criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
Community Transmission
December CC

Starfighter Assault Thread

1246744

Replies

  • Ugandabekiddng
    56 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    I agree with most of the original topic post. I love SA! I mean what one of us didn't want to pilot a Starfighter or Tiefighter as kids! lol I even play in first person as much as possible, and I love how the sound actually changes for 1st and for 3rd person B)B) Sledgehammer70, Firewall17 do you think having a couple 'reinforcement' ship classes added to SA that could cost around half what hero ships do could happen? I for one would love to see the Tie Defender from SW Rebels, or U-wings from Yavin and Rogue One! That would be awesome. I agree about the speed as well, I think increasing the speed 30-60% would be great, and maybe adding the ability from Battlefront (2015) that allowed you to do a 180? Preferably as a dodge instead of as an ability. And lastly faster spinning would be cool but not really important.

    Also Sledgehammer70 just between us two... when is Season 2 coming out?? I won't tell a soul, you have my word ;) after all you owe me one... ya know.. after that time? at band camp?

    [Mod edit: Tags removed. Calling out Community Managers and Officials is not allowed on the forums]
    Post edited by IIPrest0nII on
  • Plus, 14 free missions from X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter!
    Gunfighter Ballads and Trail Songs
  • My issue with the circle to shoot into is that it appears far too soon and from quite a distance away.

    Sure, I’ve benefited from this. But I’ve died more than a few times as a hero ship by someone who just spawned and is blasting into a circle that barely moves given the distance.

    If they adjusted it to appear only when you’re truly in an “engagement” range, I’d be pretty happy.
  • grimmace2 wrote: »

    In an ideal world, I'd want a Star Wars simulator where there's no battlepoints rubbish, no annoying assists and to be honest no hero spam...

    839qzrdl8r1w.jpg

    I need something modern. I still have my Rogue Leader and Rebel Strike copies for my GameCube (the day that console finally dies on me, the world will know fear on a whole new level) but my eyes have just gotten so used to modern resolutions that the image is too blurry for me to fully enjoy any more... not fun when you have no choice but to decide "f*** it." and work without aiming because you can't properly make out the crosshairs. I guess for my TV, LG sacrificed non-HD resolutions' quality for the HDMI inputs...

    And my laptop is that rubbish, I doubt I can even run minesweeper properly, never mind full games even old ones. I have Command & Conquer Generals and holy crap it will often pull up an error message saying my hardware is too underpowered...

    Trust me, after the crap Sony has been pulling with their avoidance of cross-platform play and restrictions on Bethesda mods, I'd be more than happy to switch to PC... but those elusive money trees are bloody hard to find. If you see one, let me know.
    'Mors est tantum impedimentum' - Death is only an obstacle
  • One small thing I want to comment on is people asking for buffs to missiles and torpedoes. Missiles are desigtned as ship-to-ship weapons i.e. for killing other star fighters. They are quicker, are more maneuverable than toprs, but do less damage. Thing is so they are no one button kills, they rarely kill anhone without blaster support or multiple missile hits. They are supposed to give the ship they hit a jolt which temporarily "stuns" them, hence the name "Concussion Missiles".

    Proton Torpedoes though are meant to be for attacking bigger ships (i.e. cruisers), and other fixed targets (e.g. turrets and shield projectors). They are slower, don't turn as well as missiles, but pack a heavier punch. Again they are not "one kill" weapons, otherwise fights would be very short which is why they don't kill fighters if only 1 hits a ship without anything else.

    If you buff them, then yuou turn them into insta-kill weapons, and in my book, that would be a bad move. Remember most ships have a star card that can buff missile or torp damage by up to 40%. You want to buff them on top of that?
    51bvn954fmlp.png
  • @New_Roosterman

    The "stun" effect for concussion missiles doesn't hinder you in any way imo. I've been hit a few times when I've been in a bomber and other than the weird sound fx and a bit of brightness, they don't do anything besides deal a bit of damage that an interceptor's cannons would easily surpass with a short burst of laser fire...

    Proton torps ain't much different other than they do a bit more damage and fly slower.

    Nobody's asking for 1HKO munitions, all they want is for them to actually be useful enough to make them viable enough to use against something that isn't stationary or an objective... or the Falcon...

    I don't see anyone packing any of the damage buff cards for the guided munitions because why waste it on a weapon that you rarely use when you can have something much more useful like slower heat buildup.


    And while I'm here...

    Does anyone else here find TIE Interceptors to be a bit rubbish? It feels like the cannons' heat build up is too much, the rate of fire is too slow and the damage isn't actually that great to compensate for it.

    I also kinda wish the TIE/sf had a mag-pulse warhead instead of a concussion missile... and the Vulture droids had their appearance from Ep. 3 when not on Naboo...
    'Mors est tantum impedimentum' - Death is only an obstacle
  • Btw...

    Anyone here noticed that the X-Wings on Tatooine have a DUM-series Pit Droid in the astromech socket instead of an R2 or R4 unit?

    Just a nice little detail...
    'Mors est tantum impedimentum' - Death is only an obstacle
  • SA is great as it is and by far the funnest part of SWBF2. Adding new maps and modes is all I would look at. It gets a little stale playing the same maps over and over. Give us a Hero ships only mode too. It would make going for those milestones much easier.
  • Btw...

    Anyone here noticed that the X-Wings on Tatooine have a DUM-series Pit Droid in the astromech socket instead of an R2 or R4 unit?

    Just a nice little detail...

    Wait, really? Do you have an image?
    “Until we reach the last edge, the last opening, the last star, and can go no higher.”
    Rest in peace, Carrie Fisher.
  • Darkaid wrote: »
    Wait, really? Do you have an image?

    Can't find one, but it's not really hard to see ingame. Just look where the droid should be on the X-wing and you'll see the trademark flat dome head. I know they're definately there so if you don't see it, it probably rotates between Pit Droids and astromechs...
    'Mors est tantum impedimentum' - Death is only an obstacle
  • duvelsuper wrote: »
    AaronM1978 wrote: »
    I agree with decluttering the HUD. The lead indicator needs to remain, however. What I would like to see is range to the target reducing the effectiveness of the directed energy weapons. Although the weapons do have a range limit, it seems the damage they inflict is constant throughout their range. I have two suggestions.

    1: The hitting power of the main armament decreases as the distance the energy bolt travels increases... maybe on a non-linear scale. (The power loss is more significant the last third of the weapon range)

    2. Increase the amount of dispersion for the weapons as the range increases. I think this would make conventional evasive maneuvering (jinking...etc) more effective.

    Drop off damage already exists. Lasers dont work like guns. There is no recoil to lasers which means no dispersion. There is only travel distance. Lasers will always go in a straight line which is why the white circle forces you to lead the shot in front of the fighter instead of directly on the fighter. The farther you are the easier it is to dodge.

    They aren't lasers though, a laser is made of light, therefore by its very nature travels at the speed of light, which would mean you absolutely wouldn't lead a target with a laser. StarWars blasters fire something much closer to plasma than lasers.

    This is how blaster fire is explained on Wikipedia:
    "The inner workings of blasters essentially create particle beams to inflict damage. When the trigger is pulled, the blaster chambers a small volume of the fictional Tibanna gas into a gas conversion enabler (or XCiter). The XCiter excites the gas particles with energy from a power-pack, which attaches to the weapon much like a magazine does to real world weapons. Afterwards, the excited gas is compressed into a beam in the actuating blaster module before being focused by first a prismatic crystal and then the galven circuitry in the barrel of the weapon."

    X-WING STARFIGHTER
    The X-wing is a versatile Rebel Alliance starfighter that balances speed with firepower. Armed with four laser cannons and two proton torpedo launchers, the X-wing can take on anything the Empire throws at it. Nimble engines give the X-wing an edge during dogfights, and it can make long-range jumps with its hyperdrive and its astromech droid co-pilot. Luke Skywalker is famous for destroying the Death Star behind the controls of an X-wing.

    Star wars calls it lasers so I will call it lasers. If you want to apply real life to the game then you can argue that x-wings should not exist because they aren't real. And for the record you are referring to L.A.S.E.R which is light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation which is completely different from laser which in star wars cannon is described as: Although these lasers did not act like a normal laser of photons moving the speed of light as seen as laser trip wires, it was a projectile weapon that could melt through targets, create explosions and even disintegrate objects.
  • Darkaid wrote: »
    Wait, really? Do you have an image?

    Can't find one, but it's not really hard to see ingame. Just look where the droid should be on the X-wing and you'll see the trademark flat dome head. I know they're definately there so if you don't see it, it probably rotates between Pit Droids and astromechs...

    I might check this out sometime. Everytime I've used repair, I've heard an astromech beep.
    “Until we reach the last edge, the last opening, the last star, and can go no higher.”
    Rest in peace, Carrie Fisher.
  • Zorshaitan wrote: »
    Some terrific discussion here!

    My 0.02 credits are as follows:

    1) Starfighter Melee/Blast as suggested above. Don’t get me wrong, I love how objective-based maps, but I would love to just slug it out in a furball once in a while a la Battlefront1.

    2) B-Wings, Tie Advanced, N1-Starfighter, etc. There is a treasure trove of ships. See the Xwing miniatures games for more makes/models/ideas.

    3) More maps! A mix of planetary and space-side. Where is our 3-4 phase Stakiller Base map? Please!

    4) Sensors added back to the HUD. We had this in BF1 and it’s a legacy feature dating back to the outstanding Xwing/Tie PC games.

    5) ...Cue my energy management comment. You want to go faster? Cut power to Shields! I know many people want SA to stay as a shoot’em up. And I agree but some sim elements would be fun.

    6) MORE HP/Shields/both to the Hero/Villain ships. I mean, I love the Falcon but shooting it down is like spanking a flying Pancake.

    7) 1st person/cockpit view. What’s the point? It’s purely cosmetic. I’d say lose it and incorporate it in...

    8) Multuplayer VR matches! Yes, Eve Valkyrie did this already and we had that 18 minute VR mission in BF1 but this has to happen!

    9) Strong Beam weapons on the capital ships. Every snub fighter needs to have a healthy respect of an ISD. Same goes for Republic ships. You get close, you better have shields up.

    10) Increase fighter speed (as many others have suggested) to 25% to 50% more than current.

    SA is my favourite game mode!

    Also, it makes no sense for the First Order to not send in bombers to take out the gravity generators above D’Qar. Make that an option and beef up the generator HP.

    I agree with everything but 7, they just need to improve 1st Person by allowing us to move our head in the cockpit, just like Battlefield, and maybe allow us to adjust our position in the cockpit
  • Another feature that DICE should incorporate from Battlefield into Battlefront is having a co-pilot! I know they have this in BField1.

    Battle of Hoth should have a tail gunner/harpooner!
    Falcon with a gunner slot or two!
  • Rapier wrote: »
    I would like to see joystick compatibility on the pc for advance types CH products (pro stick and throttle, ability to keybind) , may a simpler one for consoles Thrustmaster. I would really be able to fly in first person and be more visually dynamic. With Oculus support StarFighter Assault moves from a very good mode to " I have to fly this one. More evasions and actual flying techniques are possible. The other improvements like rogue squadron levels are good suggestions as well

    I really want Joystick control
  • startfighter assault really grates on me, its not the circle thats the problem its the lack of speed and the lack of moves that actually do anything in avoiding getting killed. it looks nice and more to do but there's a real lack of playability in comparison to FS. all it is is aim and shoot! i find it so frustrating! defensively there's not much you can do, looping for example like youve said just ends up being annoying! i go from being top to being 5th etc from looping! wasting my time trying to either follow the target or to get away. now i just let them kill me or i kill myself as i find that is the better option for me still coming 1st instead of wasting my time!
    in FS you could pull up manuvers that actually worked to get away from the guy on your tail in seconds! looping worked a treat in FS. for example in a tie fighter over an A-wing.. in the tie you could turn defense into attack because of its manuverbility over the the A-wing. also you could hit speed boost pull off a really tight turn and be face to face with the guy on your tail spin and shoot at the same time taking them out, because the turning was quicker and you could pull of such tight turns with the control of the speed. there was so many cool moves you could pull off. in this theres none! its so basic. turning in SA is so dam slow in all the ships in comparison to FS.
    anyway what i do now is play FS in the day when the servers are busy and play SA at night.

    what they need to do is have an option for constant speed boosts. make the turning quicker in certain ships, make the spin actually work! as in take on little damage when you use it. because at the moment it does nothing! if they did this it would be a huge improvement, at least for us good players anyway. as it is right now it benefits rubbish players, as it gives them a chance because of its basic format. the gap between players in SA is much closer than in FS.
  • Zorshaitan wrote: »
    Some terrific discussion here!

    My 0.02 credits are as follows:

    1) Starfighter Melee/Blast as suggested above. Don’t get me wrong, I love how objective-based maps, but I would love to just slug it out in a furball once in a while a la Battlefront1.

    2) B-Wings, Tie Advanced, N1-Starfighter, etc. There is a treasure trove of ships. See the Xwing miniatures games for more makes/models/ideas.

    3) More maps! A mix of planetary and space-side. Where is our 3-4 phase Stakiller Base map? Please!

    4) Sensors added back to the HUD. We had this in BF1 and it’s a legacy feature dating back to the outstanding Xwing/Tie PC games.

    5) ...Cue my energy management comment. You want to go faster? Cut power to Shields! I know many people want SA to stay as a shoot’em up. And I agree but some sim elements would be fun.

    6) MORE HP/Shields/both to the Hero/Villain ships. I mean, I love the Falcon but shooting it down is like spanking a flying Pancake.

    7) 1st person/cockpit view. What’s the point? It’s purely cosmetic. I’d say lose it and incorporate it in...

    8) Multuplayer VR matches! Yes, Eve Valkyrie did this already and we had that 18 minute VR mission in BF1 but this has to happen!

    9) Strong Beam weapons on the capital ships. Every snub fighter needs to have a healthy respect of an ISD. Same goes for Republic ships. You get close, you better have shields up.

    10) Increase fighter speed (as many others have suggested) to 25% to 50% more than current.

    SA is my favourite game mode!

    Also, it makes no sense for the First Order to not send in bombers to take out the gravity generators above D’Qar. Make that an option and beef up the generator HP.

    "0.02 credits"... i like that.

    2) Ever seen a TIE Hunter? I wish they would bring that back into canon, that was cool af.

    3) Yea, some more maps would be nice. I'd love some planetary battles too. Coruscant, Hoth, Jakku, Starkiller...
    What about, just for the sake of having a slightly different battle, there was either a GA or SFA map on Vardos where the First Order is attempting to secure the system from Jinata Security Forces? JSF uses whatever they could salvage, kinda like the rebels, and we see in the campaign that they use old repainted ARC-170s and V-Wings...

    4) Yep. Maybe the sensors would then mean people would be more open to removing the revenge marker and stuff because the sensor could do it instead.

    5) Sounds like it could work.

    6) To be honest, I feel that hero ships shouldn't really differ from their standard counterparts too much. Poe for example is an ace pilot, but other than the black paint, modified droid socket for BB-8 and now the booster pod, it's still a regular T-70 as far as we're told. You can argue that heroes have the sense to fire 2 munitions instead of 1, but how come their ships have more health? Give em a bit more maneuverability than standard ships because engines are a lot easier to modify than the full hull plating, and perhaps a better shield generator that can take more hits. The Falcon in particular just needs some way of countering pests behind it.

    7) I'd use cockpit view more if you could free look around it, preferably without having to hold down a button like battlefield on PS4. One of the reasons why I can easily dogfight in GTA and the Rogue Squadron series is because I can simply use the analogue/c-stick to look around me instead of BF4/1 where I have to change my grip on the controller to hold down on the d-pad and then sacrifice my mobility because view controls overwrite movement controls.

    8) VR is a difficult feature to implement in any game. It would probably take time for them to do it, and then you have the issue of how the more casual players will react because while I haven't personally tried VR yet, the ability to freely look and observe your surroundings is obviously a pretty big advantage... and one that costs £250+. You'd probably get people claiming it's unfair.

    9) I'd like to see turrets buffed as well. They rarely hit you and when they do, this big twin barrelled turbolaser battery doesn't even breach your shield. You don't want them too OP, but they should at least pose a threat. What's the point of having turrets on fondor's shipyards or ISDs when they don't help in any way? Those NPC scavengers at the beginning of Jakku are more useful...

    10) Yea, speed needs buffed. But I don't think DICE are good when it comes to aircraft speeds in games... BF4 jets and BF1 planes move so sluggish you begin to think you're flying a 747 with engine trouble.

    With regards to the First Order on D'Qar, we actually don't know what the First Order uses as a bomber. The only ships we know are the TIE/FO, TIE/sf and the TIE/vn, but they're all basically fighters (I never agreed with the TIE/sf being an interceptor. If anything, it's more like a strike craft because of the heavier weapons than the TIE/FO, turret with a heavy multipurpose warhead launcher and it's a two seater. It was made an interceptor in this simply for balancing.) Until Disney detail what the Order uses as a bomber, designs a bomber for them or allow EA to design one themselves... we don't know what bomber ship, if any, the First Order uses. They might not even use bombers and instead just use TIE/sf for precision strikes and simply bombard larger/planetary targets with their Destroyers' heavy cannons (Just look at what they did to D'Qar in the actual movie).
    'Mors est tantum impedimentum' - Death is only an obstacle
  • @New_Roosterman

    The "stun" effect for concussion missiles doesn't hinder you in any way imo. I've been hit a few times when I've been in a bomber and other than the weird sound fx and a bit of brightness, they don't do anything besides deal a bit of damage that an interceptor's cannons would easily surpass with a short burst of laser fire...

    Proton torps ain't much different other than they do a bit more damage and fly slower.

    Nobody's asking for 1HKO munitions, all they want is for them to actually be useful enough to make them viable enough to use against something that isn't stationary or an objective... or the Falcon...

    I don't see anyone packing any of the damage buff cards for the guided munitions because why waste it on a weapon that you rarely use when you can have something much more useful like slower heat buildup.


    And while I'm here...

    Does anyone else here find TIE Interceptors to be a bit rubbish? It feels like the cannons' heat build up is too much, the rate of fire is too slow and the damage isn't actually that great to compensate for it.

    I also kinda wish the TIE/sf had a mag-pulse warhead instead of a concussion missile... and the Vulture droids had their appearance from Ep. 3 when not on Naboo...

    In terms of torps and mijssiles, I was merly explaining the rationale is all.

    I agree the "concussion" missiles cause no concussion despiute what it says in the game's decsription.

    That said torps are meant to be used against stationary targets, even in the movies yoiu don't see many torps used to kill fighters. However you have a point on missiles. I only went on about 1 kill weapons as I've seen it happen in many other games, hence my concern is all.

    As to the buff cards you doin't see, well I do quite a bit. Different strokes for different folks I dare say.

    Yes the TIE Interceptors are rubbish. I won't fly them due to the slow fire rate compared to the TIE Fighter.
    51bvn954fmlp.png
  • I’m not so sure about speed increase. When you’re playing on Tatooine or SKB and you see an x wing or tie strafe a low pass, they moooove! I think it might be a case of distance perception in space.

    pH
  • Zorshaitan wrote: »
    Some terrific discussion here!

    8) VR is a difficult feature to implement in any game. It would probably take time for them to do it, and then you have the issue of how the more casual players will react because while I haven't personally tried VR yet, the ability to freely look and observe your surroundings is obviously a pretty big advantage... and one that costs £250+. You'd probably get people claiming it's unfair.

    10) Yea, speed needs buffed. But I don't think DICE are good when it comes to aircraft speeds in games... BF4 jets and BF1 planes move so sluggish you begin to think you're flying a 747 with engine trouble.

    With regards to the First Order on D'Qar, we actually don't know what the First Order uses as a bomber. The only ships we know are the TIE/FO, TIE/sf and the TIE/vn, but they're all basically fighters (I never agreed with the TIE/sf being an interceptor. If anything, it's more like a strike craft because of the heavier weapons than the TIE/FO, turret with a heavy multipurpose warhead launcher and it's a two seater. It was made an interceptor in this simply for balancing.) Until Disney detail what the Order uses as a bomber, designs a bomber for them or allow EA to design one themselves... we don't know what bomber ship, if any, the First Order uses. They might not even use bombers and instead just use TIE/sf for precision strikes and simply bombard larger/planetary targets with their Destroyers' heavy cannons (Just look at what they did to D'Qar in the actual movie).

    Void, m'man, I agree with you. I know a VR SWBF would pretty much be a game unto itself. Just more a wish list.

    RE: No FO Bombers. I agree they aren't in the official canon as being a THING yet but hey, make it up. Stuff in games can sometimes magically become canon too, right? (i.e. Dash Rendar's ship, the Outrider, does make a blink'n-you-miss-it cameo in the Special Edition of A New Hope...)
  • Zorshaitan
    40 posts Member
    edited February 2018

    8) VR is a difficult feature to implement in any game. It would probably take time for them to do it, and then you have the issue of how the more casual players will react because while I haven't personally tried VR yet, the ability to freely look and observe your surroundings is obviously a pretty big advantage... and one that costs £250+. You'd probably get people claiming it's unfair.

    10) Yea, speed needs buffed. But I don't think DICE are good when it comes to aircraft speeds in games... BF4 jets and BF1 planes move so sluggish you begin to think you're flying a 747 with engine trouble.

    With regards to the First Order on D'Qar, we actually don't know what the First Order uses as a bomber. The only ships we know are the TIE/FO, TIE/sf and the TIE/vn, but they're all basically fighters (I never agreed with the TIE/sf being an interceptor. If anything, it's more like a strike craft because of the heavier weapons than the TIE/FO, turret with a heavy multipurpose warhead launcher and it's a two seater. It was made an interceptor in this simply for balancing.) Until Disney detail what the Order uses as a bomber, designs a bomber for them or allow EA to design one themselves... we don't know what bomber ship, if any, the First Order uses. They might not even use bombers and instead just use TIE/sf for precision strikes and simply bombard larger/planetary targets with their Destroyers' heavy cannons (Just look at what they did to D'Qar in the actual movie).

    Void, m'man, I agree with you. I know a VR SWBF would pretty much be a game unto itself. Just more a wish list.

    RE: No FO Bombers. I agree they aren't in the official canon as being a THING yet but hey, make it up. Stuff in games can sometimes magically become canon too, right? (i.e. Dash Rendar's ship, the Outrider, does make a blink'n-you-miss-it cameo in the Special Edition of A New Hope...)
    Post edited by Zorshaitan on
  • I like what was done with the Death Star dlc in battlefront 2015. It was the closest we’ve had to galactic conquest. Maybe do something like that for other maps on battlefront 2.
    I’d also like to mention the whole credits, or lack thereof, in star fighter assault. Maybe I just need to get good but it doesn’t seem to have the payoff of even blast.
  • Phyrebrat wrote: »
    I’m not so sure about speed increase. When you’re playing on Tatooine or SKB and you see an x wing or tie strafe a low pass, they moooove! I think it might be a case of distance perception in space.

    pH

    Sorry but there is no Tatooine map in Starfighter Assault. We are talking Starfighter Assault here, not th e other parts of the game (e.g. Galactica Assault) where vehicles may be used. Thanks :)
    51bvn954fmlp.png
  • [quote="Voidwalker_98;c-967145"

    8) VR is a difficult feature to implement in any game. It would probably take time for them to do it, and then you have the issue of how the more casual players will react because while I haven't personally tried VR yet, the ability to freely look and observe your surroundings is obviously a pretty big advantage... and one that costs £250+. You'd probably get people claiming it's unfair.

    10) Yea, speed needs buffed. But I don't think DICE are good when it comes to aircraft speeds in games... BF4 jets and BF1 planes move so sluggish you begin to think you're flying a 747 with engine trouble.

    With regards to the First Order on D'Qar, we actually don't know what the First Order uses as a bomber. The only ships we know are the TIE/FO, TIE/sf and the TIE/vn, but they're all basically fighters (I never agreed with the TIE/sf being an interceptor. If anything, it's more like a strike craft because of the heavier weapons than the TIE/FO, turret with a heavy multipurpose warhead launcher and it's a two seater. It was made an interceptor in this simply for balancing.) Until Disney detail what the Order uses as a bomber, designs a bomber for them or allow EA to design one themselves... we don't know what bomber ship, if any, the First Order uses. They might not even use bombers and instead just use TIE/sf for precision strikes and simply bombard larger/planetary targets with their Destroyers' heavy cannons (Just look at what they did to D'Qar in the actual movie).[/quote]

    Void, m'man, I agree with you. I know a VR SWBF would pretty much be a game unto itself. Just more a wish list.

    RE: No FO Bombers. I agree they aren't in the official canon as being a THING yet but hey, make it up. Stuff in games can sometimes magically become canon too, right? (i.e. Dash Rendar's ship, the Outrider, does make a blink'n-you-miss-it cameo in the Special Edition of A New Hope...)
  • Octavious_Wrex
    3043 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    duvelsuper wrote: »
    duvelsuper wrote: »
    AaronM1978 wrote: »
    I agree with decluttering the HUD. The lead indicator needs to remain, however. What I would like to see is range to the target reducing the effectiveness of the directed energy weapons. Although the weapons do have a range limit, it seems the damage they inflict is constant throughout their range. I have two suggestions.

    1: The hitting power of the main armament decreases as the distance the energy bolt travels increases... maybe on a non-linear scale. (The power loss is more significant the last third of the weapon range)

    2. Increase the amount of dispersion for the weapons as the range increases. I think this would make conventional evasive maneuvering (jinking...etc) more effective.

    Drop off damage already exists. Lasers dont work like guns. There is no recoil to lasers which means no dispersion. There is only travel distance. Lasers will always go in a straight line which is why the white circle forces you to lead the shot in front of the fighter instead of directly on the fighter. The farther you are the easier it is to dodge.

    They aren't lasers though, a laser is made of light, therefore by its very nature travels at the speed of light, which would mean you absolutely wouldn't lead a target with a laser. StarWars blasters fire something much closer to plasma than lasers.

    This is how blaster fire is explained on Wikipedia:
    "The inner workings of blasters essentially create particle beams to inflict damage. When the trigger is pulled, the blaster chambers a small volume of the fictional Tibanna gas into a gas conversion enabler (or XCiter). The XCiter excites the gas particles with energy from a power-pack, which attaches to the weapon much like a magazine does to real world weapons. Afterwards, the excited gas is compressed into a beam in the actuating blaster module before being focused by first a prismatic crystal and then the galven circuitry in the barrel of the weapon."

    X-WING STARFIGHTER
    The X-wing is a versatile Rebel Alliance starfighter that balances speed with firepower. Armed with four laser cannons and two proton torpedo launchers, the X-wing can take on anything the Empire throws at it. Nimble engines give the X-wing an edge during dogfights, and it can make long-range jumps with its hyperdrive and its astromech droid co-pilot. Luke Skywalker is famous for destroying the Death Star behind the controls of an X-wing.

    Star wars calls it lasers so I will call it lasers. If you want to apply real life to the game then you can argue that x-wings should not exist because they aren't real. And for the record you are referring to L.A.S.E.R which is light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation which is completely different from laser which in star wars cannon is described as: Although these lasers did not act like a normal laser of photons moving the speed of light as seen as laser trip wires, it was a projectile weapon that could melt through targets, create explosions and even disintegrate objects.

    It's fine if you want to call them lasers, just like its fine if you want to call them Rey guns, but that's not how they function according to the in Galaxy lore. That's why I even quoted the explanation. I know it's geek semantics but we are on a video game forum for a game based on a sci-fi samurai western political space opera so I think this is a decent place for geek semantics. A laser isn't a projectile, it has no travel time, and the guns in film are always referred to as blasters, not lasers. The only mention of lasers I can recall for sure was in episode four when ObiWan referred to the Lightsaber as the Jedi Laser sword. That's not to say there are the dozens of mentions I've forgotten.

    Edited to add this quote:
    A blaster was any type of ranged weapon that fired bolts of intense plasma energy, often mistaken as lasers. Operating under the same principles as laser weaponry, blasters converted energy-rich gas to a glowing particle beam that could melt through targets.

    It even says that laser weapons in StarWars operated under the same principles as blasers, meaning that StarWars "lasers" are actually firing plasma energy. Which again means the projectile has mass, meaning it's going to have travel time and diminishing motion based on any outside factors such as gravity or friction.
  • MightyJawa
    115 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    hsf_ wrote: »
    Come on guys that's getting off topic, who cares about realism in a sci-fi video game anyway?
    First, get your facts correct, then distort them at your leisure
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson


    Back when EpIV was released, George Lucas was asked why his movie depicted these spaceships that were making sounds in the vacuum of space. They were trying to point out how Kubrick's 2001 was more scientifically accurate. George just responded "because it's more exciting to have it that way".
    Let the blasters kick like a mule, it makes it more exciting!
  • The Imperial TIE Interceptors in this game are probably the worst ships in the game.
    It would only take a few minor adjustments to make them more viable.
    I never use them they are so bad.
    The guns should alternate fire. That way they could have a more viable cooldown and you are able to fire for longer periods. The A wing outclasses it by a large margin.
    As for both Falcons, if they had a turret function like the ARC, Y Wing, and FO Interceptor, it would help them cover their rear. As it is, if even one person gets intent on a Falcon from behind, the Falcon is dead unless teammates come to help. If this was done though, I would say take some HP off as it would make them very OP.
    Boba's Slave I has a similar issue except for the seismic charge, which allows him to get enemies off his tail once the cooldown is over.

    I am hoping for some new SA maps. These are starting to get a little stale. Or even a TDM mode would be a change of pace.

    One thing they definitely got right was removing the shields from the rebel craft like they had in BF 2015. That was a major change that better balanced the space craft.
  • Sorry for the multiple posts, all. My iPhone has clearly been overtaken by sentient nanotech.
  • hsf_
    1918 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    MightyJawa wrote: »
    hsf_ wrote: »
    Come on guys that's getting off topic, who cares about realism in a sci-fi video game anyway?
    First, get your facts correct, then distort them at your leisure
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson


    Back when EpIV was released, George Lucas was asked why his movie depicted these spaceships that were making sounds in the vacuum of space. They were trying to point out how Kubrick's 2001 was more scientifically accurate. George just responded "because it's more exciting to have it that way".
    Let the blasters kick like a mule, it makes it more exciting!

    I agree, that's basically what I was saying, they got a lot of stuff right in terms of the science(for the time anyway) and that means they can distort it at their leisure.
  • hsf_ wrote: »
    MightyJawa wrote: »
    hsf_ wrote: »
    Come on guys that's getting off topic, who cares about realism in a sci-fi video game anyway?
    First, get your facts correct, then distort them at your leisure
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson


    Back when EpIV was released, George Lucas was asked why his movie depicted these spaceships that were making sounds in the vacuum of space. They were trying to point out how Kubrick's 2001 was more scientifically accurate. George just responded "because it's more exciting to have it that way".
    Let the blasters kick like a mule, it makes it more exciting!

    I agree, that's basically what I was saying, they got a lot of stuff right in terms of the science(for the time anyway) and that means they can distort it at their leisure.

    Agree. Star Wars is space opera without adherence to hard science. The movies are like this (thankfully) and the games should follow suit.
  • Billkwando
    2018 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    I would definitely love to see some flight stick support. The Xbox One has the T-Flight HOTAS now. I own a HOTAS for like 3 different consoles, and am planning to get another one on XBone for Elite Dangerous (the other space flying game, lol).
    ZI7BNkU.gif
    ^Maximum the Hormone - Alien^
    (Sorta like an insane Japanese SOAD, but w/ 3 vocalists and slap bass)

    Gamertag: Billkwando PSN: Billkwando YouTube: Billkwando
    Find me in HvV, pushing people off of stuff and watching them fall, like a cat.
  • The 90’s sims (X-Wing, Tie Fighter, Rebel, X-Wing Alliance) play well on Windows 10 with a few tweaks. They are a different league compared to BF2 when it comes to space fighting.

    BUT they are also much less accessible and do require messing around with to work well (e.g. Alliance has graphic updates/mods that make it visually reasonable. They all need an actual joystick too). Their strength is their gameplay and structured nature - something modern gamers may find frustrating - especially if used to a FPS. They do also show their age. I played them when they first came out, my son plays them now - but he views them as ‘retro’.

    BF2 SA is beautiful - no denying that - and I think it bridges it very well all things considered. Just needs more maps (and the Tie Defender and Gunboat). I doubt i’ll Be playing it 25 years from now though!



  • @New_Roosterman

    The "stun" effect for concussion missiles doesn't hinder you in any way imo. I've been hit a few times when I've been in a bomber and other than the weird sound fx and a bit of brightness, they don't do anything besides deal a bit of damage that an interceptor's cannons would easily surpass with a short burst of laser fire...

    Proton torps ain't much different other than they do a bit more damage and fly slower.

    Nobody's asking for 1HKO munitions, all they want is for them to actually be useful enough to make them viable enough to use against something that isn't stationary or an objective... or the Falcon...

    I don't see anyone packing any of the damage buff cards for the guided munitions because why waste it on a weapon that you rarely use when you can have something much more useful like slower heat buildup.


    And while I'm here...

    Does anyone else here find TIE Interceptors to be a bit rubbish? It feels like the cannons' heat build up is too much, the rate of fire is too slow and the damage isn't actually that great to compensate for it.

    I also kinda wish the TIE/sf had a mag-pulse warhead instead of a concussion missile... and the Vulture droids had their appearance from Ep. 3 when not on Naboo...

    Firstly, the concussion missiles prevent you from activating any of your three power up effects for a few seconds. That's significant.
    Secondly, I use damage buff cards for guided munitions, because I use them against things like Corvettes, the Fondor Shield Projector globes, the Rebel mines, the Mon Calamari Cruiser, the Venator bridges/engines... and you should too, if you want your team to win.
  • TIE Interceptor is poor even with purples - they seem to make no obvious difference to fire rate or duration. On those maps I play TF instead.

    The A-Wing on the other hand is awesome. The agility, turn rate and main weapons make up for the fragility.
  • Tallround75
    115 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    After purpling 3 cards for Darth Maul’s Scimitar I can say this is the best objective attacking ship in the game by a large margin.

    Deadly Ambusher, Furious Attacker and Fire Control Cycler all maxed out gives a crazily high damage output.

    - kills solo falcon in one burst
    - destroys mines in one burst
    - Destroys corvettes in less than 2 burst

    I destroyed 2 objective ywings, 1 awing and 2 player ywings in single burst as they entered the tunnel in shipyard.

    Rather than using stealth as a defensive counter measure, use it on the way to a target so you attack from an angle the enemy fighters are not expecting. This gives you time after decloaking to kill a few fighters then go stealth again to attack your next objective.

    Try to decloak near obstacles you can dodge around so you avoid being ion cannoned and mobbed while visible.
  • hsf_
    1918 posts Member
    After purpling 3 cards for Darth Maul’s Scimitar I can say this is the best objective attacking ship in the game by a large margin.

    Deadly Ambusher, Furious Attacker and Fire Control Cycler all maxed out gives a crazily high damage output.

    - kills solo falcon in one burst
    - destroys mines in one burst
    - Destroys corvettes in less than 2 burst

    I destroyed 2 objective ywings, 1 awing and 2 player ywings in single burst as they entered the tunnel in shipyard.

    Rather than using stealth as a defensive counter measure, use it on the way to a target so you attack from an angle the enemy fighters are not expecting. This gives you time after decloaking to kill a few fighters then go stealth again to attack your next objective.

    Try to decloak near obstacles you can dodge around so you avoid being ion cannoned and mobbed while visible.

    I honestly find Maul's ship very hard to play and very easy to kill.
  • hsf_ wrote: »
    After purpling 3 cards for Darth Maul’s Scimitar I can say this is the best objective attacking ship in the game by a large margin.

    Deadly Ambusher, Furious Attacker and Fire Control Cycler all maxed out gives a crazily high damage output.

    - kills solo falcon in one burst
    - destroys mines in one burst
    - Destroys corvettes in less than 2 burst

    I destroyed 2 objective ywings, 1 awing and 2 player ywings in single burst as they entered the tunnel in shipyard.

    Rather than using stealth as a defensive counter measure, use it on the way to a target so you attack from an angle the enemy fighters are not expecting. This gives you time after decloaking to kill a few fighters then go stealth again to attack your next objective.

    Try to decloak near obstacles you can dodge around so you avoid being ion cannoned and mobbed while visible.

    I honestly find Maul's ship very hard to play and very easy to kill.

    It needs to played as a hit and run ship. You have to use cloak efficiently and make sure to come from unexpected areas. I kill alot of Scimitar's because the person makes themselves too obvious. I am not the best in it but have had some pretty massive objective damage games in it.
  • 9om08kmfm5cj.jpg

    I'm only who love the Tri-fighter? It's small, fast, cool and so powerful
  • Generally, I'm very happy with SFA. I kinda hate the meandering bunker busters, but I've learned just to stay far away from them so I don't have to worry too much about them suddenly being in my flight path.

    This TIE Interceptor does need an overheat fix. I'm not sure what the SF needs; I just know I'll take a regular TIE instead.

    The fix for the Falcons being sporting clays is changing the afterburner (which doesn't get you out of range of anything) and repair (I can practically stay alive forever with just one on my tail, even if I'm just juking a lot and not engaging other ships) with turrets like the Y-wings. Since the Falcon has top and bottom, maybe make forward firing damage halved while the other rear fires. Won't stop a group from taking you down, but I can easily solo the Falcon, especially with a Tri-Fighter. Pop both cooldowns and plow away. A-Wing isn't too much harder.

    The dark side slow ships get ways to escape a tail (or multiples). Boba Fett gets to clear his baffles with the seismic charge, Kylo Ren goes all cloaked. The Falcon just gets a bunch of health. In theory that works if teammates back you up, but we know that almost never happens. So as someone else said, the Falcon is really just good at distracting the enemy from objectives for a minute.

    I'd like to see a little more use for bombers. I've found I can do just as much damage with more survivability with a fighter or interceptor with hit n run tactics.
  • Voidwalker_98
    97 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    Boba Fett gets to clear his baffles with the seismic charge, Kylo Ren goes all cloaked.

    It's Maul with the cloak, you got it mixed up. Kylo just out turns everything.

    As for the bomber, I think they should give them a stack of munitions like the way Darth Vader can store 2 uses of his Overwhelming Barrage ability. If bombers had 2 (or maybe 3 but I dunno) uses of their twin torps then they could be more effective in their role.
    Firstly, the concussion missiles prevent you from activating any of your three power up effects for a few seconds. That's significant.
    Secondly, I use damage buff cards for guided munitions, because I use them against things like Corvettes, the Fondor Shield Projector globes, the Rebel mines, the Mon Calamari Cruiser, the Venator bridges/engines... and you should too, if you want your team to win.

    Those few seconds of no ability usage isn't noticable when you're not using them and not currently needing them. If it added a small maneuverability penalty like getting hit once by an Ion Cannon shot then I'd see the benefit, but when you're say in an interceptor and harassing enemy ships, you don't need the afterburner, the hard lock isn't always required and missiles are pointless when in a CQC fight. So how is the stun effective against me?

    As for using munitions against objectives - if you read what I said previously, you'd realise that's what I use them for because they're not reliable against ships. Unless I see a Falcon or Slave 1 flying around, I'll reserve my torps and missiles for objectives and cruisers. That's where the TIE Silencer's Mag-Pulse warheads really shine...
    'Mors est tantum impedimentum' - Death is only an obstacle
  • A big issue for me in SA that's starting to grate is collision detection and suddenly dying from 'crashing' into something I was either nowhere near or didn't even see. Previous battlefield games using the Frostbite engine have had the same issues. The hitboxes for certain parts of the environment are too large. If they can't be refined then maybe have your ship bounce off or bump objects and lose half health. If you are already damaged then you die.

    I had it happen last night spawning in as Slave 1, baited some A wings onto my tail did one loop and got ready to pop seismic then inexplicably exploded on near full health. It's beyond irritating. If that happens as a Hero you get most of your BP back. That isn't the case with SA. It should be.
  • I enjoy SA
    1.Some hero ships are easy to kill
    2.Resistance/rebels/Clones dominate> droid+strong hull+ion canons (Y-wing for ex.)
    ties are ...just easy targets.We need more balance?
    3.Missiles are useless.Even upgraded if they hit their target, do small damage.Really?
    Overall i enjoy SA very much & i don't think we need many changes.
    More content is always welcome!
  • Tallround75
    115 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    LeftTurnus wrote: »

    I honestly find Maul's ship very hard to play and very easy to kill.

    It needs to played as a hit and run ship. You have to use cloak efficiently and make sure to come from unexpected areas. I kill alot of Scimitar's because the person makes themselves too obvious. I am not the best in it but have had some pretty massive objective damage games in it.[/quote]
    hsf_ wrote: »


    It needs to played as a hit and run ship. You have to use cloak efficiently and make sure to come from unexpected areas. I kill alot of Scimitar's because the person makes themselves too obvious. I am not the best in it but have had some pretty massive objective damage games in it.

    That’s it exactly. Stealth has a long active period which allows you to be cunning in your positioning, check your surroundings for threats then attack unseen. The longer the enemy’s reaction time once you unstealth, the more stealth recharge you get so you can reposition and attack again.

    People who die very frequently in this ship are not using it on the right maps (trying to use it as a dog fighter), are wasting the dps abilities on fighters or are doing stupid stuff like cloaking then coming straight back out to attack something due to impatience.

    You need to be patient when using it, wait for opportunities to kill multiple fighters at once, or the falcon or an objective. Only pick off single fighters if there’s no one else around.
  • It is too late to make major changes to the game as it is. It took a lot of time to adjust map size and ship speeds to create a fair scenario. Faster ships just don't work. Respawning ships would be way too quickly at the objective to either destroy or defend it. The only way to remedy that, is to move the spawn locations further out, but then we are where we were before. The entire gameplay would be like a movie in fast forward. The ships are actually quite fast, as we can see on Kashyyk or Naboo. Even at the lowest speed they are quite fast and one can easily crash into obstacles when pulling too late or making an input mistake.
    There are lots of asteroids and debris in those maps for good reason. Without them people would "snipe" each other permanently, which happens on other maps all the time. New spawn appears on the horizon, take aim, ready the barrage and see who wins. True dogfights are mostly avoided whenever possible. When somebody zips past my cockpit, i tend to ignore them and look for an easier target.
    Losing hundreds of troops in large ground battle is not unusual, but losing hundreds of ships in a "small" raid is.
    It is too arcady in my opinion. Killing 60+ ships would have made the "Red Baron" proud, let alone Poe Dameron.
    It is interesting to see how people have difficulties aiming at a bomber with active sensor confuse. It is easy to kill them anyway when you are directly in front or behind, but if they are at an angle they just don't hit anymore, which is the intention btw. It feels like as long as you aim at the marker the shots auto-connect. Is there an aimbot on PC they didn't mention? Sometimes i can confuse the system by targeting accidentally at a turret when flying into the resurgence class star destroyer. Although my mouse cursor is on the generator the first shots go towards the turret.
    It would be a huge step forward to remove the lead indicator and associated aimbot from SA. People would instinctively get closer and into a better position before opening fire.
Sign In or Register to comment.