Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BioWare's Star Wars MMO To Have Space Combat

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the just-in-case-they-weren't-busy-enough dept.

PC Games (Games) 122

An anonymous reader writes "Big news for Star Wars fans looking forward to BioWare's upcoming Star Wars: The Old Republic MMORPG — space combat has been confirmed for the game. Players will be able to fly around the galaxy in their own personal starships, avoiding asteroid belts, landing in dangerous territory and battling other vessels. The initial news makes it sound like a cross between Mass Effect's galaxy map and a traditional space fighting game, where players will have to find 'hotspots' on the galaxy map in order to enter a particular zone."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Proust! (0, Offtopic)

SpongeBob Hitler (1848328) | more than 4 years ago | (#33008880)

Hell is other commenters.

Re:First Proust! (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#33015062)

Oh, very nice. Hadn't seen that one before.

Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (5, Interesting)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 4 years ago | (#33008898)

I'm having flashbacks to X-Wing and Tie Fighter, two of my favorite DOS era games.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (1)

halltk1983 (855209) | more than 4 years ago | (#33008926)

I loved XvT!

Also, Rebellion.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (1)

LongearedBat (1665481) | more than 4 years ago | (#33013918)

Yeah, XvT was the best space-sim I've played. The graphics were... okay. But the feel of each ship was awsome. One really got a feel for the metallic clunkyness of some ships (like Y-Wings), and the brittleness of others (mainly TIE fighters). The missions were varied and intelligent, and not simply attack and destroy.

I've often wished for a remake, or at least an upgrade. I too bought a Sidewinder joystick, just for XvT.

The only problem with XvT is that it came out a couple of years too early, before the internet and multiplayer gaming was common enough, and one DirectX version too soon (the next version would've allowed us to play it now, with higher resolution than 800x600.).

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (5, Insightful)

Dusty101 (765661) | more than 4 years ago | (#33008966)

Mod parent up!

Why LucasArts never released a modern version of these games is beyond me. Utterly brilliant. Back in the day, I bought an MS Sidewinder Force Feedback joystick primarily for XvT. It used to clunk when you picked up a cargo container. Those were the days...

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (2, Insightful)

Imagix (695350) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009000)

I've long lamented the death of the space combat flight sim. The last decent ones were X-Wing Alliance and the Descent Freespace series. After that, nothing. No more Wing Commander either.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (5, Informative)

Radres (776901) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009340)

Have you tried Microsoft Allegiance (now open source!)?

http://www.freeallegiance.org/ [freeallegiance.org]

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33009382)

Microsoft Allegiance...somehow the juxtaposition of those two words just makes me laugh while on Slashdot.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#33012202)

It's (IMO and IME) eye candy over substance. The combat engine of the X-Wing series gives cleaner, less cluttered gameplay. X Wing: Alliance is still a great game, even now.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (1)

Wylfing (144940) | more than 4 years ago | (#33012828)

I would be much more inclined to play Vendetta Online (http://vendetta-online.com/). It's not open source, but there is a native Linux client, and they're working on a native Android client. V-O is one of those games like Guild Wars where people keep coming up with new "builds" and ways of dogfighting.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#33014192)

It's recommend that you check out Eternal Silence (http://www.eternal-silence.net [eternal-silence.net] ). It's a hybrid space combat sim/FPS Source mod.

There's also two MMOs coming out specifically in this vein, Jump Gate Evolution [jumpgateevolution.com] and Black Prophecy [blackprophecy.com] . I've signed up for the betas on both and have my fingers crossed.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33012018)

X-Wing and Tie Fighter were both better games than X-Wing vs Tie Fighter. They felt faster and the interface was better. It was also more fun spinning around and blasting incoming ordinance with lasers and ion-cannons than having chaffs.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33012458)

You might want to check out Freespace then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freespace
Buy it:
http://www.gog.com/en/search/sort/search/freespace
And 'upgrade it': (check the forums... it's more active than the front page)
http://scp.indiegames.us/

Have fun!

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (1)

Dusty101 (765661) | more than 4 years ago | (#33013972)

Oops. Make that X-Wing Alliance for the Force Feedback. Played' 'em all, though.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (1)

b100dian (771163) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009002)

I have StarControl 2 flashbacks.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (4, Informative)

Fast Thick Pants (1081517) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009030)

No need for flashbacks... [sourceforge.net]

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (2, Informative)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009306)

I was a big fan of Star Control (mostly just melee mode, not so much campaign mode), but never got a chance to play Star Control 2.

Bless Toys for Bob and the folks behind Ur-Quan Masters for my being able to play that game so many years later. It's so god damn sweet.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (1)

24-bit Voxel (672674) | more than 4 years ago | (#33011822)

Oh man you missed the best one! Star Control 2 was just great, especially if you had a buddy to beat up on.

All 3 of them are considered abandonware at this point, you can (legally) download them here [abandonia.com] if you can handle sprites in this day and age.

The above link might have it too but I found the page a bit garish and figured I'd save others some time.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#33012224)

You have a very peculiar definition of "legally". Copyrights aren't patents: they don't lapse if not exploited.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#33013596)

Oh man you missed the best one! Star Control 2 was just great, especially if you had a buddy to beat up on.

I only missed it for a while; I've played the shit out of Ur-Quan Masters (see link earlier in thread) which is the legally released source code and assets from SC2 ported to various operating systems. It runs natively on Linux, and has some improvements like anti-aliasing of the sprites.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (1)

trout007 (975317) | more than 4 years ago | (#33010250)

I still have that loaded on my computer. I play melee about once a day. It's quick and fun.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (4, Interesting)

Tridus (79566) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009102)

Me too! I'd love to see this style of space combat come back. That'd be awesome.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 4 years ago | (#33014960)

I'd rather see a more believable style of space combat come back.
It doesn't have to be realistic, but believable. I simply can't suspend my belief in inertia, vast distances or vacuum not transmitting sound.

All of the space combat games I've tried lately play like you're underwater, with the vacuum apparently having even more friction than air, and sounds traveling at extremely high speeds.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#33020170)

I'd rather see a more believable style of space combat come back.
It doesn't have to be realistic, but believable. I simply can't suspend my belief in inertia, vast distances or vacuum not transmitting sound.

You want Vega Strike, or any game based on its engine. they do add a sort of warp drive but even IT only magnifies inertia or reduces mass or something. Regardless, the game that you want already exists and offers persistent multiplayer.

Flashback to REAL space travel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33009298)

where you spend days and months looking at... well, nothing. If you're not dodging *tiny* asteroids that would cause air leak, you're basically staring into... well, nothing.

Re:Flashback to REAL space travel (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009388)

To big a timesink, make it about an hour and it seems like par for an MMO.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (1)

Vahokif (1292866) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009540)

I'm playing Tie Fighter right now! Works perfectly in dosbox.

Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... (1)

shnull (1359843) | more than 4 years ago | (#33011970)

Ah,the days of being impressed by vector graphics :) Those WERE two of the best dos games ever, then again, i think i can still name more good dos games than windows live games atm .... this would put them in direct competition with Eve i suppose.

Star Wars Gaming (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33008900)

You know you're suffering from post-traumatic-SWG-disorder when you realize that "will feature space combat" actually is newsworthy when you're talking about the relative Star Warsiness of Star Wars' MMORPG incarnations.

Co-op Capital Ships (4, Interesting)

glittermage (650813) | more than 4 years ago | (#33008996)

Hopefully BioWare will have co-op capital ship combat where multiple players are on a single ship who can fire turbo lasers, missile turrets, repair engines, shields, etc. while other players who can solo (no pun intended) smaller fighter or bomber ships. Raid parties when ship engines and shields are knocked out. Let us put others in airlocks and shoot them into space! Eve Online got it wrong, CCP only let one pilot per ship regardless of size.

Re:Co-op Capital Ships (1)

ThinkWeak (958195) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009126)

Battlefront did space combat fairly well. You had engineers that had to repair things on your ship or else it was destroyed (granted you could "repair" a destroyed ship). Why not just do the same sort of thing, minus the respawn?

Re:Co-op Capital Ships (2, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009130)

Hopefully BioWare will have co-op capital ship combat where multiple players are on a single ship who can fire turbo lasers, missile turrets, repair engines, shields, etc.

Be careful what you ask for. Your "etc." could translate to Jar-Jar Binks...

That said, they can't do much worse than their honorable competitor franchise, Star Trek did. Phaserfest is so not what Star Trek is about.

Re:Co-op Capital Ships (3, Funny)

Fwipp (1473271) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009548)

Hopefully BioWare will have co-op capital ship combat where multiple players are on a single ship who can fire turbo lasers, missile turrets, repair engines, shields, etc.

Be careful what you ask for. Your "etc." could translate to Jar-Jar Binks...

You're misparsing it - he wants to be able to fire:
turbo lasers
missile turrets
repair engines (whatever those are!)
shields (to defend your allies, of course!)
AND
Jar Jar Binks.

I think most fans would welcome the opportunity to jettison him.

Re:Co-op Capital Ships (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33009142)

And hopefully fighters with laser cannons that point somewhere else than just dead ahead, and an astromech unit to auto aim it. Gods damn it, this isn't rocket science anymore after doing it for 10,000 years, Star Trek already had this! Or is this against some lets-fight-retarded-in-space treaty?

Re:Co-op Capital Ships (5, Informative)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009586)

Or is this against some lets-fight-retarded-in-space treaty?

No, it's the Audiences Find Space Flight Confusing So Lets Act Like It's The Same As Atmospheric Flight -- BUT IN SPAAACE treaty.

The AFSPFCSLALITSAAF--BUTINSPAAACE treaty is responsible for some of the craziest representations of space combat in movies, and by extension video games. Star Trek is not a signatory, but did feel pressured to conform to some of the standards, like ships all keep essentially the same vertical orientation, and turn in slow arcs like naval ships. In recent years upstarts like Battlestar Galactica, termed "rogue fictions" by members of the AFSPFCSLALITSAAF--BUTINSPAAACE Alliance, have completely abandoned these the societal conventions the treaty is based up, in that they have ships that operate based on Newtonian physics in a vacuum, and also don't have laser blasters at all. But they aren't so crazy that they don't have sound in space. That's only for the real extremists like Kubrik or Wedon.

Hm weird where that went. Oh well.

Re:Co-op Capital Ships (2, Interesting)

SAN1701 (537455) | more than 4 years ago | (#33010742)

Agreed, treating space combat as an air combat without the ground is so silly, and Galactica should be praised for trying to change this. But the lack of laser weapons was a mistake. They make much more sense for a fight in space than the cannons the Vipers had not only talking about speed to the target to avoid defensive maneuver (when you see it, you're already hit), but also the lack of recoil, which is more problematic in the vacuum.

Since guns have grease, dirty, etc. I believe they were there to make the Viper a somewhat more "realistic" spaceship. But to me, it had the opposite effect, it was just bizarre.

Re:Co-op Capital Ships (1)

damnfuct (861910) | more than 4 years ago | (#33015804)

I think the point was to choose low-tech weapons. Bullets existed far before computers did (hence low-tech), and I think that is the point you are missing.

That because real space combat would suck (2, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#33011706)

A realistic space combat sim wold be no fun, presuming Newtonian propulsion methods like today. A pilot wouldn't be able to fly the ship well, a computer would do it. You'd tell the computer what you wanted to do, it'd do it. All weapons would be computer controlled, etc.

Hell this is how air combat is now for the most part. Planes fly on auto pilot to where they are going. Radar data is cross decked from AWACS platforms. Missiles are automated, and fired from beyond visual range, and all the pilot does is pull the trigger to consent to have the jet release them when it is ready.

That's no fun, that's not a game. If the game is well made, it'll feature some kind of space combat that is highly engaging and requires the player to do a lot. That may well necessitate a non-real physics model. So what? Not only is it a video game, it is a video game based on a universe with light sabers and the force. Talking about reality in space combat is way missing the point.

Games need to be fun first, everything else (including realism) after that.

Re:That because real space combat would suck (4, Interesting)

RsG (809189) | more than 4 years ago | (#33011776)

No, a good space game could be both realistic and awesome. It'd just be really, really hard to make.

Look, lets break it down. Purely Newtonian physics is doable. No speedometer, no throttle. WASD for acceleration (plus a couple keys to handle up and down), mouse for pitch and yaw. Turn the mouse to turn your ship, then hold a WASD button to accelerate in the direction specified. Stop accelerating and you fly on whatever trajectory you're on until you accelerate again. Limited delta-v (engines can't fire forever) but you make it so that it regenerates like weapon energy and shields when your engines are idle. Thrust for a player controlled small craft could be measured in 10s of Gs or more, with the pilot's survival in the face of such force handwaved as inertial compensation (a perfectly sensible tech if the setting includes generated gravity). You'd be able to radically change course quickly. Bonus points if the exhaust kills.

This would make landing and other finicky maneuvers tricky, which is why you'd include a good autopilot to handle those. In combat, you wouldn't run the risk of hitting much of anything, at least not if the distances were at all realistic, and the simple notion of pointing yourself toward the enemy and holding W to approach would be easy to understand. More complex maneuvers would be possible, like using side thrusters (A and D) to "jink" out of the way of incoming fire, or turning toward the enemy, hitting S to back up, cutting loose with your guns as you open up the distance.

Realistic distances are manageable without making things too small to see. Objects in the distance are automatically zoomed in for your convenience - a zoomed in representation overlays the ships location in your field of view - since even if your eyeball MK I can't see them, the ship's scopes surely can. Justify this by saying the pilot is actually experiencing spaceflight through something like a VR helmet or direct neural connection, and he/she is in a "virtual cockpit". This can also justify sound in space - the virtual interface is taking advantage of your ears as well as your eyes.

So you can see an object a thousand klicks away as clear as if it were right next door, and close the distance from a relative standstill very fast by pointing your nose at it and holding W. Now all you need are weapons. Make the guns fire in a forward arc, instead of straight ahead, make it such that you pick the target, line your nose up with it, let the guns lock on, and cut loose. Beam weapons could be made realistic, with lasers invisibly covering thousands of kilometers in hundredths of a second, and particle beams for the closer in work. Missiles could be kinetic kill weapons. ECM and ECCM would affect targeting accuracy, as would evasive action. Point defense guns would provide missile defense, and added offense at close range, without having to turn your ship about and bring your big guns to bear.

That would be realistic, at least up to a point. And it would be awesome.

Re:That because real space combat would suck (1)

kizza42 (978129) | more than 4 years ago | (#33011842)

Mouse and Keyboard? That just makes it a FPS. "Real" space combat requires a joystick.

Re:That because real space combat would suck (1)

PinkyGigglebrain (730753) | more than 4 years ago | (#33012230)

Descent 3 could do quite well without one and it had 6 axis freedom (+- XYZ and rotation on them as well) which is much closer to real space combat than ships that handle like planes. I want to be able to strafe sideways and up while keeping my guns on target.

But I' in agreement that, at least for me, a joystick was what really made the game playable. I had +- pitch and +- yaw on the joystick and all other motion vector controls mapped to my Nostromo N52, talk about freedom of movement!! But there are some gamers out there who would hand me my tail on a platter with nothing but a keyboard and mouse, I guess its just whatever your used to.

Re:That because real space combat would suck (1)

RsG (809189) | more than 4 years ago | (#33015510)

Freelancer managed mouse+keyboard just fine, and you want your hypothetical control scheme to require as few extraneous peripherals as possible. I know precisely one computer gamer who actually owns a functional joystick - I don't, and neither do a lot of people. And the reason FPS controls are popular is because they work reasonably well for what they do, and work with universally available hardware, hence why I suggested them.

But sure, add joystick support to the game, just don't require a joystick to play, or your audience is going to shrink drastically.

Re:That because real space combat would suck (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | more than 4 years ago | (#33011966)

You'll want to check out the Infinity: Quest for Earth combat prototype. It's free, and it's about all you can see of what the rest of the game will be like eventually.

Re:That because real space combat would suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33012926)

Sounds a lot like... Nexus (the Jupiter Incident) actually....

Re:That because real space combat would suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33013074)

I want to play your game!!

That game exists (1)

rhombic (140326) | more than 4 years ago | (#33013502)

There was a game, back in the dawn of time, that did almost everything you listed. Newtonian physics engine, tiny, invisible ships in the distance highlighted by the heads up display so you knew where they were at, lasers, missles, etc. Probably my favorite space sim of all time, it was called "XF 5700 Mantis Experimental Fighter" from Microplay, came out in 1992.

It was a bitch to get used to, if you wanted to kill a bad guy, you had to think about your velocity and direction, their velocity and direction, and aim for an intercept course rather than just point you ship at him and go. Take your finger off the thrust and you keep going in the same direction, extra fun for turning 90 degrees with your engines off and strafing a bad guy as you fly past.

Re:That game exists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33013844)

Another good space sim was I-War for PC..

I don't remember that much about it anymore but I was impressed by the end:

You had to set a ramming course for the enemy, hit full speed, disengage the command module in the front of the ship and pilot the command module out of the way. And wait for the boom.

It certainly was something different compared to the typical 'just keep shooting at the weak point' style boss fights.

Re:That game exists (1)

RsG (809189) | more than 4 years ago | (#33015550)

Second on the I-War example, and that actually did have a quite a lot of the features I listed in my hypothetical realistic space sim. Tracking weapons in a forward arc, Newtonian physics, realistic interplanetary distances (even if the actual combat was short ranged). Of course I mostly remember the sequel, not sure how much of that was in the first game. It's about as close to the ideal as any commercial space game I've played.

Re:That game exists (1)

Dusty101 (765661) | more than 4 years ago | (#33013964)

The "Elite" sequels went that way as well. Much more physically accurate, but much less actual fun.

Re:That because real space combat would suck (1)

damnfuct (861910) | more than 4 years ago | (#33015826)

WASD is lame. ESDF is better due to the single fact that there's a nub on the F key.

Re:That because real space combat would suck (1)

longhairedgnome (610579) | more than 4 years ago | (#33016108)

learn2type

Re:That because real space combat would suck (1)

RsG (809189) | more than 4 years ago | (#33016612)

Honestly? That's your objection, out of everything I wrote?

Okay. You make it so that under the "options" menu, there's a "controls" tab, which lets you do your own keybindings and save them. You know, like every single PC game made in the last decade and a half.

Re:That because real space combat would suck (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#33020138)

WASD for acceleration (plus a couple keys to handle up and down), mouse for pitch and yaw

Realistically speaking the most rational interfaces for space ships are a keyboard and pointing device (could be pupil tracking) with which you issue commands, and a joystick for when you need to make manual maneuvers.

Much of what you want is available for free in the game Vega Strike, and it's FoSS so you can add all the functionality you can manage. The game even has enormously long-range weapons, but they don't deliver much power at extreme range. However, EVERYTHING in the game is TOTALLY moddable. Missions are python scripts. Ships, weapons, planets, etc are fairly trivial to modify or even create. The game has auto-turrets, beam weapons, projectile weapons, missiles with various guidance systems, ballistics tracking, etc etc. It's as real as you probably need.

Re:Co-op Capital Ships (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33016452)

It's spelled "Hwedon."

Re:Co-op Capital Ships (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#33020106)

Babylon 5 had newtonian physics before Battlestar: Retcon even twinkled. It also had no sound in space; you only heard shots fired and when stuff connected. Or psychic screams from passing shadow vessels, but when you invent powers you get to determine how they behave.

How quickly we forget.

Re:Co-op Capital Ships (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33011984)

And hopefully fighters with laser cannons that point somewhere else than just dead ahead, and an astromech unit to auto aim it. Gods damn it, this isn't rocket science anymore after doing it for 10,000 years, Star Trek already had this! Or is this against some lets-fight-retarded-in-space treaty?

If you want to read about a realistic imagination of Space Combat (at least in my opinion), check out the Honor Harrington series by David Weber:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorverse

http://www.amazon.com/gp/series/801

Re:Co-op Capital Ships (4, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009194)

I agree with everything but the spacing.

A) Unless you're going to model interior ship combat as well, there's no way to justify that certain people are spaced, some killed outright, taken prisoner, etc.

B) Consider both actual gameplay mechanics and player response. Sure, it may be funny to you, but what happens to the person being spaced? Are they respawned back where they started from? Where they were going? Nearest planet? Does it have differing effects than other methods of character death? Can it be used as a form of griefing?

No, if you're allowing raids on ships, then either have the crew taken prisoner, if it's a guild/clan PvP thing, and then players need to escape, or have them "escape on life pods" and show up on the nearest planet.

Re:Co-op Capital Ships (1)

smcn (87571) | more than 4 years ago | (#33013766)

Sure, it may be funny to you, but what happens to the person being spaced?

They're brought back to life by a mysterious organization and from then on have to take orders from Martin Sheen.

Re:i think you want allegiance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33010146)

one of the best team ship battle sims ever...

you could fight solo

you could captain a bomber or other larger ships

you could jump into a turret of a bomber or in one of several turrets in other larger ships...

Re:Co-op Capital Ships (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33010620)

Just made me remember my old Star Wars mudding days. Ahhhh :)

$10 says they just rename StarWars Galaxies (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009032)

to something else by the time this is done.

Re:$10 says they just rename StarWars Galaxies (1)

NotOverHere (1526201) | more than 4 years ago | (#33010396)

But $10 says that it'll be available for $59.99 USD

And this is a new thing? (1)

Zephiris (788562) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009122)

That sounds an awful lot like the space combat system in Star Wars Galaxies. In fact...it sounds identical. You can take shuttles around, but it's considerably cheaper to use your own starship, fly it around via hyperspace, and land at a planet.

And you can have 'epic space battles', and 'space combat levels' are independant compared to your 'ground combat levels'. *sniff* I was on the edge of qualifying for experimental light cruiser, too.

Yeah, but... (4, Funny)

morari (1080535) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009200)

How many parsecs will it take me to make my run?

Re:Yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33009582)

Parsec is a measure of distance >.

Re:Yeah, but... (2, Interesting)

Anaerin (905998) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009722)

Considering it's possible that the "Kessel run" is something equivalent to a rally course, there would be much time spent accelerating and decelerating from light speed to make the turns. A good, highly maneuverable ship would be able to make tighter turns at higher speeds, thus reducing the turning radii of the path taken, and taking a shorter track, thereby saving both time and distance. Therefore, the less distance a ship took to make a "run", the better it would be.

If both ships are travelling at ".5 above light speed", then the ship that turns tighter takes less parsecs to make a turn, and thus would arrive at the finish sooner.

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#33010680)

Considering The sequel to this movie had a ship incapable of FTL travelling from system to system to get repairs...

Re:Yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33010892)

Then there is the discounted option of space dangers, the faster your ship .5 past light being super fast in SW fiction the shorter the course . Think maneuvering around a rotating black hole, or a very fast pulsing pulsar. If your fast enough you can plot a shorter course without endangering your ship. I don't know why I feel the need to justify Lucas's fuck ups anymore, I really need to stop.

Re:Yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33011978)

*HORRIFYING NERD ALERT*

In the Jedi Academy series of books (Jedi Search, Dark Apprentice, and Champions of the force) by Kevin J. Anderson, the Kessel Run is explained as being the approach to the spice mining facilities on kessel which involves navigating near a black hole cluster. To be able to cut the distance of the run, your ship would need to be able to maintain enough velocity to escape from the gravity wells on the edge of this cluster.

Too slow a ship trying to cut the run too fine would end up pulled in beyond the event horizon. By being able to perform the kessel run in the distance Han describes, it would have to be a very fast ship.

And now i believe i need to go kick my own ass.

Re:Yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33012004)

Considering it's possible that the "Kessel run" is something equivalent to a rally course, there would be much time spent accelerating and decelerating from light speed to make the turns. A good, highly maneuverable ship would be able to make tighter turns at higher speeds, thus reducing the turning radii of the path taken, and taking a shorter track, thereby saving both time and distance. Therefore, the less distance a ship took to make a "run", the better it would be.

If both ships are travelling at ".5 above light speed", then the ship that turns tighter takes less parsecs to make a turn, and thus would arrive at the finish sooner.

Or you can just consider that all the retconning that they've done with that quote is just trying to cover up the fact that they were idiotic when they wrote the script and didn't even know what a parsec was.

Anything like "It was around some black holes!" "He found a shorter route!" are just after-the-fact excuses. Considering nothing like that was ever mentioned anywhere else in the series (discussing different distances of routes, black holes, etc).

It was a mistake. Admit it and move on.

Re:Yeah, but... (2, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#33013584)

If both ships are travelling at ".5 above light speed", then the ship that turns tighter takes less parsecs to make a turn, and thus would arrive at the finish sooner.

Yes, but not necessarily sooner than a ship that actually went faster but couldn't cut corners as well.

Which is why "distance traveled" is a stupid way to measure performance in a race that's about arriving sooner, and a stupid way to brag about how fast one's ship is. If your ship is equally fast as every other ship, but more maneuverable, you say that. Nobody is going to report race results as if all ships are precisely the same speed when they clearly aren't; the Falcon escapes from ships all the time in a flat-out race in open space. It's a fast ship.

There's another explanation where he's referring to the degree of length dilation due to Special Relativity, which would directly relate distance and velocity. Except the SR equation doesn't apply to velocities over c, and gives imaginary answers if you try. At anything c or less, 12 parsecs is still over 30 light years so Han would have spent most of his life running the race with no time left for becoming a smuggler.

Though it's still less ridiculous to imagine Relativity somehow applies to Star Wars light speed engines than it is to figure that race results are reported in distance traveled and not time to reach the finish. Do people do that for actual rally races? No, because that would be dumb.

There are pretty much only two explanations that make sense:
1) Han was talking out his ass, and was just bullshitting to try to impress what he thought were a pair of country bumpkins.
2) Lucas was talking out his ass, and didn't know what a "parsec" was except that it sounded futuristic and space-y.

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 4 years ago | (#33013986)

Yeah, congrats on trying to rationalize a clear mistake in the script. So, did I mention I'm a pilot? I made the Kessel run in less parsecs than the famous Falcon... Sure, I was going about .001% of light speed, but BOY were my turns tight! I mean, c'mon, even if you try to rationalize if your way you still leave out the vastly more important factor of HOW LONG did it really take? A ship traveling at 1000x light speed might take 50 parsecs, but it would get there 100x faster than the Falcon.

Re:Yeah, but... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33009878)

Your run could be shorter or longer, by distance traveled. The infamous Han Solo quote is somewhat correct when one considers that the Kessel Run was around a cluster of black holes - necessitating greater velocities to take a shorter path, yet still escaping the ship's relative event horizon.

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

Huntr (951770) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009724)

Less than 12, if you're good.

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009998)

At least twenty, since the hyperspatial tollbooth at Barnard's Star is all buggered up right now so you'll have to take a detour.

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 4 years ago | (#33012434)

African or European?

Our own spaceship (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33009332)

But who's gonna fly it, kid, you?

Re:Our own spaceship (1)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#33010924)

Yeah, I'm not such a bad pilot myself. Look, we don't have to sit here and listen to this.

EVE Online (3, Funny)

gravos (912628) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009354)

So it will be like EVE Online, except with Wookies?

Re:EVE Online (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33009500)

We can hope that it has actual dog-fighting instead of just being a RTS in space. It probably won't happen though.

Re:EVE Online (1)

damnfuct (861910) | more than 4 years ago | (#33015876)

Lag/Syncing becomes a problem when you have 200-300 people in one localized area. The point of "click and act" is that your computer will perform the same calculations as as what the server would given same inputs; this dual/mirrored calculation minimizes the perceived lag for the client.

Re:EVE Online (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009622)

Only if those Wookies work in accounting.

Re:EVE Online (1)

ryl00 (843470) | more than 4 years ago | (#33010540)

Only if those Wookies work in accounting.

"Quick, Chewie! Pivot that table before the auditors show up!"

*RAHRRRRR*

Re:EVE Online (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33009628)

Actually since this takes place a long time ago, EVE Online is like TOR minus the Wookies

Re:EVE Online (1)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#33010704)

EVE space combat SUCKS... it's click a few buttons and the the ship shoots, so boring. I am hoping it is much more like XvT or SWG where you actually pilot the ships. Space combat in SWG was one of the very few great things about the game.

Re:EVE Online (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33011034)

Doesn't work that well in practice. You either do client side hit detection and open your self up to hacks or do it server side and make lag game breaking.

Re:EVE Online (1)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 4 years ago | (#33012628)

And yet, millions of people play multiplayer online FPSes every day.

Massively multiplayer hit detection is a solved problem. It doesn't matter that you're shooting at spaceships rather than demomen and heavies.

Re:EVE Online (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#33022368)

You haven't played space combat since the first Descent...admit it.

Re:EVE Online (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33011812)

plus you can't even use the environment. Try hiding behind a station to recharge your shield or maneuver around an asteroid and attacking once you clear it .... well EvE can't handle it. The enemies fire will simply pass through objects as if they where not there.

EvE really is just a glorified spreadsheet app. I played it for a year and it just does not get better.

Haha, my CAPTCHA for this Star Wars discussion is "imperial"

Better space game (1)

Scrag (137843) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009460)

A better space combat game than Star Wars will ever be: http://www.1337pages.com/space/ [1337pages.com]

The dark side is calling (1)

Stroot (223139) | more than 4 years ago | (#33009510)

/quits job
/sells house
/leaves wife
/returns to mothers basement

/force chokes noob1, "ShavenWookie"
/force lifts noob2, "SwtorGoldReallyCheapHappyEnding.com"
/slices noob3, "xxxdarthmaul6xxx", with my uberleet dual blade lightsaber skillz,
/totally_owns 4 xwing squadrons with upgraded Slave1TieInterceptor freighter hybrid with a few personal modifications
/orders guild star destroyer around with a few 1000 guildies doing all the boring grind stuff
/orders Gungan genocide
/brags about how I control and own the universe, Leia in gold bikini and a pet Rancor in general chat
/repeat daily for the next years

DROOOOL YEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS!

/wakes up :(

calculating paths through hyperspace, highways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33010350)

I think it would be cool if you had to calculate your paths through hyperspace to avoid large "mass shadows," could be assisted by astromech droids, or could risk it and use mass shadow proximity alarms. It would be cool to see ships blasting apart massive objects to pave hyperspatial highways...

Worked really well in XWvTF multiplayer (1)

azaris (699901) | more than 4 years ago | (#33012324)

Dozens of identical TIE advanceds circling around in one big furball, desparately trying to get on each others' tails for minutes on end. No skill needed. Just lean on the stick and twitch the trigger whenever you see a craft flash past your sights.

No thanks.

Why they didn't tell us sooner. (1)

cryoblade (1215754) | more than 4 years ago | (#33012606)

Just a sneaking suspicion but, recalling the controversy of multiple game modes (and space flight) involving star fox adventures, it seems like they wanted to keep quiet about any plans for space combat so they could scrap it if it didn't pan out. I'm thinking star trek pulling it off as well as they did in STO was a heavy incentive for them to include it. I'm not sure if it's such a good idea though. I think of epic space combat when i think of star war's original trilogy/prequels. 'The old republic' has never really catered to that aspect of the fanbase until now.

Allegiance (1)

Necron69 (35644) | more than 4 years ago | (#33012654)

I'd love to see someone take a look back and learn some lessons from Microsoft's Allegiance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegiance_(video_game) [wikipedia.org]

The 3-D space combat and more realistic physics were awesome, and the GUI was very intuitive. It definitely took a joystick to play right, however.

This game was way ahead of its time for 1999 and died way too soon. Curse you Microsoft for killing it!

Necron69

Re:Allegiance (1)

ESCquire (550277) | more than 4 years ago | (#33017484)

This game was way ahead of its time for 1999 and died way too soon. Curse you Microsoft for killing it!

But it's still around! Check out Free Allegiance [freeallegiance.org] .

Microsoft Research released the source code in 2004 (some kind of shared source license) and a small but determined community of players and developers enjoys and keeps improving the gameplay (the R6 client is currently in beta).

jar jar (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 4 years ago | (#33014002)

My ship shall be called the Jar Jar Stinks. No but really... I don't care about any of this. I just want the damn game released. Even if it's only half done and they have to finish the rest after release. An even half done BioWare game is going to be vastly better than anything I've got left to play (tired of WoW, Aion, etc...)

Hmm (1)

Psychor (603391) | more than 4 years ago | (#33021052)

I doubt this will be the first MMO to make big promises and then disappoint. In fact it won't even be the first Star Wars MMO to make big promises and then disappoint.

Exactly! (1)

shadowfaxcrx (1736978) | more than 4 years ago | (#33021480)

Exactly. Star Wars Galaxies already has a space combat system. Complete with personal fighters, cooperative capital ship fighting, and dodging (and mining) asteroids. It doesn't change the fact that all MMO's are the same. Grindgrindgrindgrindgrind - get a trinket - grindgrindgrindgrindgrind - level up! so that it's easier to grindgrindgrindgrind - get jumped on by some lvl 90 jackass who likes picking on level 20's who wander into pvp areas, so you want revenge and so you grindgrindgrindgrindgrind.

Even the space part of SWG is like that. Grind 3 billion boring ships just to get the ability to stick a bigger gun on your ship so that you can grind 3 billion more powerful boring ships.

Someone needs to come up with an MMO that actually takes skill and ability rather than mindless clicking. Of course, someone already did, but then SWG was taken over by Sony and turned into Everquest in Space.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?