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."

23 of 122 comments (clear)

  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 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...

    2. 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.

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

      No need for flashbacks...

    4. 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
    5. 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
    6. Re:Flashbacks to X-Wing ... by Radres · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      http://www.freeallegiance.org/

  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 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.

    2. 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?

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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.'"
  4. 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 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.

    2. 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
  5. Our own spaceship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  6. 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!
  7. 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.