Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Weirdguy on January 20, 2013, 03:28:39 AM
-
We've got Aces High for the fighter pilot MMO. Make no mistake, this is an MMO (there is no mention of RPG in any of this). If you want a large scale version of Battlefield, there is Planetside 2.
World of Tanks is not that realistic of a simulation to me. I've watched SideStrafe post videos of his Lets-play WoT, and it seems the normal way to play is hide and shoot at highlighted enemies through trees. Call me crazy, but WW-2 tanks never had datalink targeting using spotters. It would make more sense as a Mechwarrior game with that technology to spot enemies, but that is how WoT is played, so it isn't for me.
Besides, there is Mechwarrior Online, but that game is just deathmatch style games for the time being, but it can be fun sometimes. I still think the World of Tanks guys could probably do it better, and I do hope they eventually make a World of Robots game ("mech" is trademarked). MWO doesn't have very large maps and the team sizes are fairly small.
Personally I would want an online combat game based on starships. Not EVE Online, which has nothing to do with the insides of your ship. I want a ship that I can explore every room, without exception. I am a realist, so I would even be happy with a top-down 2D game, not unline FTL, just made super large with all the decks of a major ship. I would expect the combat itself would be done on a 2D top down perspective from outside the ship (tactical view). Yes, I do tend to think Star Trek would be the perfect setting for a game like that.
Also, I wouldn't mind seeing somebody make a Day-Z clone set in the James Cameron Terminator future war as well, with two teams of players, some being Endo Skeletons, the other being TechCom soldiers, and a third faction of scared, trigger happy, AI civilians that shoot at both sides (can't tell who is a Terminator or not, so just shoot anybody you don't recognize).
-
Virtual Mess
screenshots would be like this
(http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse/wm18091914p24_blackboy-hill_peeling-spuds1q1aa1.jpg)
(http://95thbg.org/95th_joomla/images/horham_old/MessTent.jpg)
-
WOT is a FPS with tanks, though done pretty well. They are printing tens of millions of dollars each month so even though it's of limited scope, they are doing some thigs right. If HTC made some progress with the ground game, they would do a lot better. Throw in some player driven strat and it would be most of what I would want. Unfortunately, the drive to build on the existing infrastructure doesn't seem to be there.
Starcitizen looks hopeful but is still in development. If done as they say, it will offer a space based open system with a ton of possibility.
-
Take Planetside 2, add in Aces High's flight model, and make all the aircraft have to fly instead of being glorified helicopters, and you'll be damn close to the perfect combat MMO.
-
WOT is a FPS with tanks, though done pretty well. They are printing tens of millions of dollars each month so even though it's of limited scope, they are doing some thigs right. If HTC made some progress with the ground game, they would do a lot better. Throw in some player driven strat and it would be most of what I would want. Unfortunately, the drive to build on the existing infrastructure doesn't seem to be there.
Starcitizen looks hopeful but is still in development. If done as they say, it will offer a space based open system with a ton of possibility.
WOT is free to play, pay for upgrades type game which has proved to be a very lucrative business model because there will always be a couple million fools ready to shell out cash for upgrades. It's an endless cash cow where weak players can compensate their skills by paying a lot of money.
Of course this sucks completely to the rest of the players who would prefer to solve the results by skill and not by uber upgrades. That's why I don't play WOT for example.
-
WOT is free to play, pay for upgrades type game which has proved to be a very lucrative business model because there will always be a couple million fools ready to shell out cash for upgrades. It's an endless cash cow where weak players can compensate their skills by paying a lot of money.
Of course this sucks completely to the rest of the players who would prefer to solve the results by skill and not by uber upgrades. That's why I don't play WOT for example.
that's not entirely accurate. There are no uber upgrades, as your equipment advances so does that of the enemies you will be coming up against. Spending gold just makes you advance quicker which is no more fun than advancing slowly. I have as much fun with my tier 2 tank that took me less than an hour to earn as what I do with my tier 10 which took about a year to get to (I don't play often) You won't have anymore fun if you spend money and you won't have any advantage.
-
What Phatzo is saying is accurate. Spending money for a premium account etc just gets you more exp per battle. Those who play better do better end of story.
-
The main reason to pay for a premium account in WoT is the Platoon battles and Clan War. A free account only allow for the random battles. I think it's a good and fair way to make money off a game. You get to play the random battles for free as long as you want, and if you like it a lot you can pay for more involving game modes.
-
Roman Combat Orgy
-
Personally I would want an online combat game based on starships. Not EVE Online, which has nothing to do with the insides of your ship. I want a ship that I can explore every room, without exception. I am a realist, so I would even be happy with a top-down 2D game, not unline FTL, just made super large with all the decks of a major ship. I would expect the combat itself would be done on a 2D top down perspective from outside the ship (tactical view). Yes, I do tend to think Star Trek would be the perfect setting for a game like that.
Star Citizen is about the closest I know of to what you're looking for if it lives up to the hype. It's a year out from Alpha though, so it's one to wait and see on.
Also, I wouldn't mind seeing somebody make a Day-Z clone set in the James Cameron Terminator future war as well, with two teams of players, some being Endo Skeletons, the other being TechCom soldiers, and a third faction of scared, trigger happy, AI civilians that shoot at both sides (can't tell who is a Terminator or not, so just shoot anybody you don't recognize).
I'd play it. Doubt it'll ever happen though.
Take Planetside 2, add in Aces High's flight model, and make all the aircraft have to fly instead of being glorified helicopters, and you'll be damn close to the perfect combat MMO.
...If you increase the map size by at least 10 times. An aircraft can go corner to corner on one of their maps in what, 3 minutes max?
Wiley.
-
Take Planetside 2, add in Aces High's flight model, and make all the aircraft have to fly instead of being glorified helicopters, and you'll be damn close to the perfect combat MMO.
...If you increase the map size by at least 10 times. An aircraft can go corner to corner on one of their maps in what, 3 minutes max?
That is an excellent point, the maps are too small for an aircraft game. They purposely spaced the objectives so that its reasonable to run between them, and driving is about the right amount of time. But that does make it small for aircraft. They'd have to expand the maps by about 2 times, so that running is still not unreasonable, and then add all 3 continents together to the same world, with oceans between. Honestly those aren't continents right now, more like small islands.
-
Railroading Online
-
Myself and a group of friends were working on a MMO called, "Battle Line: Galactic Conquest, a number of years back. Combat would be similar to the old "Starfleet Command" PC game, but with a true persistent on-line environment. I borrowed a number of ideas from HTC's implementation in AH. Here is the synopsis from the software spec...
"This game is a massively-multiplayer-on-line game (MMOG), a Tactical starship combat simulation played within a strategic framework. There are two primary races in the initial release, each initially having five or six different standard warships to choose from. There is also a third strategic play choice, that of Mercenary. These interstellar corsairs are not permanently associated with either empire, but can and do work with either (and sometimes both). Strategic game play revolves around the conquest of enemy planets and outposts, with warship production and resupply tied to a certain extent to the number of planets your empire controls and the level of damage to them. The object is to help your empire win the war, while building your rank, reputation, and crew experience. Increased crew experience equates to increased effectiveness in combat. The basic unit is a single, player-controlled starship, though eventually A/I controlled “escorts” might be added. Players will also have the option of joining another player’s ship as a Gunnery Officer (GO). Tactical combat between starships will be possible whenever opposing ships come within a specified range of each other on the galactic map.
BACKGROUND: Two primary empires exist that control the majority of known space in the Milky Way galaxy, the United Terran Republic (UTR) and the Arkailian (pronounced “Are-kay-lee-an”) Hegemony (AH). Mercenaries (pirates, essentially) also ply the spacelanes, seeking to amass fortune and fame. Other, lesser empires exist; some are staunch allies of the UTR or AH, while others are fiercely independent.
The UTR is a representative constitutional democracy, with a strong economy based on entrepreneurial enterprise, capitalism, free trade, and constant territorial expansion. They do not conquer other races (during peacetime, at least), but instead attempt to influence them economically into joining the UTR. Planets wishing to become a member of the UTR are allowed to keep their indigenous planetary governments, so long as those governments agree to incorporate the UTR’s constitution as an overarching document. They must also agree to abide by the interstellar trade rules set by the UTR. In exchange, they gain access to representation in the parliament, UTR markets, military protection, technology, and other aid. War is considered “bad for business,” but if provoked the UTR will prosecute that war with the full might of the Republic. If the UTR goes to war, they will conquer planets by force; however, once the planet is pacified the UTR will attempt to set up democratic, self-determining governments on them (albeit, predisposed to be friendly to the UTR). Once hostilities cease, these new planetary governments are free to choose to become member planets or to revert to independent status.
The AH is a monarchy, but with a ruling counsel of elders that exercise the true power in the Empire. Theirs is a warrior race, with strong elements of religion and mysticism that pervades and guides their thinking. This mysticism has survived and even thrived, despite the undermining influence of science and technology. Indeed they have managed to strike an ideological balance between the two. While dominated by the Arkailian race, other races have been assimilated into the Hegemony. Non-Arkailians are considered citizens of the Empire, with certain rights and privileges. They are nonetheless subject races, whose affairs are controlled and dictated by the Council of Elders, in the name of the Emperor. When a planet is conquered by the AH, any existing society and government is completely supplanted by that of the Empire.
Mercenaries (or “mercs”) owe permanent allegiance to no one, and have no true central government or economy. Players “lease” a ship from the mercenary guild, and gain money by selling their services to any empire they choose. They also prey on convoys and raid planets as a means of accumulating wealth. This “income” can be used to lease larger, more capable corsairs, allowing them to take on even more profitable contracts. The downside is, if the merc doesn’t fulfill the terms of the contract, he/she doesn’t get paid. Also, if the merc becomes too successful against a particular empire, they may have a bounty put on their head, which other players will no doubt try to collect."
When our primary programmer couldn't overcome his ADHD, the project stalled and fell apart, unfortunately. At the time, we had a dozen 3D models built (battleships, cruisers, destroyers, gunships, freighters, starbases, etc), and much of the algorithms for energy management and weapons laid out. We also had a basic game engine which the ability to fly around and maneuver in a multiplayer environment. We had a business model, and about 3-5 years of expansion roughed out. :(
-
they need to remake X-Wing vs TIE Fighter
with better graphics and TrackIR support :x
-
they need to remake X-Wing vs TIE Fighter
with better graphics and TrackIR support :x
I could live with just that, but shooting for the moon, I'd like to tack on '...and MMO' to the end of that. Full blown, every ship up to and including star destroyers and the rebel equivalents. Maybe if Star Citizen does it right and does well, Disney will take notice and also do it right.
Wiley.
-
If I could do full war combat game I would have 3 separate games that cross connect to each other, but still maintain their own, unique environments.
It would be sci-fi based because they're easier to play balance (nobody has any pre-conceived notions on how something is supposed to work), and to get some good "naval" combat using starships that do not take days of real time to play out.
The different layers are:
1. The solar system, for space battleships to blast each other and weave between planets at faster than light speeds. If you need a point of reference, then think "space Jutland". No, I don't use space fighters. Fighters fly in the air, while warships sail on water in real life, but in space they're sharing the same medium. That means they're not really fighters, but 1-man PT boats. Besides, I don't want warships to be second rate in their own theater of war. I like battleships and so outer space is a battleship vs battleship game.
2. The atmosphere of a planet above a battlefield for an area dozens of kilometers in size, for fight planes to dogfight in a true flight sim, yet has simple ground details of just low res trees and buldings. It would be a joystick controlled game very much like playing a stealth jet fighter game with radar and short range missiles, yet easily spoofed and dodged to promote some dogfighting. You have to use your eyes since you can't see very far with "radar" or whatever they're using. The closest game I can think of would be Wings over Vietnam, but replace the Phantoms and Mig-21s with sci-fi fighters. I would also add that you can break the sound barrier, but you are detected. This is to explain why jets are optomised for slow and stealthy, instead of fast and not armed any BVR missiles.
3. The ground fight in a single, highly detailed square mile of the ground that plays out similar to BattleField 2142. Yes, you would have helicopter like vehicles, and even floating tanks, but not any fast, jet fighters. I would even have power armor suits you can use, but in my case I'm partial to copying something like the Cyclones from Mospeada/RoboTech.
The interaction between the various games would be things like a ground combatant requesting an air strike. When that happens an automated request for laser guided bombs to be brought to a waypoint on the air map is added. If you fly a plane loaded with LGB's to that spot, then the laser spotter on your belt in the ground game is activated for use.
It would also have the ability for the ships and planes to interdict transports bringing cargo to the ground battles. The less supplies that make it there, the less often tanks, power armor, and heavy weapons will respawn back at the home base for the ground guys to use. In space they're AI cargo ships heading for the planet. In the air you see convoys of trucks from their side of the map head to the middle of the map where the "ground game" is represented.
The reason I think having separate arenas for the different types of combatants is they do really have different needs and requirements for how they play. Games like Arma-2 and Aces High do have both ground and air assets in one game, but they sacrifice things to get them together.
-
If I could do full war combat game I would have 3 separate games that cross connect to each other, but still maintain their own, unique environments.
It would be sci-fi based because they're easier to play balance (nobody has any pre-conceived notions on how something is supposed to work), and to get some good "naval" combat using starships that do not take days of real time to play out.
The different layers are:
1. The solar system, for space battleships to blast each other and weave between planets at faster than light speeds. If you need a point of reference, then think "space Jutland". No, I don't use space fighters. Fighters fly in the air, while warships sail on water in real life, but in space they're sharing the same medium. That means they're not really fighters, but 1-man PT boats. Besides, I don't want warships to be second rate in their own theater of war. I like battleships and so outer space is a battleship vs battleship game.
2. The atmosphere of a planet above a battlefield for an area dozens of kilometers in size, for fight planes to dogfight in a true flight sim, yet has simple ground details of just low res trees and buldings. It would be a joystick controlled game very much like playing a stealth jet fighter game with radar and short range missiles, yet easily spoofed and dodged to promote some dogfighting. You have to use your eyes since you can't see very far with "radar" or whatever they're using. The closest game I can think of would be Wings over Vietnam, but replace the Phantoms and Mig-21s with sci-fi fighters. I would also add that you can break the sound barrier, but you are detected. This is to explain why jets are optomised for slow and stealthy, instead of fast and not armed any BVR missiles.
3. The ground fight in a single, highly detailed square mile of the ground that plays out similar to BattleField 2142. Yes, you would have helicopter like vehicles, and even floating tanks, but not any fast, jet fighters. I would even have power armor suits you can use, but in my case I'm partial to copying something like the Cyclones from Mospeada/RoboTech.
The interaction between the various games would be things like a ground combatant requesting an air strike. When that happens an automated request for laser guided bombs to be brought to a waypoint on the air map is added. If you fly a plane loaded with LGB's to that spot, then the laser spotter on your belt in the ground game is activated for use.
It would also have the ability for the ships and planes to interdict transports bringing cargo to the ground battles. The less supplies that make it there, the less often tanks, power armor, and heavy weapons will respawn back at the home base for the ground guys to use. In space they're AI cargo ships heading for the planet. In the air you see convoys of trucks from their side of the map head to the middle of the map where the "ground game" is represented.
The reason I think having separate arenas for the different types of combatants is they do really have different needs and requirements for how they play. Games like Arma-2 and Aces High do have both ground and air assets in one game, but they sacrifice things to get them together.
Look at Eve and Dust 514. You may get your wish in 10 years time.
-
Everything I've seen about EVE, which includes my twin brother playing it for a year, says that EVE is more of a spreadsheet simulator. The entry level player just trying out EVE for the first time is pretty much working up a cliff to figure out that game.
However, I do like the basic idea of Dust514 and EVE. That is somewhat of how I think it should work, but with far more emphasis on BattleField type gameplay, and far less on going out and mining asteroids.
-
Agreed, played the demo, spent the entire time scratching my head. But I figured if you had a PS3, Dust 514 might not be too bad. And it's good to know cross platform and a full scale "war game" can be achieved. Pretty sure the World of Tanks/Warplanes/Battleships are trying to do the same on PC.
-
Weirdguy, what you're describing is pretty close to what Battle Line was aiming for. The ship to ship combat was very much a "Jutland in space" style (think "Starblazers"). The smallest unit was what can most accurately be described as a torpedo gunboat, at least initially. We were going to launch with space combat only, where planetary assaults were conducted by simply bombarding a few planetary installations until a cumulative damage amount was reached. However, phase 2 was to create a second game within a game, where a RTS type battle would occur to assault and capture ground objectives (think "Command and Conquer"). Phase 3.0 would be to add a ship-capture mini-game. At first, this would involve smashing a hole in an enemy ship's defense screens (i.e. shields), than launching an assault shuttle that would attach to the enemy ship. A fairly simple, "Risk"-style battle would take place, with assaulting troops taking over a ship one sector at a time, and the defending captain managing the defensive battle at a very high level. Phase 3.1 would be to upgrade this to a FPS, where the assault shuttle becomes a spawn point for individual players in space battle suits. I can post some concept art, if people are interested. Auto-convoys would move from core worlds to outer planets, in a fashion analogous to trains and truck convoys in AH. Side balancing would be handled by the server auto adjusting the required ranks and/or prestige points required to take command of capital ships.
-
I want to fly a A10 and blow up enemy armor. :joystick:
-
I want to fly a A10 and blow up enemy armor. :joystick:
"This is a combat FLIGHT simulator. Get your ground vehicles out of my dogfight. I came here to fly, not rocket attack panzers."
Oh, wait. That is 200 chat in AH. My bad.
All kidding aside, I do think some aviation is allowable in a ground game like Battlefield. I would allow helicopter analog vehicles. Battlefield 2142 had both attack and transport "choppers" that flew on vector thrust engines.
It is the "fast mover" jets that tend to make me rage when I play those games. Being a flight sim fan-boy I cannot stand aircraft that are so poorly implemented like they are in Battlefield Vietnam and the rest, and the view controls are usually never on par with a flight sim Bizarrely the flying tends to have the worst situational awareness of any of the games. 2142 was my favorite because they only ever had helicopter style vehicles, yet you still couldn't have looking and flying controls separated from each other.
I never fly anything in Planetside 2 because I absolutely HATE their stupid mouse and keyboard controls. I want pitch and yaw on my mouse, but they have it permanently stuck to pitch and roll. I sidestrafe using A and D on the ground, and the aircraft equivalent when hovering is to roll a bit to the side. I've tried using a joystick with some success, but then the aim is not precise enough for shooting. It isn't like other flight sims where a good 1 second hit that is difficult to achieve will bring down an enemy. PS-2 you have to unload on a guy for several seconds straight to bring them down, and that makes your aim precision critical.
However, AH-2 whiners about ground vehicles and the poor flying in PS-2 are the inspiration for my game design. I would rather have a separate naval game, one ground combat game, and one flight combat game. They all need different things and maps to play on, and I don't want to compromise features so they can all be in the same 3D environment together. I would rather play interconnected, but distinct games.
-
I've tried using a joystick with some success, but then the aim is not precise enough for shooting. It isn't like other flight sims where a good 1 second hit that is difficult to achieve will bring down an enemy. PS-2 you have to unload on a guy for several seconds straight to bring them down, and that makes your aim precision critical.
Me too, but their flight model works as if they're flying in a vacuum. A joystick is pretty much unusable in practice imo.
-
WOT is a FPS with tanks, though done pretty well. They are printing tens of millions of dollars each month so even though it's of limited scope, they are doing some thigs right. If HTC made some progress with the ground game, they would do a lot better. Throw in some player driven strat and it would be most of what I would want. Unfortunately, the drive to build on the existing infrastructure doesn't seem to be there.
Starcitizen looks hopeful but is still in development. If done as they say, it will offer a space based open system with a ton of possibility.
I agree with you 100%. It is surprising to me that WoT is so popular, but they are and expanding to World of Planes, and World of Warships. I don't think the world of planes will be that good, so lets hope actual dogfighting techniques will allow me to clean house, and a joystick is the preferred control. However, I'm more interested in World of Warships and I'm curious to see how that will play.
I also caution anybody looking at YouTube about World of Warships. There are some idiots posting "official videos" that were taken from BattleStations Pacific and claiming they are from World of Warships, disabling comments so people can warn the viewer, and not surprisingly getting a lot of views and collecting the add revenue as their video gets watched and watched.
Right now there isn't any video of World of Warships.
Now Star Citizen looks interesting, but they're too far from being a real game right now. I hope they pull it off, but it could also go horribly wrong. I also prefer real world aircraft over starfighter games, and that seems to be what they're aiming for. An MMO starfighter game.
-
I want to fly a A10 and blow up enemy armor. :joystick:
might i suggest ARMA? lord knows my laptop struggles in single player, but i believe it could be just what your looking for
-
I never fly anything in Planetside 2 because I absolutely HATE their stupid mouse and keyboard controls. I want pitch and yaw on my mouse, but they have it permanently stuck to pitch and roll. I sidestrafe using A and D on the ground, and the aircraft equivalent when hovering is to roll a bit to the side. I've tried using a joystick with some success, but then the aim is not precise enough for shooting. It isn't like other flight sims where a good 1 second hit that is difficult to achieve will bring down an enemy. PS-2 you have to unload on a guy for several seconds straight to bring them down, and that makes your aim precision critical.
I found a somewhat workable solution for using the stick in PS2. I've got an X52, and in the profiling software you can change the stick axes to mouse input. It works much, much better than their "implementation" of joystick axes. If your stick supports it, it's not terrible.
I found later though that the mouse works a lot better once you get used to it. Right now I use an unholy combination of my X52's throttle for throttle/yaw/strafe up/strafe down among other things and my mouse for roll and pitch.
I hope someday they actually implement real joystick controls/TrackIR.
Wiley.
-
they need to remake X-Wing vs TIE Fighter
with better graphics and TrackIR support :x
I agree. I'd like to see the "flight" models of the space fighters broadened a bit. Acceleration rates, turn rates, etc, can all be diversified a wee bit so that *every* X-Wing is not the same. I know all the science fiction vs reality stuff is debatable, but the less cookie cutter things are the better.
-
I agree. I'd like to see the "flight" models of the space fighters broadened a bit. Acceleration rates, turn rates, etc, can all be diversified a wee bit so that *every* X-Wing is not the same. I know all the science fiction vs reality stuff is debatable, but the less cookie cutter things are the better.
Was there ever a reason to have the X-Foils in non-attack position? It seems like that feature was there just because it was referenced once in the movie. Maybe if the X-Foils are in non-attack (or whatever its really called) position the X-Wing has different performance characteristics, like fuel efficiency or speed.
-
Was there ever a reason to have the X-Foils in non-attack position? It seems like that feature was there just because it was referenced once in the movie. Maybe if the X-Foils are in non-attack (or whatever its really called) position the X-Wing has different performance characteristics, like fuel efficiency or speed.
Not doing so would negatively affect their coolness coefficient by .03.
-
The perfect game would be one that humans still have to act like humans in EVERY aspect of this example. Then make them think about it in a tactical sense. Then on the basis of commodities in very short supply that can't be bought but only scavenged, would be the ultimate model of what humans are like/capable of in a modern world yet acting on the individuals primal instincts. Could be made in any setting. Would be a great model of our current mind set if the world were lawless!
-
My brother and I had a discussion while playing different games today.
It seems we both want Mechwarrior Online, but setup in a Planetside-2 map. That could be a lot of fun, and maybe help get rid of the fact that game is won or lost in the beginning of the match.
-
What Phatzo is saying is accurate. Spending money for a premium account etc just gets you more exp per battle. Those who play better do better end of story.
Maybe on WOT I never played it really - but other games like TF2 use this model and it makes them unplayable.
-
might i suggest ARMA? lord knows my laptop struggles in single player, but i believe it could be just what your looking for
Thanks for the info. I'll check it out :salute
-
EvE online combined with Planetside 2 would have been something, have the space war as it is now in EvE, and when you send your troops to take over a planet it turns into Planetside 2.
But in this version you controll your spaceship with joystick inputs and not just mouse click. And you are able to leave your spaceship and see other people in the spacestations and ofc down on the planets. And the Planetside part should have proper flight models in the Air vs Air game.
:rock
Edit : And you should be able to have naked female NPC´s in your spaceship. Like you could have visited some Amazon planet and discovered a female naked tribe and you decided to bring some of them with you, that would be cool aswell. And it has to have space Sheep.
-
I also think that the next Star Wars Jedi Knight type of game ought to use the combat setup from Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. It is a lot less flailing about, and more skill.
-
I went back to playing WW2 online "Battleground Europe". Its dated but still a good game. A hybrid of it and Aces High would be worth any price for me to play. My only interest is WW2 and I dont like any modern FPS's, most of all the ones without TrackIR. Ive tried BF3, COD, PS2, WOT, ...ect and they just dont float my boat. ROF is a fine write but you have to be a WW1 player and Im really not. In the end AH and BGE end up being the two games I always go back to.
I just hope the WW2 genre lasts after my generation goes.
-
EvE online combined with Planetside 2 would have been something, have the space war as it is now in EvE, and when you send your troops to take over a planet it turns into Planetside 2.
Check out Dust 514 for the PS3.
ack-ack
-
Was there ever a reason to have the X-Foils in non-attack position? It seems like that feature was there just because it was referenced once in the movie. Maybe if the X-Foils are in non-attack (or whatever its really called) position the X-Wing has different performance characteristics, like fuel efficiency or speed.
Ok, the Star Wars nerd in me has to reply.
In early X-wing variants, the lasers could not fire if the S-foils were in the locked position. In addition, to conserve energy during hyperspace travel, the S-Foils had to be in the locked position. Some variants were modified to allow short microbursts of speed and to allow this, the weapons systems had to be turned off and the S-Foils locked in the closed position.
When the S-Foils were in the open position, it increased the spread coverage of the lasers mounted on tips of the foils and really didn't have an effect on maneuverability but it did lower the top speed of the X-Wing when the S-Foils were set to open.
ack-ack
-
Check out Dust 514 for the PS3.
ack-ack
Its like 32 players or something like that. Planetside battles are epic, massive, and strategic and stuff. Im aware with EvE connecting the game to Dust, but Dust is just so small scale.
-
I can't stand Planetside 2...guns feel like they're shooting paper balls.. :bhead
-
Ok, the Star Wars nerd in me has to reply.
In early X-wing variants, the lasers could not fire if the S-foils were in the locked position. In addition, to conserve energy during hyperspace travel, the S-Foils had to be in the locked position. Some variants were modified to allow short microbursts of speed and to allow this, the weapons systems had to be turned off and the S-Foils locked in the closed position.
When the S-Foils were in the open position, it increased the spread coverage of the lasers mounted on tips of the foils and really didn't have an effect on maneuverability but it did lower the top speed of the X-Wing when the S-Foils were set to open.
In the PC games or in the lore?
-
Its like 32 players or something like that. Planetside battles are epic, massive, and strategic and stuff. Im aware with EvE connecting the game to Dust, but Dust is just so small scale.
Planetside 2 is also mostly about spawn camping, being either massively outnumbered, or massively outnumbering them, with populations on maps that are nearly always out of ballance, and a horrible flight model that is not a flight model at all. Oh, and you cannot re-map the roll and yaw controls on your mouse if you don't want to fly that way. It is a terrible flight game.
Dust514 is also only on the PlayStation-3 when it ought to have been a PC game.
-
I want a really good game using these
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac82/mbailey166066/northcarolina1_zps50dcb9c4.jpg)
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac82/mbailey166066/ca-75_he_zpsd77929e8.jpg)
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac82/mbailey166066/Photo01bbJapNagato-Kirishima-Ise-HyugaMQ_zps5496d80d.jpg)
-
I want a really good game using these
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac82/mbailey166066/northcarolina1_zps50dcb9c4.jpg)
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac82/mbailey166066/ca-75_he_zpsd77929e8.jpg)
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac82/mbailey166066/Photo01bbJapNagato-Kirishima-Ise-HyugaMQ_zps5496d80d.jpg)
World of Battleships coming out late this year or early next year.
-
In the PC games or in the lore?
Both.
ack-ack
-
ok.
Steve Jackson games had a great tactical - strategic paper-n-dice game called 'Starfleet Battles' long ago.
You could launch your Kzinti fighters from your carrier and have them target a single aspect of a Klingon Dreadnaught and they would core it like an apple..
..blowing away the shields in just that sector, then breaching the hull, then eating thru the Dreadnaught all the way to the other side.
Tactics *worked* ..altho doin it with grease pencils and dice took awhile.
If a video game could replicate some decent parameters, ship/weapons mixes .. class distinctions
.. so the players could work up small unit tactics all the way up to Fleet engagements..
..in other words a step directly into the ship from what Eve has done..
...where a starship dreadnaught requires a command crew (like the old school B-17 in Air Warrior needing gunners or you were toast)
..ya .. I'd be there.
In EVE right now the corp I am part of has had war declared on it ..
..and the 'experienced' players advise to stay in station, not go outside ..risk being 'killed'
.. buncha pansies.
I been dead.
It dint take.
-Frank aka GE
-
ok.
Steve Jackson games had a great tactical - strategic paper-n-dice game called 'Starfleet Battles' long ago.
You could launch your Kzinti fighters from your carrier and have them target a single aspect of a Klingon Dreadnaught and they would core it like an apple..
..blowing away the shields in just that sector, then breaching the hull, then eating thru the Dreadnaught all the way to the other side.
Tactics *worked* ..altho doin it with grease pencils and dice took awhile.
If a video game could replicate some decent parameters, ship/weapons mixes .. class distinctions
.. so the players could work up small unit tactics all the way up to Fleet engagements..
..in other words a step directly into the ship from what Eve has done..
...where a starship dreadnaught requires a command crew (like the old school B-17 in Air Warrior needing gunners or you were toast)
..ya .. I'd be there.
In EVE right now the corp I am part of has had war declared on it ..
..and the 'experienced' players advise to stay in station, not go outside ..risk being 'killed'
.. buncha pansies.
I been dead.
It dint take.
-Frank aka GE
Actually, wasn't the older PC game series called Star Trek Starfleet Command basically based on those Steve Jackson games? I know they simplified the game a bit more with Starfleet Command 3, but from what I understand the game was better for it.
However, I've tried to play them on my windows 7 computer and had no luck getting them to run.
-
Ya . coupla game companies tried to duplicate some of what Steve Jackson Games did ..
..just a shame they folded ..Jackson had some truly fun stuff.
Ogre, Car Wars ..a couple more I don't remember the names of.
-Frank aka GE
-
Played Starfleet Command on mplayer client back in the day. As well as Rainbow 6. Starfleet was a lot of fun.
-
World of Battleships coming out late this year or early next year.
i will play that for sure!