Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BioWare's Star Wars MMO To Have Space Combat

Posted by Soulskill on from the just-in-case-they-weren't-busy-enough dept.

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."

122 comments

  1. Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by perpenso · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      I loved XvT!

      Also, Rebellion.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    2. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Dusty101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

    3. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Imagix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by b100dian · · Score: 1

      I have StarControl 2 flashbacks.

      --
      gtkaml.org
    5. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Fast+Thick+Pants · · Score: 4, Informative

      No need for flashbacks...

    6. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Tridus · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    7. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Radres · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      http://www.freeallegiance.org/

    9. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    10. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Vahokif · · Score: 1

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

    11. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by trout007 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    12. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1
      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 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.

    13. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by shnull · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
    14. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    15. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    16. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

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

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    17. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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!

    18. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Wylfing · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
    19. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    20. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      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.).

    21. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Dusty101 · · Score: 1

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

    22. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      It's recommend that you check out Eternal Silence (http://www.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 and Black Prophecy. I've signed up for the betas on both and have my fingers crossed.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    23. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      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.

    24. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Independence War 2: Edge of Chaos is pretty win.

      X2: The Threat and X3: The Reunion (and X3: The Terran Conflict) are decent enough too.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    26. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      That wasn't vector.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    27. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by jackbird · · Score: 1

      I tried. Then I realized that the community of the game offered six-week courses in how to play before you could be credible even in a support role. Not the same at all.

    28. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by shnull · · Score: 1

      really? How odd human memory works then must have it twisted with elite somewhere. I stand corrected :)

      --
      beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
    29. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      You are forgiven. Loving X-Wing, TIE Fighter, or XvT and their gouraud shading absolves you of your sin :D

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    30. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Unordained · · Score: 1

      Babylon 5: "I've found her" had newtonian physics, as did the Independence War games. Frankly, at least for B5, it was just obnoxious. I would expect a real ship to provide computer assistance of some sort to avoid exactly what winds up happening: two ships fly back and forth past each other, as if jousting, with long periods of de/re-acceleration and then a split second of blasting away with hardly any ability to target. It was chaos, and not the good kind. 3D doesn't matter, because unless there are significant environmental obstacles, the fight is pretty much 1D -- even circling around your opponent fails to make sense. Distances become vast far too quickly (acceleration rather than velocity) yet your screen resolution and control mechanism don't make long-distance targeting feasible -- despite the fact that in space, there's really no reason you can't shoot each other down from a thousand miles away. While the XvT, WC, and FS physics weren't newtonian, at least the games were more fun. In the future, I'm thinking our space combat will be entirely automated, because empty-space newtonian physics and human pilots just don't mesh well. It's not intuitive.

    31. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      You played the B5 demo!?! Any chance you could point to a download location?

    32. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Unordained · · Score: 1

      Try http://ifhgame.ru/main/campaigns/what-was/danger-and-opportunity -- it's been a long time since I tried it. Honestly, what I *did* like about the game was the menu graphics! I totally dig the scrappy, nebulous star-map thing. (Similar idea was used for the menu graphics in Homeworld2, some of the intro to Enterprise, and I think the Wing Commander movie had some bits like it ...)

  2. Star Wars Gaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Co-op Capital Ships by glittermage · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Co-op Capital Ships by ThinkWeak · · Score: 1

      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?

    2. Re:Co-op Capital Ships by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Co-op Capital Ships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      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?

    4. Re:Co-op Capital Ships by twidarkling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    5. Re:Co-op Capital Ships by Fwipp · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    6. Re:Co-op Capital Ships by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:Co-op Capital Ships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    8. Re:Co-op Capital Ships by SAN1701 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    9. Re:Co-op Capital Ships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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

    10. Re:Co-op Capital Ships by smcn · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:Co-op Capital Ships by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re:Co-op Capital Ships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's spelled "Hwedon."

    13. Re:Co-op Capital Ships by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Co-op Capital Ships by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It's hard to hack a ballistic hunk of metal, or a simple IR aspect-seeker circuit :P

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    15. Re:Co-op Capital Ships by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      Maybe it has more to do with the fact that energy weapons have intense energy requirements. You have to put more energy in to fire it than is delivered to the target. Bullets are the opposite; they deliver much more energy than it takes to fire them. Barring some major advance in physics that substantially changes our understanding, energy weapons will never become more than 99% efficient. But since you can prepare ammunition ahead of time, it's possible to store substantial amounts of energy in 'em. Indeed, they can contain explosives and come in the form of a miniature shaped charge.

      The primary weapons in space will probably be missiles and guns for the foreseeable future. The major advantage of energy weapons is that they can be used over intense distances. But even lasers attenuate. Regardless, if you're going for realism anchored in modern physics, you've got to drop the energy weapons, or at least those which don't consume some form of ammunition (think chemical laser.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Co-op Capital Ships by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that psychic screams do not carry across a vacuum...

      Thanks.. now I have to watch my Babylon 5 dvds.

  4. $10 says they just rename StarWars Galaxies by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    to something else by the time this is done.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:$10 says they just rename StarWars Galaxies by NotOverHere · · Score: 1

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

  5. And this is a new thing? by Zephiris · · Score: 1

    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.

    --

    "A Goddess rarely smiles for she is forced by others to be an island unto herself." - Zephiris
  6. Yeah, but... by morari · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    1. Re:Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parsec is a measure of distance >.

    2. Re:Yeah, but... by Anaerin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Yeah, but... by Huntr · · Score: 1

      Less than 12, if you're good.

    4. Re:Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Yeah, but... by Bieeanda · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:Yeah, but... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

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

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    7. Re:Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    8. Re:Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *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.

    9. Re:Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    10. Re:Yeah, but... by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      African or European?

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    11. Re:Yeah, but... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:Yeah, but... by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    13. Re:Yeah, but... by fox171171 · · Score: 1

      The Kessel Run area is full of black holes. Shorter runs could be had by flying closer to the black holes. To risk going closer, you had to be flying faster.

  7. Flashback to REAL space travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re:Flashback to REAL space travel by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
  8. Our own spaceship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Our own spaceship by Conchobair · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:Our own spaceship by lennier · · Score: 1

      Travellin' through hyperspace ain't like dustin' crops, boy. Without precise calculations we could fly right through a Womp Rat or bounce too close to a Sarlacc pit.

      Okay, it is exactly like dustin' crops.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  9. EVE Online by gravos · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
    1. Re:EVE Online by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re:EVE Online by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Only if those Wookies work in accounting.

      --
      An Education is the Font of All Liberty
    3. Re:EVE Online by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    4. Re:EVE Online by ryl00 · · Score: 0

      Only if those Wookies work in accounting.

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

      *RAHRRRRR*

    5. Re:EVE Online by Conchobair · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:EVE Online by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    7. Re:EVE Online by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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"

    8. Re:EVE Online by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      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.

    9. Re:EVE Online by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:EVE Online by brkello · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
  10. Better space game by Scrag · · Score: 1

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

  11. The dark side is calling by Stroot · · Score: 1

    /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 :(

  12. Re:i think you want allegiance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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...

  13. calculating paths through hyperspace, highways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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...

  14. That because real space combat would suck by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:That because real space combat would suck by RsG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:That because real space combat would suck by kizza42 · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:That because real space combat would suck by Dekker3D · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:That because real space combat would suck by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:That because real space combat would suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    6. Re:That because real space combat would suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to play your game!!

    7. Re:That because real space combat would suck by RsG · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    8. Re:That because real space combat would suck by damnfuct · · Score: 1

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

    9. Re:That because real space combat would suck by longhairedgnome · · Score: 1

      learn2type

      --
      GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
    10. Re:That because real space combat would suck by RsG · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    11. Re:That because real space combat would suck by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:That because real space combat would suck by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      ... but is it fun and complete out-of-the-tarball? If not, I'll pass.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    13. Re:That because real space combat would suck by lennier · · Score: 1

      Much of what you want is available for free in the game Vega Strike

      Sure about that? Last time I checked out Vega Strike it was very consciously a Wing Commander: Privateer clone/homage/emulation, and that meant Wing Commander physics: absolute velocities, a 'speed limit', and afterburners. No Newtonian velocity addition at all. A mini-hyperdrive mode added to make navigation across solar systems in seconds somewhat more plausible, but still recognisably WC.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    14. Re:That because real space combat would suck by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sure about that? Last time I checked out Vega Strike it was very consciously a Wing Commander: Privateer clone/homage/emulation, and that meant Wing Commander physics: absolute velocities, a 'speed limit', and afterburners.

      Yes, I am sure. For literally years now Vega Strike has had a key which turns off your ship's auto-thrusters, and another key which toggles the relative velocity limit between a limit you'll notice and a limit you won't. Further, it's got keys to change which object your relative velocity is calculated from, for stuff like docking with moving ships (which you can do! and with a little tweaking you can pilot ships to which one can dock!) All these features were likely there when you examined it, and you simply missed them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:That because real space combat would suck by Teege1982 · · Score: 1

      Space combat can be made different from air combat and still fun by just making a few changes from realistic. Free Allegiance http://www.freeallegiance.org/ adds simple drag to space combat but keeps side thrusters and momentum to give an effect that feels like moving underwater and produces challenging dog fighting to go along with the complex strategic elements of the game.

  15. Worked really well in XWvTF multiplayer by azaris · · Score: 1

    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.

  16. Why they didn't tell us sooner. by cryoblade · · Score: 1

    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.

  17. Allegiance by Necron69 · · Score: 1

    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)

    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

    1. Re:Allegiance by ESCquire · · Score: 1

      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.

      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).

    2. Re:Allegiance by Teege1982 · · Score: 1

      (the R6 client is currently in beta).

      And could use development help if anyone is interested in looking under the hood of a Microsoft creation. 10 years later and still squishing MS bugs, but gameplay is awesome.

  18. That game exists by rhombic · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
    1. Re:That game exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    2. Re:That game exists by Dusty101 · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:That game exists by RsG · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    4. Re:That game exists by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      To me, it would have been better if "slide" mode was permanent (alt key). The idea behind that was that it turned off the vector management system (that was explained to automatically fire thrusters to align your vector to your "front" and to stop the ship when you removed thrust)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:That game exists by RsG · · Score: 1

      Perma-slide is doable. But to do it, the game needs to lack some other features as well - notably a speedometer and any external cues to velocity (like lines or bits of space junk flying past you). You'd also really want to make the various "fixed" objects like planets move around in their orbits.

      What most games don't model is the fact that there is no privileged frame of reference. You can't have a speedometer that doesn't use something external to compare itself to. Aircraft use airspeed measurements, cars measure the speed of the ground beneath them using wheel rotation. Both use the planet around them for their chosen "this is what I'll measure my speed against" reference frame.

      In space, you've got nothing of the sort. Ether gave way to vacuum in our knowledge long before the first computer games. Yet modeling a virtual environment without a privileged reference frame is either impossible, or at least extraordinarily difficult. So the games treat space like a freefall atmosphere, complete with airspeed gauge.

      Get rid of this, and you've made strides towards realism. At least feign a lack of privileged reference frames. Once you've got that, perma-sliding is easy, because your ship is never really standing still, it's just either coasting or accelerating.

      Of course, as I prefaced my original post with, this is really, really hard to do.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    6. Re:That game exists by Reapy · · Score: 1

      Could do some neat stuff like there is a support ship in the fleet that provides navigational/aim data to the fighters, which would allow some cool interplay if that support ship is taken out, you lose your ability for an airspeed reference or any kind of auto aim.

  19. jar jar by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 1

    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...)

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
  20. Re:First Proust! by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  21. Hmm by Psychor · · Score: 1

    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.

  22. Exactly! by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
  23. "traditional space fighting game" by tingentleman · · Score: 1

    boy, time is passing quickly... - Cigs not sigs