It's quite a buzzkill that they're on rails, but I can understand it'd be kind of gamebreaking to be able to fully control them.
You could control them in Battlefront 2(not sure about 1) and they worked just fine
Yeah, I don't know why they need to be on rails. There's only so many spots they can go because of their size, and it's not like they get there quickly, why lock them even further
[quote]More akin to scripted campaigns though are the AT-AT walkers, which are relatively scripted because having them any other way would be game breaking. Talking to Eurogamer, senior producer Sigurline Ingvarsdottir explained: “The AT-AT is obviously an extremely unique vehicle. They’re so big, their movement is slow, their attributes are so different they have almost their own laws. If you were to control their path – that would be game breaking.”[/quote]
...was it like that in the original game as well?
Because that sounds like a very generic asymmetrical multiplayer element to balance around. Make a unit big and powerful, but give it a high kill bounty, weak points that ground soldiers can exploit well as, high kitability due to reduced speed and turnrate, make deploying them a limited resource, make parts of the map impassible terrain to limit their movements, make them essential to complete certain objective to create natural hotspots which you can design in favor of ground forces, create anti-vehicle weaponry/classes/whatever...
I feel like this kinda asymmetry has been solved in countless games already, I'm surprised it's a genuine development issue and not just "we put all our money into graphics, no time for testing complicated gameplay features".
(Then again, I guess you'd never read that).
They probably did it because it's easier to make something look right when its only movement is fully scripted
[QUOTE=Retyuoligkl;48078054]Battlefield[/QUOTE]
Front, not field. And yea controlling them was alright but I can see that in the matches some trolls would just turn 180 degrees(after about two minutes of turning the damn thing) and just walk to the edge of the map.
[QUOTE=RocketRacer;48078175]Front, not field. And yea controlling them was alright but I can see that in the matches some trolls would just turn 180 degrees(after about two minutes of turning the damn thing) and just walk to the edge of the map.[/QUOTE]
shit yea sorry, that slipped...
also, the threat of people not being team players is not a good reason to remove a feature in my opinion
On rails AT-ATs, well that's fucking lame as shit.
Battlefront 1&2 did it just fine, it always makes me sigh when a more modern game on a better engine is more limited than a much older game.
[QUOTE=Retyuoligkl;48078054]You could control them in Battlefront 2(not sure about 1) and they worked just fine[/QUOTE]
Battlefront 2 didn't have the terrain density of these maps. I understand it's the cool thing to hate on everything EA does but I can completely sympathize with them on this one.
That would absolutely make sense, and would be in line with the action we see in the Battle for Hoth as well. I could live with AT-AT on rails as long as the X-Wings and TIEs are freely pilotable which they appear to be.
I'm not all that tore up about the AT-ATs being on rails, it's not like you did anything but walk forwards with them in Battlefront 2, Hoth wasn't exactly a wide map. Now you can afford to stick a few more people in gunner positions without someone having to be the driver, I can see this as a move to pad out the games lower player count, more people on the ground.
I just hope they give you a way to stop the thing.
Makes sense to me given the size of these things and the maps terrain. Imagine how buggy things would get if a player tried to navigate a giant AT-AT near buildings or objects, BF4 tanks bugged out all the time with collisions.
Why is nobody complaining about the Xwing and TieFighters having their own laws aswell? You can't even interact with the ground troops in an air unit like you could in the old Battlefront games or even in Battlefield.
[QUOTE=madmanmad;48078272]On rails AT-ATs, well that's fucking lame as shit.
Battlefront 1&2 did it just fine, it always makes me sigh when a more modern game on a better engine is more limited than a much older game.[/QUOTE]
better engine doesn't mean something HAS to be done. It's not a limitation so much as it is the fact that public players will be twats and jam it into the mountains, or find out they can exploit the thing to block up the rebel hangars so people can't get out. Worse yet, the best tactic would [i]probably[/i] be to sit on the side of the main battle and take potshots at everything instead of advancing toward the generators.
[I]Then [/I]there's the quality issue of the thing walking across the dense little battle with all the trenches and hills and equipment laying about, you see in the gameplay trailer that its foot placements once it gets to the trenches is really deliberate so it can step over things while players are free to move about.
All in all it would be less about freedom of the at-at and more about crippling the other team with exploits.
[QUOTE=DMGaina;48078535]Why is nobody complaining about the Xwing and TieFighters having their own laws aswell? You can't even interact with the ground troops in an air unit like you could in the old Battlefront games or even in Battlefield.[/QUOTE]
a tie fighter blatantly exploded several guys at [url=https://youtu.be/jXU5k4U8x20?t=1m18s]1:18 in the hoth video[/url]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/dBFu6bn.png[/img]
but air units in that battle (and in battlefield games in general) are more about maintaining vehicle superiority. The goals of these in the hoth map as far as that trailer explains is:
ATAT are the main threat, if they reach goal it's game over
Snow Speeders are a primary counter to the walkers
Y-wings will also be there to bomb, likely more focused on ATSTs
Tie fighters are out to stop the speeders and y-wings, provide basic ground cover (consider it suppressive fire)
x-wings are out to stop the tie fighters, also provide basic ground cover
[QUOTE=Retyuoligkl;48078193]shit yea sorry, that slipped...
also, the threat of people not being team players is not a good reason to remove a feature in my opinion[/QUOTE]
It is when one person doing just that completely throws the match.
From what it looks like the AT-ATs aren't just big vehicles with big blasters, they are payload-esque objectives. Imperials protect the AT-ATs to get to the power generator and blow it up, Rebels have to stop them.
[QUOTE=dai;48078611]
a tie fighter blatantly exploded several guys at [url=https://youtu.be/jXU5k4U8x20?t=1m18s]1:18 in the hoth video[/url]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/dBFu6bn.png[/img]
but air units in that battle (and in battlefield games in general) are more about maintaining vehicle superiority. The goals of these in the hoth map as far as that trailer explains is:
ATAT are the main threat, if they reach goal it's game over
Snow Speeders are a primary counter to the walkers
Y-wings will also be there to bomb, likely more focused on ATSTs
Tie fighters are out to stop the speeders and y-wings, provide basic ground cover (consider it suppressive fire)
x-wings are out to stop the tie fighters, also provide basic ground cover[/QUOTE]
I heard from a guy who played it, that it's absolutely impossible to get near ground becasue the whole air-battle takes places on a seperate stage above the stage.
But it's only what I have heard and something similar was reported on Destructoid
[url]http://www.destructoid.com/dice-s-star-wars-battlefront-feels-like-a-half-assed-battlefield-mod-294292.phtml[/url]
It's just what I have heard and seeing the video, there is no way that these claims can be true.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;48078093]Yeah, I don't know why they need to be on rails. There's only so many spots they can go because of their size, and it's not like they get there quickly, why lock them even further[/QUOTE]
Did you even read the article? It explains why and makes perfect sense
They did the same thing with the gunship in Battlefield 3 and 4; as long as the preset path makes sense (on some maps in BF3/4 the gunship spends most of its fly-by facing away from any areas of interest) I don't mind this.
[QUOTE=DMGaina;48078931]I heard from a guy who played it, that it's absolutely impossible to get near ground becasue the whole air-battle takes places on a seperate stage above the stage.
But it's only what I have heard and something similar was reported on Destructoid
[url]http://www.destructoid.com/dice-s-star-wars-battlefront-feels-like-a-half-assed-battlefield-mod-294292.phtml[/url]
It's just what I have heard and seeing the video, there is no way that these claims can be true.[/QUOTE]
that article kind of sets a precedent for how much this guy hates battlefield type games in the first place. Not sure why it's always the guy who shows he doesn't like (or doesn't know) anything about a game franchise who gets the chance to talk about it
the hoth battle is a fight meant to center around the at-at's as they advance toward a goal and he's mad it's a 'corridor' of a map, which is allegedly unlike anything he's played in battlefield. Man let me tell you about metro
He admits he can't even fly in battlefield, then takes a [i]y-wing[/i] down trying to pew pew at infantry instead of bombing vehicles and complains when he explodes. For all we know, this one time he tried flying he got nailed by the ATAT's main blasters or something as he was getting a generic warning for getting too low to the battlefield, [i]because he's in a bomber and not supposed to be dogfighting[/i]. I doubt "you'll kill yoursel!" is a legit warning you'd think to give as you self-destruct someone's vehicle for an unexplained border. If there was a layer not to cross, this of all games would probably just force you to softly bounce off it, which would be ridiculous in its own way
"damage indicators aren't obvious enough and by the time you realize you're taking damage you're dead"
[t]http://i.imgur.com/8fwCb6S.png[/t]
all in all this sounds like it's written to stroke the 'it's just a battlefield reskin and also going to suck because EA' crowd. The only part that strikes me as a potential worry is the existence of some sort of "30fps=better graphics vs 60fps=dumbed down" toggle (on ps4), BUT that also sounds like generic game journalism hot topic alarmist bullshit and I'll wait to see it for myself
Relevant:
[t]http://3ebd2a0c0ea48a333aea-1f531def8e8befb67be56667ce3edd11.r77.cf1.rackcdn.com/ef16003b3859e9f1c1e75bb2f770eae66f838a17.jpg__1055x1500_q85_crop_upscale.jpg[/t]
I agree it's better this way, though. It's already slow, I'd rather it be scripted and not deviate off-course.
[QUOTE=Viewer;48079172]Relevant:
[t]http://3ebd2a0c0ea48a333aea-1f531def8e8befb67be56667ce3edd11.r77.cf1.rackcdn.com/ef16003b3859e9f1c1e75bb2f770eae66f838a17.jpg__1055x1500_q85_crop_upscale.jpg[/t]
I agree it's better this way, though. It's already slow, I'd rather it be scripted and not deviate off-course.[/QUOTE]
Well if that were the issue why not have one AT-AT that has a bot immediately hop into it and take a preset course, and then one AT-AT that can be piloted by a player?
They've taken out enough shit from this game already, with space battles and shit, why would they take away one of the coolest things to pilot? Just because they can't be assed to either balance it or be creative? This game sounds more and more lame each time they announce something.
[QUOTE]But we’ve also added in some offline missions, that you can play alone or with a friend.[/QUOTE]
Hopefully that confirms bots
AT-AT'S were also mobile spawn points, the most evil thing you could do was walk one right on top of a base or the echo hanger and block the entrance so swoops had nowhere to go but crash.
Also spawnkill warfare
[QUOTE=Velocet;48078378]Battlefront 2 didn't have the terrain density of these maps. I understand it's the cool thing to hate on everything EA does but I can completely sympathize with them on this one.[/QUOTE]
I understand it's a cool thing to look unbiased and enlightened but mate please that shit's lame
I don't see why even if the AT-AT was on rails, why they couldn't give the player the option of choosing between a few different routes at certain points in the match.
Like maybe a choice to go left or right at least?
I just think this is a bit of a cop out answer to the AT-AT gameplay.
[QUOTE=Tuskin;48078961]Did you even read the article? It explains why and makes perfect sense[/QUOTE]
It actually doesn't, at all. All they said was "it would be game breaking". I mean, in what way? There are lots of ways around this sort of thing. Part of the whole concept of video games is being creative and thinking your way AROUND problems, not just ignoring them entirely and copping out with shit like this. They could balance it, they could add AI-only AT-ATs, they could put effort into it. This isn't an "I'm not even interested in the game now" sort of change, but I am certainly less excited now. Who knows how the rest of the game will turn out. If what everyone is saying about ship battles being separated is true though, that's pretty much the last straw.
The point is it's supposed to be the objective of the game mode, and it has a destination it needs to reach, it would be game breaking if someone could just veer it away and stop the team from ever completing the objective. It's not just another vehicle to be piloted like the ATST's or TIE Fighters.
[QUOTE=proch;48079231]Hopefully that confirms bots[/QUOTE]
There is no 'Instant Action' mode like in BF1/2
They're missions with objectives, you fight enemies with AI.
It isn't a MP map with a MP game mode with AI.
I think they're similar to the Co-Op missions that were in Battlefield 3.
Honestly I don't get why people are so up in arms about this.
I could understand space battles but controlling an AT-AT was cool for the novelty of it, the first couple times.
But it moved so slow that it just ends up being pretty boring controlling it.
Yeah it's fun to fuck around and bring it different places sometimes but it was the dullest part of the game gameplay wise. Combat wise it was basically a turret compared to faster vehicles anyway.
Also this probably allows the deaths for them to be way more spectacular too.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
