Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
edited June 2020
it's been confirmed via little additions to the Squadrons website that there will be AI ships involved in the fleet battles alongside the human (5v5) players:
"you can play with both players (5v5) and AI, or just AI by yourself"
They've also added to the website exactly how many component slots you'll get and what that all entails. Different ships will have different components available to them.
And sadly, they've confirmed that (at least officially) there's only 8 ships in the game. I just hope we get more in an an expansion pack or, if it comes to it, from modders.
The fact that there's no B-Wing but they added the special laser from the Blade Wing episode of Rebels kinda makes me scratch my head.
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
edited June 2020
If they're going with asymmetrical design they should have put the B-Wing and Defender as paired ships. The B-Wing is slower and more heavily armed, the Defender is faster but doesn't have as much ordnance. They're both similarly tanky, newer/more modern designs than the others, so they could offset.
Or just cut the Y-Wing. B-Wings are objectively cooler and better and if the time frame is post Endor I'd imagine the new republic is phasing out Ys.
ChaosHat on
+2
Options
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
If they're going with asymmetrical design they should have put the B-Wing and Defender as paired ships. The B-Wing is slower and more heavily armed, the Defender is faster but doesn't have as much ordnance. They're both similarly tanky, newer/more modern designs than the others, so they could offset.
Or just cut the Y-Wing. B-Wings are objectively cooler and better and if the time frame is post Endor I'd imagine the new republic is phasing out Ys.
They didn't phase out the Y, they actually made a new model, which is featured in the ST.
I think the Y is there because they needed a bomber class to counter-balance the TIE Bomber. B-Wing is more of a heavy assault fighter like you said (although it can fulfill a bomber role as well) so I don't think a replacement would work. Adding the B-wing and the Defender to the roster though would probably work and makes me wonder why they didn't do it. They're obviously aware of the B-Wing and the Defender...
edit: it also pisses me off because we will always be 1 fighter short of going full Alphabet Squadron. You know damn well the Alphabet Squadron insignia and paint scheme will be in the game and to not let us actually field the full squadron seems like mixed messaging.
The B-Wing's new moment of glory was in Rise of Skywalker, where it flew into frame and was obliterated in seconds.
Meanwhile the upgraded Y-Wing not only shot down several Final Order TIEs, it also dropped an unshielded Star Destroyer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmvt7yFTtt8
+2
Options
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
The B-Wing's new moment of glory was in Rise of Skywalker, where it flew into frame and was obliterated in seconds.
Meanwhile the upgraded Y-Wing not only shot down several Final Order TIEs, it also dropped an unshielded Star Destroyer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmvt7yFTtt8
that was a different model of B-Wing made for the Resistance.
Fun Fact, one of the 6 Resistance B-Wing's present at the battle of Exegol was piloted by Admiral Gial Ackbar's son, Colonel Aftab Ackbar.
I'm totally 100% ok with there being only eight ships, at least to start.
Balancing this game will be a pain in the ass, and, sadly, this game isn't supposed to be an X-wing/TIE Fighter game where you get to enjoy a whole laundry list of ships. It's a competitive 5v5 shooter, with some very slight asymmetrical stats for flavor - nothing more (IE TIEs wont have shields but get better power management?)
But, and I've seen this question a lot, is how do you balance the visibility of a TIE cockpit with the rebel ships? Sure, y-wings and u-wings may be pretty cramped, and it's not like X-wings and A-wings have modern day bubble canopies either, but still. All imperial ships have the same shit cockpit.
My friends want to play empire (because they did nothing wrong), but I keep thinking of how claustrophobic those cockpits are
It looks like some drama has gone down with the xwau project. Not sure what that means for the projects future, kind of a crazy thing to happen to a project that's been going on for so long.
Included some, what sounds like, weird behavior on a primary contributors part. We are so far only seeing one side of the story though.
Hope this doesn't ruin what has been one of the more successful mods/projects in gaming (in my opinion) .
He manipulated the crafts fixes for the XWAUCP which would have resulted in the loss of the whole XWA directory of whoever installed them.
what the fuck
I am by no means a professional coder, but with my time in the code mines for SS13 I have seen people commit absolutely busted code with no apparent checking to see if it works.
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
I'm totally 100% ok with there being only eight ships, at least to start.
Balancing this game will be a pain in the ass, and, sadly, this game isn't supposed to be an X-wing/TIE Fighter game where you get to enjoy a whole laundry list of ships. It's a competitive 5v5 shooter, with some very slight asymmetrical stats for flavor - nothing more (IE TIEs wont have shields but get better power management?)
But, and I've seen this question a lot, is how do you balance the visibility of a TIE cockpit with the rebel ships? Sure, y-wings and u-wings may be pretty cramped, and it's not like X-wings and A-wings have modern day bubble canopies either, but still. All imperial ships have the same shit cockpit.
My friends want to play empire (because they did nothing wrong), but I keep thinking of how claustrophobic those cockpits are
Yeah balancing is more important than variety in a game like this. I'm ok with them holding off on additional ships for DLC.
The cockpit is really interesting. On the Republic side, you get increased visibility side to side; but on the Imperial side you get better visibility below you. I'm curious to see how it works out and if there is a competitive edge for one vs the other.
He manipulated the crafts fixes for the XWAUCP which would have resulted in the loss of the whole XWA directory of whoever installed them.
what the fuck
I am by no means a professional coder, but with my time in the code mines for SS13 I have seen people commit absolutely busted code with no apparent checking to see if it works.
I am a professional coder, and I've seen other professionals commit absolutely busted code with no apparently checking to see if it works.
I mean, not as much as it happens on the SS13 code base but still...
I'm totally 100% ok with there being only eight ships, at least to start.
Balancing this game will be a pain in the ass, and, sadly, this game isn't supposed to be an X-wing/TIE Fighter game where you get to enjoy a whole laundry list of ships. It's a competitive 5v5 shooter, with some very slight asymmetrical stats for flavor - nothing more (IE TIEs wont have shields but get better power management?)
But, and I've seen this question a lot, is how do you balance the visibility of a TIE cockpit with the rebel ships? Sure, y-wings and u-wings may be pretty cramped, and it's not like X-wings and A-wings have modern day bubble canopies either, but still. All imperial ships have the same shit cockpit.
My friends want to play empire (because they did nothing wrong), but I keep thinking of how claustrophobic those cockpits are
Yeah balancing is more important than variety in a game like this. I'm ok with them holding off on additional ships for DLC.
The cockpit is really interesting. On the Republic side, you get increased visibility side to side; but on the Imperial side you get better visibility below you. I'm curious to see how it works out and if there is a competitive edge for one vs the other.
Cockpit visibility is one of the most important features for dogfighting. Their commitment to following the Star Wars aesthetic is admirable, but ultimately will kill my enjoyment playing in VR. Visibility is the largest factor in my ship choice in Elite Dangerous: I can't enjoy the Viper at all because of it.
I think the only solution is to artificially give you increased visibility in all of those cockpits. Either through transparent hulls or maybe some in-universe virtual overlay (i.e. a wire diagram that appears in your visor as you look through the hull).
But, and I've seen this question a lot, is how do you balance the visibility of a TIE cockpit with the rebel ships? Sure, y-wings and u-wings may be pretty cramped, and it's not like X-wings and A-wings have modern day bubble canopies either, but still. All imperial ships have the same shit cockpit.
My friends want to play empire (because they did nothing wrong), but I keep thinking of how claustrophobic those cockpits are
I feel like this might only be an issue in VR. On a screen looking around is clumsy at best when it's even possible, and you get targets into your sights largely using your radar.
If they're going with asymmetrical design they should have put the B-Wing and Defender as paired ships.
I've never liked the TIE Defender. Nothing's ever topped the Interceptor for looks in my opinion, but I think the Defender just looks like something cobbled together with Lego parts. And it has Star Wars's problem of power creep -- faster, stronger, tougher, plus a tractor beam -- the way comics, books and later films would just keep introducing even superer Star Destroyers and planet killer after planet killer.
The TIE Defender was always supposed to be the ME-262 of the Empire. Ostensibly, it would have been a war winner if it was mass-produced, but politics and military bungling left it in a sorry state and unable to turn the tide.
Basically, and this is a really simple rule, developers, one that literally all of you can follow without exception. I understand software development is hard, game development even more so, but it's still something you can absolutely follow:
If your video game, upon release, does not have any sort of functional multiplayer framework in it because it doesn't exist, don't tell the public it totally does, it just won't work because your game is so hugely awesome it'll take months before people run into each other and hope to God that's actually true and people don't notice you patching it in.
Like, it's really simple. Don't lie, and if you do lie, don't tell such a blatantly obvious and easily disprovable lie. Or be like Diablo III or Halo: MCC--fuck up your multiplayer so it works badly for a while, but at least it exists, because that's still much better.
It's one thing if your planets are basically 1/1000th the size you said they'd be. Hey, at least you still have planets. They're there. Unlike your multiplayer. "Oh, we have planets you can land on in our game, but the frequency of terrestrial planets is so low in the huge vastness of space we don't know when a player will actually find one..."
The TIE Defender was always supposed to be the ME-262 of the Empire. Ostensibly, it would have been a war winner if it was mass-produced, but politics and military bungling left it in a sorry state and unable to turn the tide.
This is a good analogy. Like anyone who played TIE Fighter, I have a soft spot in my heart for the TIE Defender, a ship it completely introduced. I even like it cosmetically, even though I'm not going to claim it's nicer looking than the TIE Interceptor. Hey, there are people who like the B-Wing, i.e. "the flying crucifix".
But part of that is, from a "greater storyline" aspect, it's not that big a deal. A TIE Defender isn't going take the place of ten TIE Interceptors. One of them isn't going to shoot down ten X-Wings in the same time ten TIE Interceptors, or ten TIE Fighters might. Like the Me-262, it's an expensive piece of technology that doesn't actually change a losing war into a winning one, even if you could manufacture enough of them (especially if they're taking up ten ships each anyway). It's really not that much of an improvement over the TIE Avenger, which wasn't that much of an improvement over the TIE Interceptor, and each one of those things is a bigger target than the last.
Now, if you want something that's power-creep Expanded Universe/Abrams trilogy bullshit broken, it's there in TIE Fighter: the missile boat. For the unfamiliar, this one ship wasn't just small, fast, and durable, it carried the payload of a whole squadron. A TIE Defender was barely better armed than a Y-Wing.
TIE Andanced and Intercepter are the coolest looking TIE ships. I have no idea what they were thinking with the defender’s design.
"More."
-- Smith
Right, exactly. It's like yet another Star Wars parody meme -- Kylo Ren's lightsaber with six blades, Grievous with a surprise twelve saber stance, a TIE with five panels and twenty guns.
+3
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
TIE Andanced and Intercepter are the coolest looking TIE ships. I have no idea what they were thinking with the defender’s design.
"More."
-- Smith
Right, exactly. It's like yet another Star Wars parody meme -- Kylo Ren's lightsaber with six blades, Grievous with a surprise twelve saber stance, a TIE with five panels and twenty guns.
Balancing this game will be a pain in the ass, and, sadly, this game isn't supposed to be an X-wing/TIE Fighter game where you get to enjoy a whole laundry list of ships. It's a competitive 5v5 shooter, with some very slight asymmetrical stats for flavor - nothing more (IE TIEs wont have shields but get better power management?)
But, and I've seen this question a lot, is how do you balance the visibility of a TIE cockpit with the rebel ships? Sure, y-wings and u-wings may be pretty cramped, and it's not like X-wings and A-wings have modern day bubble canopies either, but still. All imperial ships have the same shit cockpit.
TIEs will be balanced in the same way that TIEs have been balanced in Star Wars games for the last 20 years.
Also I think you're kind of misjudging what this game is supposed to be. It's very much in the vein of X-Wing vs TIE, as the lead dev himself has stated, with a slight competitive factor thrown in.
X-Wing vs TIE Fighter was probably all competitive factor, considering it didn't have an actual story-driven campaign until Balance of Power came out, unlike this.
I'm totally 100% ok with there being only eight ships, at least to start.
Balancing this game will be a pain in the ass, and, sadly, this game isn't supposed to be an X-wing/TIE Fighter game where you get to enjoy a whole laundry list of ships. It's a competitive 5v5 shooter, with some very slight asymmetrical stats for flavor - nothing more (IE TIEs wont have shields but get better power management?)
But, and I've seen this question a lot, is how do you balance the visibility of a TIE cockpit with the rebel ships? Sure, y-wings and u-wings may be pretty cramped, and it's not like X-wings and A-wings have modern day bubble canopies either, but still. All imperial ships have the same shit cockpit.
My friends want to play empire (because they did nothing wrong), but I keep thinking of how claustrophobic those cockpits are
Yeah balancing is more important than variety in a game like this. I'm ok with them holding off on additional ships for DLC.
The cockpit is really interesting. On the Republic side, you get increased visibility side to side; but on the Imperial side you get better visibility below you. I'm curious to see how it works out and if there is a competitive edge for one vs the other.
Cockpit visibility is one of the most important features for dogfighting. Their commitment to following the Star Wars aesthetic is admirable, but ultimately will kill my enjoyment playing in VR. Visibility is the largest factor in my ship choice in Elite Dangerous: I can't enjoy the Viper at all because of it.
I think the only solution is to artificially give you increased visibility in all of those cockpits. Either through transparent hulls or maybe some in-universe virtual overlay (i.e. a wire diagram that appears in your visor as you look through the hull).
They could do the increased TIE visibility the same way they did in the original TIE fighter game, a number of heads up displays showing the sides/rear view of the cockpit linked to the hat stick on the joystick.
I don't think I ever used them in my play through. It was normally easier to just turn or rely on the sensor screens to get some idea what was in that direction, because any time I spent looking sideways was time I couldn't be shooting what was in front of me.
That said, while in real life I'd imagine that panoramic visibility is a game changer in dog fighting, the technological limitations of the average player are likely going to limit the impact in the game.
I'm guessing that most people don't have virtual reality setups that are going to let them look around the cockpit, so it may be rather a moot point to worry about it before hand. It'll have an impact sure, but I don't know if it'll be anything compared to, say, controller vs Keyboard and Joystick.
it's been confirmed via little additions to the Squadrons website that there will be AI ships involved in the fleet battles alongside the human (5v5) players:
"you can play with both players (5v5) and AI, or just AI by yourself"
They've also added to the website exactly how many component slots you'll get and what that all entails. Different ships will have different components available to them.
And sadly, they've confirmed that (at least officially) there's only 8 ships in the game. I just hope we get more in an an expansion pack or, if it comes to it, from modders.
The fact that there's no B-Wing but they added the special laser from the Blade Wing episode of Rebels kinda makes me scratch my head.
" AI by yourself" is what moved this game over to a likely buy instead of skip for me. Of course Ill still wait until a little after launch cause I don't trust EA in the least and I will want to see how it controls in VR.
Also dear god I would hate if there was some magical VR vision wireframe to look through my ship. That would be the worst of every world.
This is how it was in basically all the classic space sims. Cockpits could be toggled on/off in Wing Commander 3 and the X-Wing games. They weren't even an option for WC4/Prophecy or Freespace 1/2.
I will be entirely shocked if there is not a good enough radar to make any visibility issues of those cock pits a non factor.
Also dear god I would hate if there was some magical VR vision wireframe to look through my ship. That would be the worst of every world.
One of the coolest early VR experiences I had was loosing some heavy torpedos and instinctively looking behind me to see if they landed. I had expected a view of my seat and little else, and almost fell over when I realized the internals weren't rendered and had a nice clear view of them slamming into the target.
For me, no cockpit is -1 realism, +5 fun/utility. The canon design of the cockpits was not actually made or tested with combat utility in mind, it would be a shame to let it be a problem.
(Of course, this would also clearly advantage VR users, and not be a very balanced solution in a MP situation)
Also dear god I would hate if there was some magical VR vision wireframe to look through my ship. That would be the worst of every world.
This is how it was in basically all the classic space sims. Cockpits could be toggled on/off in Wing Commander 3 and the X-Wing games. They weren't even an option for WC4/Prophecy or Freespace 1/2.
For VR, you're definitely going to want a cockpit modeled. If it's the virtual cockpit of WC4/Prophecy/Privateer 2/Freespace, that's an express ticket to Vomitville. One of the tricks used to convince your brain that you're rooted is the visual representation of actually being seated in a cockpit. Taking the cockpit away is...not going to end well.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
Also dear god I would hate if there was some magical VR vision wireframe to look through my ship. That would be the worst of every world.
This is how it was in basically all the classic space sims. Cockpits could be toggled on/off in Wing Commander 3 and the X-Wing games. They weren't even an option for WC4/Prophecy or Freespace 1/2.
For VR, you're definitely going to want a cockpit modeled. If it's the virtual cockpit of WC4/Prophecy/Privateer 2/Freespace, that's an express ticket to Vomitville. One of the tricks used to convince your brain that you're rooted is the visual representation of actually being seated in a cockpit. Taking the cockpit away is...not going to end well.
yea when I play Elite Dangerous I am largely fine in most of the cockpits.. then I got into a Lakon type 6 and oooof did that get the stomach going. Your still sitting a visible cockpit but it just feels more open with the extra cockpit windows below you.
In my own experience, VR in Elite Dangerous, which was one of the best implementations of VR I ever used regularly period, wasn't about "intuitively improvements to player skill" like TrackIR or the like. I was actively a worse player with VR, and I'm confident that was true for a large majority of people in the same situation.
It was about capturing an immersive, visually stunning experience within the existing game. The architecture of a spaceship cockpit enveloping you is part of that. Yes, my HMD couldn't really compete with the 2160p screen I was playing ED on normally, much less the lower resolution HTC Vive, but that was a concession for the experience. Not one I always used, but still a very impressive one.
The same is true in DCS, War Thunder, and will be true in this too I expect. And that's not even considering the motion sickness problem of not having a static point of reference (the cockpit itself).
In terms of history, the 2D-cockpit Totally Games titles (so, everything up to X-Wing: Alliance) had vaguely-accurate 2D artistic backdrops of of certain viewpoints (immediately behind your head, above your head, etc.) or, in the case of the TIE Fighter, a flat-out rectangular "window" (perhaps intended to present a compact display). In the setting itself, it's probably pretty easy to claim that ships that can surpass the speed of light and reach planetary orbit with barely an effort can have pretty advanced avionics that inform the location of objects whether or not the pilot's soft, organic eyes can actually see them directly (we can do this with our level of technology). For a player in a video game...maybe have an overlay marking friendlies and enemies accurately even if you're staring into an opaque part of a spherical TIE cockpit or the armored hatch in a Y-Wing?
I'm a bit confused when people say VR isn't a performance enhancement like TrackIR, because aside from resolution, a VR headset is 100% track IR but with a display that moves with you. It's Track IR but the screen follows you around! Barring having a super crazy wrap around multimonitor setup with several curved displays, it's just a much more intuitive version of TrackIR.
That being said, you obviously can't ignore the resolution limitations entirely. But aside from the example of WW2 games where you have to visually see an incoming ship on the horizon to detect it, it doesn't seem to be much of a practical limitation now-a-days. Elite just tells you what ship you're targeting as soon as you magically space target it -- your ability to see fine detail on distant objects is only a factor for immersion, and not one for practical combat as far as I can tell.
I was immediately better in Elite with VR as opposed to when I was playing it without headtracking, and that was on a base model HTC Vive. I've since played it with an Index, and it looks a lot better with the higher resolution! But I haven't been able to tell any gameplay difference from the increased resolution that affect my ability to see/target/hit things, I'll admit.
The caveat being I didn't have 1000 hours in non-VR Elite before trying it in VR. If I had 1000+ hours of experience with the combat, yeah I bet there would be an adjustment. But at that point it's no longer comparing perfomance between peripherals, it's comparing the value of cumulative experience with each peripheral.
I'm a bit confused when people say VR isn't a performance enhancement like TrackIR, because aside from resolution, a VR headset is 100% track IR but with a display that moves with you. It's Track IR but the screen follows you around! Barring having a super crazy wrap around multimonitor setup with several curved displays, it's just a much more intuitive version of TrackIR.
Emphasis on "I don't think it was about that"--if some benefit is derived, great, but I don't think that is the primary development drive at all. You explained yourself--for most HMD, the resolution drop is harsh next to even one monitor, much less more than one. TrackIR takes advantage of existing technology as a tool--it's not immersive in the way VR is, but it's also didn't have the same liabilities.
Also dear god I would hate if there was some magical VR vision wireframe to look through my ship. That would be the worst of every world.
This is how it was in basically all the classic space sims. Cockpits could be toggled on/off in Wing Commander 3 and the X-Wing games. They weren't even an option for WC4/Prophecy or Freespace 1/2.
For VR, you're definitely going to want a cockpit modeled. If it's the virtual cockpit of WC4/Prophecy/Privateer 2/Freespace, that's an express ticket to Vomitville. One of the tricks used to convince your brain that you're rooted is the visual representation of actually being seated in a cockpit. Taking the cockpit away is...not going to end well.
yea when I play Elite Dangerous I am largely fine in most of the cockpits.. then I got into a Lakon type 6 and oooof did that get the stomach going. Your still sitting a visible cockpit but it just feels more open with the extra cockpit windows below you.
1. If I wanted to prevent HOP from curbstomping ARG without having to fight a massive fleet of destroyers when I don't even one to my name, what would be the best way to go about that? I assume instigating free giveaways at critical HOP stations while doing everything to shore up ARG's economy is a large part of it, but is there specific steps that I should focus on?
2. Most in regards to Vanguard vs Sentinel variants, is there any plus or minus to a ship having a higher crew limit to another, and if so, what is it?
3. Any hints/tips to starting any more storylines like the one for HAT? I get the feeling some are very specific (like the Taladi trade company invite requires you to personally dock at that specific Trading station) and I kinda want some more guiding rails for things to do.
The TIE Defender was always supposed to be the ME-262 of the Empire. Ostensibly, it would have been a war winner if it was mass-produced, but politics and military bungling left it in a sorry state and unable to turn the tide.
This is a good analogy. Like anyone who played TIE Fighter, I have a soft spot in my heart for the TIE Defender, a ship it completely introduced. I even like it cosmetically, even though I'm not going to claim it's nicer looking than the TIE Interceptor. Hey, there are people who like the B-Wing, i.e. "the flying crucifix".
But part of that is, from a "greater storyline" aspect, it's not that big a deal. A TIE Defender isn't going take the place of ten TIE Interceptors. One of them isn't going to shoot down ten X-Wings in the same time ten TIE Interceptors, or ten TIE Fighters might. Like the Me-262, it's an expensive piece of technology that doesn't actually change a losing war into a winning one, even if you could manufacture enough of them (especially if they're taking up ten ships each anyway). It's really not that much of an improvement over the TIE Avenger, which wasn't that much of an improvement over the TIE Interceptor, and each one of those things is a bigger target than the last.
Now, if you want something that's power-creep Expanded Universe/Abrams trilogy bullshit broken, it's there in TIE Fighter: the missile boat. For the unfamiliar, this one ship wasn't just small, fast, and durable, it carried the payload of a whole squadron. A TIE Defender was barely better armed than a Y-Wing.
Sure, from a pure armament point of view the Defender was barely better than a Y-wing, having four lasers instead of two in addition to the paired ion cannons and warhead launchers.
But, the Defender was also as fast or faster than an A-wing, more maneuverable than an X-wing and had shields and hull as thick as a B-wing IIRC, in addition to the tractor beam. Compared to the other fighters in TIE fighter, it was a massive leap in power.
Piloting it outside of the simulator you could also choose your warhead, so you didn't have to stick with the the torpedoes if you where fighting a-wings, and you could opt for heavy rockets if you had to take out a capital ship, which is something that the Rebel fighters never had. IIRC, in some missions you didn't even get warheads. If only to dissuade you from the temptation to take out the entire imperial fleet instead of just scanning them. Which, I'm sure we all still tried to do that with our lasers at least once anyway.
And, yeah, the M Boat was just nuts, but I still preferred the Defender or the Interceptor to it.
Basically, and this is a really simple rule, developers, one that literally all of you can follow without exception. I understand software development is hard, game development even more so, but it's still something you can absolutely follow:
If your video game, upon release, does not have any sort of functional multiplayer framework in it because it doesn't exist, don't tell the public it totally does, it just won't work because your game is so hugely awesome it'll take months before people run into each other and hope to God that's actually true and people don't notice you patching it in.
Like, it's really simple. Don't lie, and if you do lie, don't tell such a blatantly obvious and easily disprovable lie. Or be like Diablo III or Halo: MCC--fuck up your multiplayer so it works badly for a while, but at least it exists, because that's still much better.
It's one thing if your planets are basically 1/1000th the size you said they'd be. Hey, at least you still have planets. They're there. Unlike your multiplayer. "Oh, we have planets you can land on in our game, but the frequency of terrestrial planets is so low in the huge vastness of space we don't know when a player will actually find one..."
The TIE Defender was always supposed to be the ME-262 of the Empire. Ostensibly, it would have been a war winner if it was mass-produced, but politics and military bungling left it in a sorry state and unable to turn the tide.
This is a good analogy. Like anyone who played TIE Fighter, I have a soft spot in my heart for the TIE Defender, a ship it completely introduced. I even like it cosmetically, even though I'm not going to claim it's nicer looking than the TIE Interceptor. Hey, there are people who like the B-Wing, i.e. "the flying crucifix".
But part of that is, from a "greater storyline" aspect, it's not that big a deal. A TIE Defender isn't going take the place of ten TIE Interceptors. One of them isn't going to shoot down ten X-Wings in the same time ten TIE Interceptors, or ten TIE Fighters might. Like the Me-262, it's an expensive piece of technology that doesn't actually change a losing war into a winning one, even if you could manufacture enough of them (especially if they're taking up ten ships each anyway). It's really not that much of an improvement over the TIE Avenger, which wasn't that much of an improvement over the TIE Interceptor, and each one of those things is a bigger target than the last.
Now, if you want something that's power-creep Expanded Universe/Abrams trilogy bullshit broken, it's there in TIE Fighter: the missile boat. For the unfamiliar, this one ship wasn't just small, fast, and durable, it carried the payload of a whole squadron. A TIE Defender was barely better armed than a Y-Wing.
Sure, from a pure armament point of view the Defender was barely better than a Y-wing, having four lasers instead of two in addition to the paired ion cannons and warhead launchers.
But, the Defender was also as fast or faster than an A-wing, more maneuverable than an X-wing and had shields and hull as thick as a B-wing IIRC, in addition to the tractor beam. Compared to the other fighters in TIE fighter, it was a massive leap in power.
Piloting it outside of the simulator you could also choose your warhead, so you didn't have to stick with the the torpedoes if you where fighting a-wings, and you could opt for heavy rockets if you had to take out a capital ship, which is something that the Rebel fighters never had. IIRC, in some missions you didn't even get warheads. If only to dissuade you from the temptation to take out the entire imperial fleet instead of just scanning them. Which, I'm sure we all still tried to do that with our lasers at least once anyway.
And, yeah, the M Boat was just nuts, but I still preferred the Defender or the Interceptor to it.
That's on me--it's probably better to compare it to an TIE Avenger. The TIE Defender is better armed (similar payload, additional ion cannons), faster and more maneuverable, but not radically so. At the risk of using the IRL example, you could say that about an FW-190A9 and the FW-190A3 (in fact, probably more dramatically), and they were practically comparable in cost to the Luftwaffe.
Part of the problem boils down to the strong (and some would argue charming) simplicity of Totally Games' flight model, where basically every fighter is interchangeable except for numerical values: how many laser cannons? How many ion cannons? What size warhead payload? What's the top speed? How fast does it turn? How shielded is it? If you equal these between a TIE Advanced and a TIE Defender (or for that matter, a TIE Fighter with shields, which is hardly outlandish), they're identical ships because I'm not even sure those games model unique collision models. I guess that's plenty of room for improvement for Squadrons.
Posts
Steam | XBL
https://www.ea.com/games/starwars/squadrons/news/pilot-briefing-gameplay-overview
"you can play with both players (5v5) and AI, or just AI by yourself"
They've also added to the website exactly how many component slots you'll get and what that all entails. Different ships will have different components available to them.
And sadly, they've confirmed that (at least officially) there's only 8 ships in the game. I just hope we get more in an an expansion pack or, if it comes to it, from modders.
The fact that there's no B-Wing but they added the special laser from the Blade Wing episode of Rebels kinda makes me scratch my head.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
Or just cut the Y-Wing. B-Wings are objectively cooler and better and if the time frame is post Endor I'd imagine the new republic is phasing out Ys.
They didn't phase out the Y, they actually made a new model, which is featured in the ST.
I think the Y is there because they needed a bomber class to counter-balance the TIE Bomber. B-Wing is more of a heavy assault fighter like you said (although it can fulfill a bomber role as well) so I don't think a replacement would work. Adding the B-wing and the Defender to the roster though would probably work and makes me wonder why they didn't do it. They're obviously aware of the B-Wing and the Defender...
edit: it also pisses me off because we will always be 1 fighter short of going full Alphabet Squadron. You know damn well the Alphabet Squadron insignia and paint scheme will be in the game and to not let us actually field the full squadron seems like mixed messaging.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
Meanwhile the upgraded Y-Wing not only shot down several Final Order TIEs, it also dropped an unshielded Star Destroyer.
that was a different model of B-Wing made for the Resistance.
Fun Fact, one of the 6 Resistance B-Wing's present at the battle of Exegol was piloted by Admiral Gial Ackbar's son, Colonel Aftab Ackbar.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
Balancing this game will be a pain in the ass, and, sadly, this game isn't supposed to be an X-wing/TIE Fighter game where you get to enjoy a whole laundry list of ships. It's a competitive 5v5 shooter, with some very slight asymmetrical stats for flavor - nothing more (IE TIEs wont have shields but get better power management?)
But, and I've seen this question a lot, is how do you balance the visibility of a TIE cockpit with the rebel ships? Sure, y-wings and u-wings may be pretty cramped, and it's not like X-wings and A-wings have modern day bubble canopies either, but still. All imperial ships have the same shit cockpit.
My friends want to play empire (because they did nothing wrong), but I keep thinking of how claustrophobic those cockpits are
Included some, what sounds like, weird behavior on a primary contributors part. We are so far only seeing one side of the story though.
Hope this doesn't ruin what has been one of the more successful mods/projects in gaming (in my opinion) .
Here's a post about it:
https://xwaupgrade.com/
what the fuck
I am by no means a professional coder, but with my time in the code mines for SS13 I have seen people commit absolutely busted code with no apparent checking to see if it works.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
And it's not just because I know my personal Star Wars baby the K-Wing would never make the cut.
Yeah balancing is more important than variety in a game like this. I'm ok with them holding off on additional ships for DLC.
The cockpit is really interesting. On the Republic side, you get increased visibility side to side; but on the Imperial side you get better visibility below you. I'm curious to see how it works out and if there is a competitive edge for one vs the other.
I am a professional coder, and I've seen other professionals commit absolutely busted code with no apparently checking to see if it works.
I mean, not as much as it happens on the SS13 code base but still...
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Cockpit visibility is one of the most important features for dogfighting. Their commitment to following the Star Wars aesthetic is admirable, but ultimately will kill my enjoyment playing in VR. Visibility is the largest factor in my ship choice in Elite Dangerous: I can't enjoy the Viper at all because of it.
I think the only solution is to artificially give you increased visibility in all of those cockpits. Either through transparent hulls or maybe some in-universe virtual overlay (i.e. a wire diagram that appears in your visor as you look through the hull).
I feel like this might only be an issue in VR. On a screen looking around is clumsy at best when it's even possible, and you get targets into your sights largely using your radar.
I've never liked the TIE Defender. Nothing's ever topped the Interceptor for looks in my opinion, but I think the Defender just looks like something cobbled together with Lego parts. And it has Star Wars's problem of power creep -- faster, stronger, tougher, plus a tractor beam -- the way comics, books and later films would just keep introducing even superer Star Destroyers and planet killer after planet killer.
Basically, and this is a really simple rule, developers, one that literally all of you can follow without exception. I understand software development is hard, game development even more so, but it's still something you can absolutely follow:
If your video game, upon release, does not have any sort of functional multiplayer framework in it because it doesn't exist, don't tell the public it totally does, it just won't work because your game is so hugely awesome it'll take months before people run into each other and hope to God that's actually true and people don't notice you patching it in.
Like, it's really simple. Don't lie, and if you do lie, don't tell such a blatantly obvious and easily disprovable lie. Or be like Diablo III or Halo: MCC--fuck up your multiplayer so it works badly for a while, but at least it exists, because that's still much better.
It's one thing if your planets are basically 1/1000th the size you said they'd be. Hey, at least you still have planets. They're there. Unlike your multiplayer. "Oh, we have planets you can land on in our game, but the frequency of terrestrial planets is so low in the huge vastness of space we don't know when a player will actually find one..."
This is a good analogy. Like anyone who played TIE Fighter, I have a soft spot in my heart for the TIE Defender, a ship it completely introduced. I even like it cosmetically, even though I'm not going to claim it's nicer looking than the TIE Interceptor. Hey, there are people who like the B-Wing, i.e. "the flying crucifix".
But part of that is, from a "greater storyline" aspect, it's not that big a deal. A TIE Defender isn't going take the place of ten TIE Interceptors. One of them isn't going to shoot down ten X-Wings in the same time ten TIE Interceptors, or ten TIE Fighters might. Like the Me-262, it's an expensive piece of technology that doesn't actually change a losing war into a winning one, even if you could manufacture enough of them (especially if they're taking up ten ships each anyway). It's really not that much of an improvement over the TIE Avenger, which wasn't that much of an improvement over the TIE Interceptor, and each one of those things is a bigger target than the last.
Now, if you want something that's power-creep Expanded Universe/Abrams trilogy bullshit broken, it's there in TIE Fighter: the missile boat. For the unfamiliar, this one ship wasn't just small, fast, and durable, it carried the payload of a whole squadron. A TIE Defender was barely better armed than a Y-Wing.
"More."
-- Smith
Right, exactly. It's like yet another Star Wars parody meme -- Kylo Ren's lightsaber with six blades, Grievous with a surprise twelve saber stance, a TIE with five panels and twenty guns.
"It is inevitable."
TIEs will be balanced in the same way that TIEs have been balanced in Star Wars games for the last 20 years.
Also I think you're kind of misjudging what this game is supposed to be. It's very much in the vein of X-Wing vs TIE, as the lead dev himself has stated, with a slight competitive factor thrown in.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
They could do the increased TIE visibility the same way they did in the original TIE fighter game, a number of heads up displays showing the sides/rear view of the cockpit linked to the hat stick on the joystick.
I don't think I ever used them in my play through. It was normally easier to just turn or rely on the sensor screens to get some idea what was in that direction, because any time I spent looking sideways was time I couldn't be shooting what was in front of me.
That said, while in real life I'd imagine that panoramic visibility is a game changer in dog fighting, the technological limitations of the average player are likely going to limit the impact in the game.
I'm guessing that most people don't have virtual reality setups that are going to let them look around the cockpit, so it may be rather a moot point to worry about it before hand. It'll have an impact sure, but I don't know if it'll be anything compared to, say, controller vs Keyboard and Joystick.
" AI by yourself" is what moved this game over to a likely buy instead of skip for me. Of course Ill still wait until a little after launch cause I don't trust EA in the least and I will want to see how it controls in VR.
Also dear god I would hate if there was some magical VR vision wireframe to look through my ship. That would be the worst of every world.
This is how it was in basically all the classic space sims. Cockpits could be toggled on/off in Wing Commander 3 and the X-Wing games. They weren't even an option for WC4/Prophecy or Freespace 1/2.
One of the coolest early VR experiences I had was loosing some heavy torpedos and instinctively looking behind me to see if they landed. I had expected a view of my seat and little else, and almost fell over when I realized the internals weren't rendered and had a nice clear view of them slamming into the target.
For me, no cockpit is -1 realism, +5 fun/utility. The canon design of the cockpits was not actually made or tested with combat utility in mind, it would be a shame to let it be a problem.
(Of course, this would also clearly advantage VR users, and not be a very balanced solution in a MP situation)
For VR, you're definitely going to want a cockpit modeled. If it's the virtual cockpit of WC4/Prophecy/Privateer 2/Freespace, that's an express ticket to Vomitville. One of the tricks used to convince your brain that you're rooted is the visual representation of actually being seated in a cockpit. Taking the cockpit away is...not going to end well.
yea when I play Elite Dangerous I am largely fine in most of the cockpits.. then I got into a Lakon type 6 and oooof did that get the stomach going. Your still sitting a visible cockpit but it just feels more open with the extra cockpit windows below you.
It was about capturing an immersive, visually stunning experience within the existing game. The architecture of a spaceship cockpit enveloping you is part of that. Yes, my HMD couldn't really compete with the 2160p screen I was playing ED on normally, much less the lower resolution HTC Vive, but that was a concession for the experience. Not one I always used, but still a very impressive one.
The same is true in DCS, War Thunder, and will be true in this too I expect. And that's not even considering the motion sickness problem of not having a static point of reference (the cockpit itself).
In terms of history, the 2D-cockpit Totally Games titles (so, everything up to X-Wing: Alliance) had vaguely-accurate 2D artistic backdrops of of certain viewpoints (immediately behind your head, above your head, etc.) or, in the case of the TIE Fighter, a flat-out rectangular "window" (perhaps intended to present a compact display). In the setting itself, it's probably pretty easy to claim that ships that can surpass the speed of light and reach planetary orbit with barely an effort can have pretty advanced avionics that inform the location of objects whether or not the pilot's soft, organic eyes can actually see them directly (we can do this with our level of technology). For a player in a video game...maybe have an overlay marking friendlies and enemies accurately even if you're staring into an opaque part of a spherical TIE cockpit or the armored hatch in a Y-Wing?
That being said, you obviously can't ignore the resolution limitations entirely. But aside from the example of WW2 games where you have to visually see an incoming ship on the horizon to detect it, it doesn't seem to be much of a practical limitation now-a-days. Elite just tells you what ship you're targeting as soon as you magically space target it -- your ability to see fine detail on distant objects is only a factor for immersion, and not one for practical combat as far as I can tell.
I was immediately better in Elite with VR as opposed to when I was playing it without headtracking, and that was on a base model HTC Vive. I've since played it with an Index, and it looks a lot better with the higher resolution! But I haven't been able to tell any gameplay difference from the increased resolution that affect my ability to see/target/hit things, I'll admit.
The caveat being I didn't have 1000 hours in non-VR Elite before trying it in VR. If I had 1000+ hours of experience with the combat, yeah I bet there would be an adjustment. But at that point it's no longer comparing perfomance between peripherals, it's comparing the value of cumulative experience with each peripheral.
Emphasis on "I don't think it was about that"--if some benefit is derived, great, but I don't think that is the primary development drive at all. You explained yourself--for most HMD, the resolution drop is harsh next to even one monitor, much less more than one. TrackIR takes advantage of existing technology as a tool--it's not immersive in the way VR is, but it's also didn't have the same liabilities.
Asp is probably like that as well.
1. If I wanted to prevent HOP from curbstomping ARG without having to fight a massive fleet of destroyers when I don't even one to my name, what would be the best way to go about that? I assume instigating free giveaways at critical HOP stations while doing everything to shore up ARG's economy is a large part of it, but is there specific steps that I should focus on?
2. Most in regards to Vanguard vs Sentinel variants, is there any plus or minus to a ship having a higher crew limit to another, and if so, what is it?
3. Any hints/tips to starting any more storylines like the one for HAT? I get the feeling some are very specific (like the Taladi trade company invite requires you to personally dock at that specific Trading station) and I kinda want some more guiding rails for things to do.
Sure, from a pure armament point of view the Defender was barely better than a Y-wing, having four lasers instead of two in addition to the paired ion cannons and warhead launchers.
But, the Defender was also as fast or faster than an A-wing, more maneuverable than an X-wing and had shields and hull as thick as a B-wing IIRC, in addition to the tractor beam. Compared to the other fighters in TIE fighter, it was a massive leap in power.
Piloting it outside of the simulator you could also choose your warhead, so you didn't have to stick with the the torpedoes if you where fighting a-wings, and you could opt for heavy rockets if you had to take out a capital ship, which is something that the Rebel fighters never had. IIRC, in some missions you didn't even get warheads. If only to dissuade you from the temptation to take out the entire imperial fleet instead of just scanning them. Which, I'm sure we all still tried to do that with our lasers at least once anyway.
And, yeah, the M Boat was just nuts, but I still preferred the Defender or the Interceptor to it.
That's on me--it's probably better to compare it to an TIE Avenger. The TIE Defender is better armed (similar payload, additional ion cannons), faster and more maneuverable, but not radically so. At the risk of using the IRL example, you could say that about an FW-190A9 and the FW-190A3 (in fact, probably more dramatically), and they were practically comparable in cost to the Luftwaffe.
Part of the problem boils down to the strong (and some would argue charming) simplicity of Totally Games' flight model, where basically every fighter is interchangeable except for numerical values: how many laser cannons? How many ion cannons? What size warhead payload? What's the top speed? How fast does it turn? How shielded is it? If you equal these between a TIE Advanced and a TIE Defender (or for that matter, a TIE Fighter with shields, which is hardly outlandish), they're identical ships because I'm not even sure those games model unique collision models. I guess that's plenty of room for improvement for Squadrons.