criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube

So EA confirmed that massive space battles would happen

However, out of the 64 ships flying in the sky, only 24 will be players. The rest will be AI. How do you guys feel about this? On one hand I am a little bummed but the AI in the death star dlc are pretty good at adding to the immersion. Which in the end is what we want.

Replies

  • I can live with that.
    TFA-10.7.gif
  • Frix
    626 posts Member
    If the AI are improved and not worthless like the current fighter squadron I'll be fine with it.
  • Probably a good thing so we're not being locked-on too every second - though hopefully they've removed the lock-on system altogether and brought back manual aiming.
    And it'd be good if the A.I flew in squadrons so it's not a big mess of starfighters everywhere.
  • Agherosh
    1092 posts Member
    As long as Criterion do a good job in immersion, with actual lots of different scenarios like they say it will be.
    They make the capital ships fire and actually fight between them, making it really cinematic and intense, and they are able to be destroyed, without it being cutscenes and they give us quite a lot of different fighters, bombers, etc.

    I don't mind the player number.
    #TipleeTiplarForBF2
  • Frix
    626 posts Member
    Mitchel1 wrote: »
    Probably a good thing so we're not being locked-on too every second - though hopefully they've removed the lock-on system altogether and brought back manual aiming.
    And it'd be good if the A.I flew in squadrons so it's not a big mess of starfighters everywhere.

    Yes no lock on please
  • Well, 40 online players would be annoying because you would keep dying. More does not always equal better.

    The AI should also be competent.
  • Alvonator wrote: »
    Well, 40 online players would be annoying because you would keep dying. More does not always equal better.

    The AI should also be competent.

    I agree 100% here. This is something I was trying to say about Fighter Squadron back when Battlefront (2015) was released. There are always reasons for a decision -- in general, it's best to try and understand what they are before you condemn or support them.
  • Alvonator wrote: »
    Well, 40 online players would be annoying because you would keep dying. More does not always equal better.

    The AI should also be competent.

    Agreed, I might actually play fighter sqaudron now if they do this. I also like the idea of no lock-on. However, if they add it at least increase its efficency. Literally all you had to do to get kills was lock-on, shoot, boom and repeat. If you were behind them then they were screwed
  • You won't be able to board ships though so it definitely won't be the space battles we all remember
  • You won't be able to board ships though so it definitely won't be the space battles we all remember

    We don't know that for sure yet. As I said in another post: "This is something I feel they may make an exception for compared to the other vehicles. The reason I say this is because there is no real reason why a fighter should land. But a transport might be able to land. You choose to spawn in it and others can as well. Some can jump in the gunner seat and as people spawn in, you can drop them off. Just an idea."
  • -_- i do not consider it massive since i had a 250 player air battle in planet side. and modded server in 2005 battlefront that allowed 50 vs 50 space fights
  • Evazan127
    8105 posts Member
    AI will inflate The amount of kills players get which makes the game more enjoyable
  • While I think some weapons should still have some sort of homing ability, the lock on system needs to be worked out if they want people to take dog fighting seriously.
  • Alvonator wrote: »
    Well, 40 online players would be annoying because you would keep dying. More does not always equal better.

    The AI should also be competent.

    Example would be playing fighter squadron in bespin... as imperials.
    TFA-10.7.gif
  • Zman2202 wrote: »
    Alvonator wrote: »
    Well, 40 online players would be annoying because you would keep dying. More does not always equal better.

    The AI should also be competent.

    Agreed, I might actually play fighter sqaudron now if they do this. I also like the idea of no lock-on. However, if they add it at least increase its efficency. Literally all you had to do to get kills was lock-on, shoot, boom and repeat. If you were behind them then they were screwed

    This won't be nothing like fighter squadron...The space battles have been rebuilt from the ground up and will be much larger than FS
  • Frix
    626 posts Member
    Zman2202 wrote: »
    Alvonator wrote: »
    Well, 40 online players would be annoying because you would keep dying. More does not always equal better.

    The AI should also be competent.

    Agreed, I might actually play fighter sqaudron now if they do this. I also like the idea of no lock-on. However, if they add it at least increase its efficency. Literally all you had to do to get kills was lock-on, shoot, boom and repeat. If you were behind them then they were screwed

    This won't be nothing like fighter squadron...The space battles have been rebuilt from the ground up and will be much larger than FS

    Double negative space battles are fighter squadron confirmed. Just kidding. It does look hopeful especially because an entire dev team (criterion) is dedicated to only space battles.
  • Its fine because with bad players like me I can get loads of kills :)
  • I can live with that.

    i'm gonna **** murder you
  • bfloo
    13637 posts Member
    While I think some weapons should still have some sort of homing ability, the lock on system needs to be worked out if they want people to take dog fighting seriously.

    The lock on system wasn't bad, you still need to adjust your aim manually to actually hit anything. We just need a better flight system.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • Agherosh
    1092 posts Member
    I vote for a mix of the lock on and war thunder.
    We keep the ability to lock on, when you lock on, it gives you a general direction of where to aim to hit the target, but you actually have to aim there manually. That way it isn't as easy as lock-on=kill, but doesn't make it impossible either.

    And of course, keep rockets as a lock-on thing.
    #TipleeTiplarForBF2
  • Zman2202 wrote: »
    However, out of the 64 ships flying in the sky, only 24 will be players. The rest will be AI. How do you guys feel about this? On one hand I am a little bummed but the AI in the death star dlc are pretty good at adding to the immersion. Which in the end is what we want.

    64 ships sound pretty good to me. What do you mean with 24 players? Is it now a 12vs12 mode? Did they finally confirm bordable capitals?
    For General Ahsoka Tano!
    h3d5nuo8y0jq.png

  • Frix wrote: »
    If the AI are improved and not worthless like the current fighter squadron I'll be fine with it.

    Yep, this^
    giphy.gif
  • I would love to have the ability to actually fly/fire weapons from capital ships as well. Fighters are loads of fun, but if the objective in a space battle is meaningful (not just a kill count) then what happens to and what is done with capital ships becomes much more important. Really, I'd like to see this part of the game more like the old X-Wing games (in terms of objective variance, situations, and environments) and the added playability of Battlefield games, where nearly everything is controllable.

    How about controlling capital ships during the battle of Coruscant, or perhaps turning the tide at the battle of Endor from the bridge of the Executor?

    Also hoping for much better fighter controls and accurate reflection of the films in their capabilities. Rebels had less starfighters, but they were all shielded, the Empire had way more TIEs, but they were not. This kind of balancing can be reproduced in game, instead of weakening Rebel fighters, or making Imperial fighters the same point value (should be less) as Rebels.
  • Frix
    626 posts Member
    Agherosh wrote: »
    I vote for a mix of the lock on and war thunder.
    We keep the ability to lock on, when you lock on, it gives you a general direction of where to aim to hit the target, but you actually have to aim there manually. That way it isn't as easy as lock-on=kill, but doesn't make it impossible either.

    And of course, keep rockets as a lock-on thing.

    I don't want any form of lock on. Seeing lock on proton torpedoes irked me because they are torpedoes they don't lock on. Concussion missiles however I would be fine with lock on. But no lock on laser or shoot here redicle we need skill brought into space battles.
  • I think torpetoes should only be used on Capitol ships and other targets...Dogfights shouldn't have any lock ons
  • Alvonator wrote: »
    Well, 40 online players would be annoying because you would keep dying. More does not always equal better.

    The AI should also be competent.

    That's why I'm against an infanty 32v32 with no AI
    Member of the 501st
  • Sounds good to me. But I hope they got rid of soft lock and went with the arcade-style controls of Pandemic's Battlefront II; I DO NOT want space battles to be like Battlefield 1's air combat or any kind of realistic flight sim. I'd prefer they take the Crimson Skies route in terms of flying controls and combat.
    * * *

    Arcade mode needs 20v20 and starfighter battles for Battlefront II!!!


    #soloplayersmatter #singleplayersmatter #offlinegamersmatter
  • Sounds good to me. But I hope they got rid of soft lock and went with the arcade-style controls of Pandemic's Battlefront II; I DO NOT want space battles to be like Battlefield 1's air combat or any kind of realistic flight sim. I'd prefer they take the Crimson Skies route in terms of flying controls and combat.

    The space battles are not being developed by DICE .They're being developed by Criterion, the same studio that made the VR mission in the current Battlefront
Sign In or Register to comment.