Someone is making a standalone GSF game -- Starfighter, Inc.

[Nemarus]

Hey guys, in case you haven't heard, there's a new Kickstarter campaign for a new game called Starfighter, Inc., "a hardcore team-based PvP multiplayer space shooter in the vein of X-Wing vs. Tie-Fighter". Sound familiar?

 

 

The project leader is one of the former developers of X-wing and TIE Fighter. From the description of the project, it essentially sounds like they want to make a standalone game very similar to Galactic Starfighter.

 

8v8 (or 16v16) team oriented objective space PvP with various classes/roles of ships, plus lots of functional and cosmetic customization options (they even show a picture of a fighter with the shark mouth on the fuselage).

 

The whole thing honestly reads like our feature request list for GSF. Some other interesting quotes:

 

Pilot a single-seat recon ship, fly with a squadron of interceptors, or team up with others to crew a multi-seat gunship as you take part in truly massive space battles. Immerse yourself in a gorgeous, cinematic, VR-enabled space simulator set in a near-future hard science setting.

 

Pledge Goal Gamemodes: Dogfight, Convoy Eescort, Base Assault, Capture the Cache, Recon

 

Pledge Goal Player Ships: Space Superiority Fighter, Heavy Fighter, Point Defense Interceptor, Recon Ship, Scout Ship, Information Warfare Craft.

 

Component Damage - Every system on the ship is susceptible to damage and each has a unique effect on gameplay. Shrapnel hit to your maneuvering thrusters? Spend the rest of the battle in an unstable, erratic beast. Main sensor cluster fried by enemy lasers? Looks like you’re going to have to fly blind. Missile hit in the cockpit? Well, you get the idea.

 

What makes this different from Star Citizen or Elite Dangerous?

 

Pure, high-intensity, explosion-a-minute tactical space combat.

 

No mining, no hunting womp rats, no exploration through deep space. All that stuff is awesome and those games do it extremely well. However, we decided that if we were going to be the best at one thing, it would be blowin' stuff up!

 

Stretch Goal Stuff: 16v16, Multi-seat ships, AI Carriers, Troop Transports, Drones, Carrier Battles, etc.

 

They do say they are going to have realistic newtonian physics, which I'm not quite sure how I feel about. Still, the game seems much more targeted and pragmatic in scope than Star Citizen--it says they aim to ship in August of next year. Maybe they will actually beat SC out of the gate

 

Besides, I prefer the pedigree of X-wing/TIE Fighter than Wing Commander. So I went ahead and backed it.

[Iliac]

I almost posted my own thread on this. It does look promising. I might have to break down and invest in my first kickstarter.

[SWCNT]

They've got my vote, and more importantly my money.

Thanks for posting this

[Nomaad]

Nom nom nom.

[Lendul]

Looks like an interesting game, but it does not sound anything like GSF considering what they said about the physics.

[Nemarus]

Looks like an interesting game, but it does not sound anything like GSF considering what they said about the physics.

 

One difference and you say "it does not sound anything like GSF". That's a bit hyperbolic.

 

Apart from the Newtonian physics, this game sounds almost exactly like GSF--or what GSF could become if it had more development resources.

 

I agree that I am skeptical about the Newtonian physics. Then again, they may be completely awesome. As long as it's fast paced, it has the potential to capture the excitement that GSF does.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Nemarus

[Anishor]

hmm I will pass this a long to the old SWG Pilot community.

[Lendul]

One difference and you say "it does not sound anything like GSF". That's a bit hyperbolic.

 

Apart from the Newtonian physics, this game sounds almost exactly like GSF--or what GSF could become if it had more development resources.

 

I agree that I am skeptical about the Newtonian physics. Then again, they may be completely awesome. As long as it's fast paced, it has the potential to capture the excitement that GSF does.

Is it going to be a KB&M arcade shooter in space? From what I could tell the only similarity was the space part. It looks more like Star Conflict than GSF.

[ALaggyGrunt]

How this lives:

Crazy variety and cross-play between builds and ships. Electronic warfare games, cat-and-mouse, shield/armor/damage types make things even crazier.

Variety of terrain to fight (or hide) in with its own effects on ships, which make life all the more interesting.

Something for mouse users to do which doesn't mean getting roflstomped by the joystick users in a joystick game, since not everyone's got the money available for a proper joystick. Since they're talking about multi-seat gunships, this looks like it's going to happen.

 

How this dies:

Low variety in actually useful ships and builds.

Fail matchmaking.

[xDELTHYx]

One immediate thing I notice is I will absolutely have to buy a new machine to play this. The graphics look insane. When I see a game that looks like this my first concern is they are immediately hoping to get enough players off of high end machines. Games like this are hit and miss as far *** success because they limit their player base by rediculous system requirements. Now would i personally upgrade for it? Probably depending on how it turns out but I would say a lot of people would not.

[Nemarus]

One immediate thing I notice is I will absolutely have to buy a new machine to play this. The graphics look insane. When I see a game that looks like this my first concern is they are immediately hoping to get enough players off of high end machines. Games like this are hit and miss as far *** success because they limit their player base by rediculous system requirements. Now would i personally upgrade for it? Probably depending on how it turns out but I would say a lot of people would not.

 

It's actually easier for space-based games to "look insane" than for games in a terrestrial environment. You're largely dealing with simpler geometry (planets are spheres, and most spaceship designs are rather polygonal to begin with). Organic stuff like plants and animals, with lots of curves, require a lot more polygons.

 

Additionally, you can usually get away with pretty limited lighting sources. Maybe a single dominant star and occasional weapon/explosion light sources. That's a lot easier to render than say ... a jungle ... in which you have not only the sun, but sunlight reflecting and diffusing off of complicated-shaped objects.

 

The most expensive details will come from the cockpit. That's a much more complicated structure to render, and likely why Star Citizen's requirements are so high. It's probably one of the main reasons GSF doesn't have a cockpit view--the game performance would suffer considerably.

 

As it is though, consider GSF performance vs. the performance you get on Rishi or Yavin. I know that on all my computers, GSF runs a lot smoother.

 

And finally, like all PC games, Starfighter, Inc. will have a variety of settings. Who says you have to play at max? GSF doesn't look like Star Citizen, but we all still enjoy it. As long as you can get Starfighter, Inc. to look as good as GSF, you should be fine. It's the mechanics that make a game fun.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Nemarus

[Altheran]

Special backer tier : a ship

 

Q&A : the ship is not P2W, it will be balanced, however it will be unique in capabilities.

 

Me : Pass. Tell me, looking in the eyes, that getting a ship that does things other can't, is never a vertical improvement.

[Danalon]

Special backer tier : a ship

 

Q&A : the ship is not P2W, it will be balanced, however it will be unique in capabilities.

 

Me : Pass. Tell me, looking in the eyes, that getting a ship that does things other can't, is never a vertical improvement.

 

Having a unique ability is not necessarily a vertical improvement. In GSF there are a lot of abilities unique to only one specific type of ship. Blaster Overcharge, Hyperspace Beacon, Tensor Field, switching primary weapons, Ion Rail, Repair Probes, Ion Cannon, Railgun Sentry Drone and some more I don't remember now (correct me if I'm wrong with one of those listed). Some of them are strong, some aren't, but I don't think all of them classify as vertical upgrades. And what if the unique ability is an ability only useable when not in combat?

Edited May 9, 2015 by Danalon

[ALaggyGrunt]

The special-ship abilities had better be pretty weak, then. Otherwise they'll become overpowered or broken as balance reshuffling happens. Think about fortress shield-if it became able to, say, prevent shield penetration and power drain, it would become a lot more common as a component.

 

The counters to fortress shield would become:

Ion cannon (insane shield DPS)

Blaster overcharged just about anything (insane DPS boost)

TT+CF just about anything (same).

 

Or booster recharge-nobody without it is going to be able to run your ship down.

 

Same thing with stealth ships: all those counter-stealth abilities (sensor beacon + TT) would become that much more important if the stealthies were strong enough to worry about. If an ability-especially the best one-to counter a common were only available (or effective) on a Cartel ship, it would be very much P2W.

Edited May 9, 2015 by ALaggyGrunt

[Danalon]

There are a lot of factors to consider when balancing abilities, unique or not. Raw strength is only one of them.

There can be downsides to an ability or it may only be useful in certain situations. The strength of an ability may vary depending on how big a fight is and on how many allies/enemies are directly affected by it. It's also important how many people are actually using a specific ability. There may be synergies with other abilities or lack thereof. An ability can be strong in the beginning of a match and get weaker the further the match progresses or vice versa. An ability can also perform different depending on the skill and gear of a player and the skill and gear of his opponents. After all, balance is an ongoing process and needs to be taken serious by the developers. If they are serious about it, an ability, unique or not, can be a sidegrade to other abilities.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Danalon

[MatuVonnegut]

They've got my vote, and more importantly my money.

Thanks for posting this

And mine!

[Iliac]

Is it going to be a KB&M arcade shooter in space? From what I could tell the only similarity was the space part. It looks more like Star Conflict than GSF.

 

This is one of their responses on controls:

Creator Impeller Studios 3 days ago

Eminus,

The best controller will probably be a joystick and throttle with a VR headset. That being said, I’m mostly a mouse and keyboard player so you better believe that will be amazing as well. Gamepads will also be supported, and we’re also talking with some potential partners for some truly bleeding edge stuff, but can’t really reveal any details yet. We should be pretty good across the board.

/Jack

 

So, yes KB&M will work. There will also be options for 3rd person view through the use of camera drones following your ship. With those 2 options combined, I would expect it to be very similar to GSF.

But will be best with HOTS & VR such as Oculus Rift with the primary view from in the cockpit.

[Verain]

Me : Pass. Tell me, looking in the eyes, that getting a ship that does things other can't, is never a vertical improvement.

 

Type 2 Gunship, is that you?

[Verain]

Their response on controls is the same thing every dev says before they have a product. "Please don't leave because we don't support your control scheme".

 

Still, I'm very glad to see them say "get a joystick and throttle". That's very important to me, and it's a strong statement, because it means that if some rando "can't afford a HOTAS" or whatever, then in a couple years, on their forums, I can just link them to a dev post while calling them a baddie.

 

Simply put, any game that doesn't support a joystick properly normally does so in the name of game balance, to give the plebs a chance to play with their Microsoft Office equipment, or their console whatever (ex: games that let you gimbal with a mouse, but not with a joystick, games that lock your throttle settings to certain discrete values and/or don't give any rewards for using the full range, etc). The fact that it's a giant pain to acquire and test joysticks and throttles assuredly doesn't help. GSF, for instance, will never support joysticks, and we often have people coming in here telling us that somehow the game would be MORE adopted if you needed an expensive controller for it. Yea, right.

 

So to find devs willing to say "joystick and throttle" from the start means that there's at least a good chance that they'll actually follow through. I'm definitely very interested.

 

 

 

The fundamental issue about the "kickstart bonus" thing is, none of the advantages that they give you at this level will ever mean squat. If they come up with a custom ship that has some cool power, rest assured that within 6 months something very similar or better will launch for the non-founders. So in the short term if you don't buy you'll feel like you'll never be complete and are playing at a disadvantage, and if you DO buy in the medium term your investment will turn to sand. I dislike these "buy power" things for this reason- the devs so rarely follow through by SELLING power, so the people bringing money to get it get screwed, and in the confusion between here and there the players who don't want to do that get screwed by having to worry about that and figure out if the founder-locked things are going to break the game for them in the meantime. It's just so lose/lose.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Verain

[Verain]

If they are serious about it, an ability, unique or not, can be a sidegrade to other abilities.

 

Yes, correct, but....

 

 

How many games:

 

1)- Have a good meta

2)- Keep it

 

There are some! Games that are built on perpetual advancement spend less than a couple months each year making any sense, but games that don't do that can be longer.

 

Lets take GSF. The balance is pretty good- three of four classes are viable and necessary, and within those classes, at least two of every type is viable. That's twelve ships total, with at least six being good and at least three or four being top tier (playable at top levels). If the devs were stomping around, we might get to the point where all twelve ships are viable- or they'll double down on their mistakes. Remember, scout burst was on their radar... almost a year ago, when they went AWOL. Before they left the building, they accidentally erased ion missile by halving its snare duration, almost erased EMP field by reverting the buff it needed for real viability, and broke one of the upgrades on sab probe, another niche component that got weaker for no reason. Previous to that, they decided that mines were too good and they nerfed them, trivializing the mine game, and decided that missiles weren't connecting enough so they powerfully nerfed engine maneuvers.

 

The engine manuever nerf was necessary, and the way they did it was pretty smart. It was maybe too big of a nerf, because any ship that relied on barrel roll became a lot weaker, especially if not a gunship (bye-bye metapike!), but it wasn't THAT big of a nerf, and it greatly INCREASED diversity by making each engine maneuver have its own cost and cooldown. The 10 second power dive was never used when 10 second barrel and 10 second retro were options, but now all three have massive proponentsn.

 

The mine nerf didn't change the ship meta, and it did reduce the TTK from bombers on nodes, but it really reduced the strategy of laying mines and timing mines. It also greatly reduced the viability of boy bombers in TDM, to the point where we mostly don't even count them as TDM guys at all anymore, all to make them a little less important in dom- when other fixes could have nerfed them without hurting those things.

 

 

So, with GSF, which has pretty good balance... can you not think of a bunch of things to fix, right now?

 

 

And these devs aren't that bad at balance, they have a track record. Do the devs of this new game? Even Blizzard, who poop out E-Sports, have giant balance issues in some of their pvp, depending on the model. So, will this game have a balancable model, devs in touch with the different skills of players to make the meta not tiny at the top, and the willpower and motivation to do it?

 

 

I don't think we can credit them all these good things for free. It's very hard to get game balance correct, and many games just make a joke of it. The fourth worst balanced games rely on a badly implemented rock paper scissors. The third worst games have a couple top picks with no rock-paper-scissors to balance that out. The second-worst games just have one clear obvious pick for any strategy or character. The worst games are like the second worst games, but once you've invested your time they nerf your guy to oblivion.

[Nemarus]

Yes, correct, but.... <stuff>.

 

Valid points.

 

Though about Bombers... while mine-triggering is not as much a mechanic as it was before, Minelayer maneuvering is much more important now. Drakolich's Bomber skill lies in his ability to lead people back into his mines. I think that, on the whole, the skill ceiling on Bombers was raised.

 

And certainly, Interdiction Mine fared just fine after it lost its shield-piercing

 

As for Starfighter, Inc., I have no doubts that it will be unbalanced at first. The difference is that this team will be solely dedicated to fixing it. Balance patches won't take months (or years)--they'll take weeks or even days for something truly egregious.

 

And because their frequency of updates will be so fast, they can attempt balance changes with a light touch--incrementally nerfing/buffing to reach a happy medium ("Small moves, Ellie. Small moves."). This is unlike GSF, where the devs undoubtedly had to cram X amount of fixes into Y number of limited releases before they were moved onto Strongholds. And because of that pressure, many of their later changes had to be pretty dramatic--they didn't have time to make iterative improvements. They basically had to gamble on a new meta each time.

 

The nerf to Barrel Roll was a HUUUUGE gamble, but they got lucky and won.

 

On the other hand, their first big change (a small, incremental nerf to Evasion) probably didn't go far enough. And by the time Burst Laser Cannons had truly showed their ridiculousness--both anecdotally and in telemetry--it was too late, and GSF was already strapped for devs.

 

We're lucky we have what we have. As much as we complain, balance could be a lot worse. It's certainly the least of GSF's problems (accessibility being the biggest one).

Edited May 13, 2015 by Nemarus

[Altheran]

Type 2 Gunship, is that you?

 

Nope. I'm Pike. Nice to meet you.

 

 

No, seriously, making a ship faster than any other but reserved to people having paid, would be making scouts a class of ship that is cartel-only here (except the unlimited-time availability).

Putting aside potential unbalances that may unvoluntarily arise , the ship having it, whether be it that game or here, may not be the ship that rule them all and be overally balanced, it will still be the ship that can turn the tides favorably because of its particular asset in given situations.

They say it's not P2W, but there will be case where people will be able to say "I/We lost because I/we had not ship X at my disposal, and I/we don't have it because I/we did not paid for it, and I/we can't earn it."

That may not be their definition of P2W, but that's mine.

[Verain]

No, seriously, making a ship faster than any other but reserved to people having paid, would be making scouts a class of ship that is cartel-only here (except the unlimited-time availability).

 

I see your complaint, honestly. But I sort of think it could be made to work. You are correct to not trust them as "I don't like p2w"-guy, but ALSO if you are "imma-p2w"-guy.

 

Here's the thing- pretend that the type 1 scout was only available to players who had payed cartel coins for it in the first month. And also that the type 3 bomber was. This wouldn't be the end of the world, but it would really be frustrating. It would be obvious to anyone who put the time in that these ships aren't meta-defining, but it would be totally reasonable to be the guy left out watching someone shield to engine and saying "man, that playstyle would be really great on me, but I just... can't?" It wouldn't hurt your chances of playing the game, objectively, but it sure would reduce your experiences in it.

 

 

Meanwhile, pretend instead that there's a version of the type 1 scout that had slightly more total engine bar and slightly less total blaster bar, had -50 shields but +1000 sensor range (this is a rough approx of how they described their Shrike EM guy). That wouldn't feel so bad, right? You wouldn't be missing out on a playstyle at all. That would be the "correct" way to do this.

 

Now, pretend that it's the type 2 scout and type 1 bomber locked away for preorders.

 

Final pretend-tion- it's the type 2 gunship that is locked away.

 

Case 1 is a frustrating experience for everyone- the P2W guys didn't get a ship that lets them actually win, but they came out mostly ok, while everyone else misses the ship type totally.

Case 2 is perfect- you would never feel left out if the premium ship was extremely similar to an existing niche ship, and they would have a unique experience, though not "all that unique".

Case 3 is the nightmare game destroying scenario. Even the P2W guys would be shocked in that case.

Case 4 is a terrible scenario- the P2W guys didn't get what they paid for, and the game as a whole has to deal with guys like you worrying about the odd cases!

 

We don't know what will happen. But they are basically saying case 2 is their reality. Personally, I feel case 4 is more likely, because once they actually have a successful launch, their priority is to add stuff and appease players. A small core of loyal players who got a bunch of stuff, a couple of them being unique ships, is relatively easy to appease. Certainly easier than the rest of the gaming world if those guys actually have really top ships no one else can get.

 

 

I get being worried, but... that's on my list too, but it's relatively low compared to "will they fund" and "will they balance" and "will controls work". We see nothing of their internal model yet, we don't even know their physics of choice.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Verain

[Danalon]

Meanwhile, pretend instead that there's a version of the type 1 scout that had slightly more total engine bar and slightly less total blaster bar, had -50 shields but +1000 sensor range (this is a rough approx of how they described their Shrike EM guy). That wouldn't feel so bad, right? You wouldn't be missing out on a playstyle at all. That would be the "correct" way to do this.

 

I could imagine something like this:

Kickstarter people get a normal T2 scout. All the others are limited to a version of the T2 scout without BO.

[Verain]

Well, that's mostly case 4. If your scout has BO and TT unlockable and mine just has TT, we generally have the same scout in most situations. If it was TT, then it would be case 3.

 

It is a good point for how close it is though- BO isn't generally meritless or anything. It's just not normally as good as TT is for almost all use. Certainly, it is very rare among experienced players compared to TT.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Verain