to read the manual for 30 minutes to even take off:D . And I actually liked The Phantom Menace, simple as it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Originally posted by WaxSlinger Why? You fanboys can't stand to face the truth that this game was a complete flop? What's it gonna take, over 95% of the servers to empty out? Oh wait, that's already happened hasn't it? Isn't this trolling? Get a mod in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt. Bannon Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 pesonally, I think waxslinger should be banned from the swbattlefront section of the lucasforums. he has had 6 posts here, and not a single one of them was constructive. If he doesnt like the game so much, he should find a different place to hang out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 That's exactly what we call trolling. He's not here for anything else then pissing people off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.