CaliJoe Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 The match would probably be completed in 30 seconds because of who had the more powerful guns in a head on clash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramalina Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 For a real empty space battle I think you might need a bigger flyable volume. Part of what made open space battles work in the old X-wing series was that space didn't have borders, and there was no boost. That meant that engine speed and strategic maneuvering could be hugely important (and a ship as slow as a gunship or bomber might not make it to the battle before the scouts and strikes had already decided the outcome). Even if you started at the long ends and disabled boost, I'm not sure that the flyable volume in GSF is big enough for that kind of maneuvering to become a factor. I'm pretty sure that we won't see larger flyable spaces than we already have. Another thing to mention is that AI circa 1993 were far better at staying on mission and coordinating maneuvers than the average GSF pug player is. That's a huge handicap for scouts and strikes in an empty space scenario. With a premade and VOIP you could still give gunships and bombers a bad day, a pug with the coordination of a flock of headless chickens maybe not so much. As I've pointed out in other threads, if you're fighting around objects of interest, they had better be the enemy's objects of interest. If they aren't it means that you failed to keep the enemy out of territory that you shouldn't have let them into in the first place. Translation, if both sides are at least marginally competent empty areas are where battles tend to happen. You can make some exceptions to take advantage of fortifications and artillery, but that's risky because if you loose the battle you also loose that valuable resource. Hard to fall back to the fort(space station) you just lost. In the StarWars galaxy of course, your ideal empty space for a fight is the intersection of hyperspace routes. Due to mass shadow effects on hyperdrives, they should be very free of obstacles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vid-szhite Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 No cap ships (just a respawn point), no debris, no nothing just....well, space. Maybe a sun and planets as a back drop or a spiral galaxy or other such fantastic scene from actual universe. No place to hide no place to run. I mean, really, there is kinda a lot of empty space out there....scientific terms: A whole bunch of nuthin' EDIT: 3 or 4 respawn points per side. If you think gunships are bad now, just wait till there's nothing in their way. Hiding spots are important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyghtrunner Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I would prefer a low altitude fight through coruscant, or a dense shipyard with many gantrys and semi constructed ships, or flying through an actual moving/active asteroid field. At least something where real flying skill is required, instead of drone placement and rail sniping. Oh god yes. TDM Kuat Mesa (or DOM, for that matter, but the colors are less interesting) is very much like a low altitude dogfighting map, and I think it's honestly one of the more beautiful environments in the game. The sunset colors on the horizon, all the pillars and canyons and structures to fly through... It makes me a little sad that so much action tends to gravitate towards the capital ships for the TDM version, because there's so much space that doesn't get used for flying and fighting. But on the off occasion I'm on a team that is stomping the opposing team, I'll often just break off and just run through the canyons and such by myself. If I've got 10+ kills, and it's 30-10 or something, chances are the team we're facing is a bunch of new players, and I get no joy out of rubbing their noses in it anymore. As such, I'd rather just use the canyons and fly around and enjoy the sights, maybe occasionally fly back into the action and see if I can get someone to follow me into the canyons and such. It really is an intricate environment, and I'd love to see more like them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandi Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) The ships are way too slow un-boosted for it to be anything but a snorefest. They should at least triple the non-boosted speed of ships to make GSF more interesting. Now it's a duckhunt game. While we're at it, double the range of all weapns as well with the speed tripling. Calling GSF "fast-paced" is a blatant lie. Edited February 19, 2014 by Jandi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattycutts Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 aweful idea, basically arena type match but any obsticals removed lol most hated arenas within weeks of them being released and this game mode would just be same. darting inbetween obsticals, astorids etc is where alot of the skill comes into it, worse idea ive seen put forward for a new game mode, if they introduced that i would just quit the match each time that mode came up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty_joe Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 did it occur to the proponents of "empty space maps" that not only would it be boring but really difficult to manage as well? i am pretty sure that in empty space half the players would be disoriented and goof off rather soon... i remember the same discussions from STO where people asked for the space maps to be empty. the devs explained they tried it, but the play testers got lost and in some cases "space sick" without the visual references. and STO does not even have full 360 free flight as GSF has. did i mention empty space is really boring, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramalina Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) The ships are way too slow un-boosted for it to be anything but a snorefest. They should at least triple the non-boosted speed of ships to make GSF more interesting. Now it's a duckhunt game. While we're at it, double the range of all weapns as well with the speed tripling. Calling GSF "fast-paced" is a blatant lie. Well the movies and the old games were based on WWII level speed and maneuverability, which mean engine speeds that were more or less in the range of 150 to 250 m/s. Compare to a gunship that has a baseline unboosted speed of over 600 m/s. Or to the speed of sound at sea level, for that matter, which is about 280-300 m/s depending on atmospheric conditions. To put it another way, a gunship at baseline speed is faster than an F-22 on full afterburner. The scouts exceed Mach 9 when they're boosting. GSF is very, very fast paced for flight combat. It seems slow because it's very carefully engineered to minimize the payoff of piloting skill. In a good flight combat sim (ie one that is fairly similar to real air combat), it's completely normal to have flight times 30 min to 4 + hours, of which if you are at all competent as a pilot, anywhere from 15 seconds to 20 min will be combat. For reference, for most military scenarios when you're planning your fuel load allowing 5 min worth of combat time is considered plenty on a mission profile that's 2-4 hours long. The problem with GSF, is that there is almost no piloting to do, so if you're not shooting it gets boring quickly. If it took you 5 or 15 or 500 min to fly to the target area it would have little impact on the outcome of the fight, because piloting skill has mostly been devalued by design. In a more sim-ish setup the flying is interesting because it matters how you do it, and if you do it poorly you can loose the battle before you're in weapons range of any targets. I suppose it's a matter of what sort of fun appeals to the individual player. There's the frantic chasing of the closest red dot sort of fun (my cat likes this sort of thing and is undecided about which is the crowning achievement of human civilization: the wood stove, canned fish, or the laser pointer). Then there's the sort of fun that comes from strategic planning, and trying to get your opponent into a situation where they're going to loose no matter how well they fly if they don't see what you're doing and change strategies to counter it. GSF almost completely lacks this sort of reward. The argument for a larger slower empty space battle is based on wanting some of that sort of fun. If that's not for you, you probably needn't worry. Having gone to great lengths to avoid building a game mode that significantly rewards piloting skill in strategic maneuvering, the devs are hardly likely to suddenly introduce a battlefield where victory conditions are based on needing to be a good pilot. *Edit: I recall X-Wing missions where if you didn't evaluate the scenario and make the right choices in the first 10-15 seconds after dropping out of hyperspace you were pretty much sure to loose the mission, sometimes very badly. You had to keep on paying attention after that too, in case things changed. It made the flying interesting, even when the target was 5 - 7 min away at full throttle. Edited February 20, 2014 by Ramalina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zharik Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) Compare to a gunship that has a baseline unboosted speed of over 600 m/s. The problem with this is that the distances in GSF are GROSSLY exaggerated compared to ship size. They could knock a decimal place from all ranges and speeds and it would make a lot more sense but still be too large. Sit at "500m" from an enemy ship and ask your self, "If I am 500m away from that ship, just how many football fields in size is MY ship?" Or have a friend park at one end of a "star destroyer" while you are at the other and see that they are like 8 miles long. Heck those satellites are easily a few miles across... So I could multiply the speeds/ranges listed by 100, doesn't make the ships "faster than the speed of sound", it just means my ships are "even bigger" than they should be. Edited February 20, 2014 by Zharik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandi Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) The problem with this is that the distances in GSF are GROSSLY exaggerated compared to ship size. They could knock a decimal place from all ranges and speeds and it would make a lot more sense but still be too large. Sit at "500m" from an enemy ship and ask your self, "If I am 500m away from that ship, just how many football fields in size is MY ship?" Or have a friend park at one end of a "star destroyer" while you are at the other and see that they are like 8 miles long. Heck those satellites are easily a few miles across... So I could multiply the speeds/ranges listed by 100, doesn't make the ships "faster than the speed of sound", it just means my ships are "even bigger" than they should be. This. If a ship the size we have in-game was 500m away, you would barely see it, and certainly not make it out against anything with the same colour. These are 2 seat craft at most, not frigates. How big does a van look like from 500m away? You could hide it with your thumb and starfighters in Star Wars aren't much bigger. Edited February 20, 2014 by Jandi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain_Turinbar Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I imagine you could disoriented very quickly.............would be interesting. There would at least have to be some capital ships or a station or something worth fighting over though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zharik Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 This. If a ship the size we have in-game was 500m away, you would barely see it, and certainly not make it out against anything with the same colour. These are 2 seat craft at most, not frigates. How big does a van look like from 500m away? You could hide it with your thumb and starfighters in Star Wars aren't much bigger. Pretty sure mine are all at least "5-seaters", cause I carry 4 people with me when I fly. Sometimes I wish I could shut my copilot up though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancezwithnubz Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) i can barely begin to describe the many, many ways this would just be supremely awful. it sounds ok in theory, but there's a blatantly obvious I Win Strat: 'creeping barrage'. use two, maybe three bombers and the rest gunships. stick together (hyperspace beacons!) and pick off the enemy using as much AoE Ion Railgun cheese as you can manage. it would quickly become incredibly, mindblowingly boring. EvE Online under 10% TiDi sounds like more fun. Edited February 21, 2014 by dancezwithnubz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korithras Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Believe it or not, the asteroids are there for more than just providing obstacles, but they also help orient pilots so they know where they are and which direction they're headed. Anybody old enough to have played X-Wing or TIE Fighter back in the day will remember, it was VERY easy to get yourself turned around because there was nothing to help you align yourself with your surroundings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royox Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 No cap ships (just a respawn point), no debris, no nothing just....well, space. Maybe a sun and planets as a back drop or a spiral galaxy or other such fantastic scene from actual universe. No place to hide no place to run. I mean, really, there is kinda a lot of empty space out there....scientific terms: A whole bunch of nuthin' EDIT: 3 or 4 respawn points per side. Gunship User spotted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramalina Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Believe it or not, the asteroids are there for more than just providing obstacles, but they also help orient pilots so they know where they are and which direction they're headed. Anybody old enough to have played X-Wing or TIE Fighter back in the day will remember, it was VERY easy to get yourself turned around because there was nothing to help you align yourself with your surroundings. There was cockpit instrumentation. It was crude, but effective once you learned to interpret it. You do have a point in regards to GSF I think. There a big difference between crude and effective and crude and ineffective. As far as the people talking about model size, it's not really relevant to what I'm talking about. Borked camera angles/zoomed in views don't have any effect on weapons ranges, flight time to target, and given the roll to hit nature of the combat they don't even affect how hittable a ship's hitbox is as much as they should. In short, cartoon character exaggerations of proportion don't have a huge effect on the tactical considerations of pre-/early engagement maneuvering. Namely that GSF has been designed to eliminate those considerations. But GSF is what it is and won't undergo radical changes, even if some of us might wish for them. There are other options out there, and to the extent that GSF fails in some areas it's just a motivation to play something that offers a kind of play experience that GSF doesn't. Honestly, not that I've gotten my Starguard mastered I find myself doing that more and more. On a semi-related note, landing a sim Mi-8 with 2.5 of it's 5 main rotor blades missing is a lot more rewarding than doing a weekly's worth of GSF (and doing a vertical dive from 4000m in an attempt to set a speed record turns out to be a really bad idea.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuciwalker Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 As far as the people talking about model size, it's not really relevant to what I'm talking about. Borked camera angles/zoomed in views don't have any effect on weapons ranges, flight time to target, and given the roll to hit nature of the combat they don't even affect how hittable a ship's hitbox is as much as they should. In short, cartoon character exaggerations of proportion don't have a huge effect on the tactical considerations of pre-/early engagement maneuvering. Namely that GSF has been designed to eliminate those considerations. Not in gunship combat (particularly gunship vs. gunship) In gunship vs gunship, approach is everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom_VI Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Logistical planning isn't included in GSF because like 97% of people don't get enjoyment out of cruising for two hours just to get a 15 min fight. Also every single one of the ships are based off of the capital ships, the capital ship carries them in, they don't have to cruise in themselves. The whole dropping from hyperspace thingy is just a convenient way to spawn ships, - none of the fighters at least even have room for a hyper drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain_Turinbar Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) gunship user spotted. lol....... Logistical planning isn't included in GSF because like 97% of people don't get enjoyment out of cruising for two hours just to get a 15 min fight. Also every single one of the ships are based off of the capital ships, the capital ship carries them in, they don't have to cruise in themselves. The whole dropping from hyperspace thingy is just a convenient way to spawn ships, - none of the fighters at least even have room for a hyper drive. X-Wings had hyperdrive so you'd think everything but scouts are big enough to have one. Edited February 21, 2014 by Kain_Turinbar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandi Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 X-Wings had hyperdrive so you'd think everything but scouts are big enough to have one. All the Rebel ships had hyperdrive, even A-wings as you can see in ROTS when they jump to Endor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom_VI Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) All the Rebel ships had hyperdrive, even A-wings as you can see in ROTS when they jump to Endor. SWTOR > three thousand years > ROTJ Also if you look up the lore on Novadives they are purely carrier born. (FF are novadives in their storage position) And don't even try to tell me that blackbolts and stings have hyperdrives. The rycer and quell probably don't either since the amount of room on the main hull allotted to the engines is so tiny. Edited February 21, 2014 by Zoom_VI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altheran Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Let's say that if Rebels' fighters had hyperdrives was due to their condition. As rebels, their needs were differents from a regular army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramalina Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) Let's say that if Rebels' fighters had hyperdrives was due to their condition. As rebels, their needs were differents from a regular army. Well if you want to get really technical, the X-wing is an Imperial Navy fighter design. It was their procurement process that commissioned and paid for the design, prototype, and testing. However, after most of the designers were persuaded to defect Palpatine threw a temper tantrum (as he so often did), and the Imperial Navy cancelled acquisition plans even though in a lot of ways it was superior to the TIE line of fighters. For most of the duration of the rebellion against Palpatine's empire the rebel acquisition process was: Can the equipment in question theoretically be used in our fight against the Empire? Do we believe that in its current state or after quick and cheap repairs it will have at least a tiny fraction of the utility that it had when newly manufactured? Can we beg, borrow, steal or buy it? If the answers to all of the above are: yes, probably, I think so, or maybe, then the item is suitable for the rebel acquisition process. Oh, and hurry up, if someone sees us slicing this lock we're dead meat. That some of their fighters had hyperdrives was mostly a function of what was available on the gray and black markets at the time of the rebellion. What you see in the movies is really a representation of operations where they needed to use fighters with hyperdrives, so of course the fighters were ones that could be equipped with them. Edited February 22, 2014 by Ramalina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armonddd Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 SWTOR > three thousand years > ROTJ Also if you look up the lore on Novadives they are purely carrier born. (FF are novadives in their storage position) Given as the hyperdrive was invented a few thousand years before SWTOR, you'd think there wouldn't be too much in the way of form factor to refine before the movies. I also kind of contest the point that flashfires are novadives in storage position. The nose is different. That some of their fighters had hyperdrives was mostly a function of what was available on the gray and black markets at the time of the rebellion. Hard to smuggle something that doesn't have a hyperdrive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandi Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) SWTOR > three thousand years > ROTJ Also if you look up the lore on Novadives they are purely carrier born. (FF are novadives in their storage position) And don't even try to tell me that blackbolts and stings have hyperdrives. The rycer and quell probably don't either since the amount of room on the main hull allotted to the engines is so tiny. Ummm I was replying to a post that said that X-wings had hyperdrives and I merely pointed out that they all had them. So put your dick back into your pants champ. Edited February 22, 2014 by Jandi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts