I want starfighter combat in space.

Yeah.....but I want it to be more than just a furball. I want missions and all sorts of stuff. I think that's a whole other game, to be honest. I want X-wing vs. Tie Fighter on Xbox with modern graphics. Just taking what they have and putting it in space doesn't really offer me much, to be honest. I mean, the background changes. Meh. Actually, it makes it harder to see ships, most likely. I don't mind it in atmosphere.

Oh, I wouldn't mind just a bunch of asteroids and a Star Destroyer to fly around.

But yes, if anyone would port the old X-Wing games. I'd give someone's left arm for that.

I want starfighter combat in space.

Yeah.....but I want it to be more than just a furball. I want missions and all sorts of stuff. I think that's a whole other game, to be honest. I want X-wing vs. Tie Fighter on Xbox with modern graphics. Just taking what they have and putting it in space doesn't really offer me much, to be honest. I mean, the background changes. Meh. Actually, it makes it harder to see ships, most likely. I don't mind it in atmosphere.

Oh, I wouldn't mind just a bunch of asteroids and a Star Destroyer to fly around.

But yes, if anyone would port the old X-Wing games. I'd give someone's left arm for that.

I know! That's why I just don't get it. They could just port in X-wing vs. Tie Fighter and it would be amazing. Why doesn't someone do this? I'm really unsure. Are they trying to sell a bigger package or something? Or feel that the current Star Wars game is enough?

I want starfighter combat in space.

Yeah.....but I want it to be more than just a furball. I want missions and all sorts of stuff. I think that's a whole other game, to be honest. I want X-wing vs. Tie Fighter on Xbox with modern graphics. Just taking what they have and putting it in space doesn't really offer me much, to be honest. I mean, the background changes. Meh. Actually, it makes it harder to see ships, most likely. I don't mind it in atmosphere.

Oh, I wouldn't mind just a bunch of asteroids and a Star Destroyer to fly around.

But yes, if anyone would port the old X-Wing games. I'd give someone's left arm for that.

I know! That's why I just don't get it. They could just port in X-wing vs. Tie Fighter and it would be amazing. Why doesn't someone do this? I'm really unsure. Are they trying to sell a bigger package or something? Or feel that the current Star Wars game is enough?

Sadly such a flight sim doesn't have "mass appeal" in major publishers eyes, just like survival horror has been declared dead a while ago. The budget to get nice graphics is too high for them to be willing to take risks.

With the current resurgence now was the time to capitalize.

Ah well.

Though they'd have to figure something out about simplifying the controls. With X-Box you could use the Kinect for voice commands to control your wingmen, but other consoles?

I want starfighter combat in space.

Yeah.....but I want it to be more than just a furball. I want missions and all sorts of stuff. I think that's a whole other game, to be honest. I want X-wing vs. Tie Fighter on Xbox with modern graphics. Just taking what they have and putting it in space doesn't really offer me much, to be honest. I mean, the background changes. Meh. Actually, it makes it harder to see ships, most likely. I don't mind it in atmosphere.

Oh, I wouldn't mind just a bunch of asteroids and a Star Destroyer to fly around.

But yes, if anyone would port the old X-Wing games. I'd give someone's left arm for that.

I know! That's why I just don't get it. They could just port in X-wing vs. Tie Fighter and it would be amazing. Why doesn't someone do this? I'm really unsure. Are they trying to sell a bigger package or something? Or feel that the current Star Wars game is enough?

Sadly such a flight sim doesn't have "mass appeal" in major publishers eyes, just like survival horror has been declared dead a while ago. The budget to get nice graphics is too high for them to be willing to take risks.

I know, it's not like most developers know how to listen to customers or not get reamed by their Publisher-masters and shareholders for not having multiplayer or microtransactions. Since EA apparently holds the license to make games for Disney, I don't expect anything original or good anymore.

I want starfighter combat in space.

Yeah.....but I want it to be more than just a furball. I want missions and all sorts of stuff. I think that's a whole other game, to be honest. I want X-wing vs. Tie Fighter on Xbox with modern graphics. Just taking what they have and putting it in space doesn't really offer me much, to be honest. I mean, the background changes. Meh. Actually, it makes it harder to see ships, most likely. I don't mind it in atmosphere.

Oh, I wouldn't mind just a bunch of asteroids and a Star Destroyer to fly around.

But yes, if anyone would port the old X-Wing games. I'd give someone's left arm for that.

I know! That's why I just don't get it. They could just port in X-wing vs. Tie Fighter and it would be amazing. Why doesn't someone do this? I'm really unsure. Are they trying to sell a bigger package or something? Or feel that the current Star Wars game is enough?

Sadly such a flight sim doesn't have "mass appeal" in major publishers eyes, just like survival horror has been declared dead a while ago. The budget to get nice graphics is too high for them to be willing to take risks.

EVE Online, Elite Dangerous, Space Citizen and probably another dozen titles. Space Sims are alive and kicking.

I agree there, but we're talking LoL, COD, WoW mass appeal. The last few Battlefield titles have fallen in the same meh category as COD rehashes, and EA's repeated profits for a number of years were BF and Fifa microtransations as opposed to AAA successes like DAI, DS3, ME3.

I'm still curious as to why Attack Squadrons was cancelled. Also, if Dreadnought is a success, then that is more evidence the genre isn't dead. It also helps that the Dreadnought devs are the same guys who made XvT.

I agree there, but we're talking LoL, COD, WoW mass appeal. The last few Battlefield titles have fallen in the same meh category as COD rehashes, and EA's repeated profits for a number of years were BF and Fifa microtransations as opposed to AAA successes like DAI, DS3, ME3.

I'm still curious as to why Attack Squadrons was cancelled. Also, if Dreadnought is a success, then that is more evidence the genre isn't dead. It also helps that the Dreadnought devs are the same guys who made XvT.

If I recall correctly. I read that Attack Squadron was cancelled due to negative feedback from testers. What people hoped was a space sim a'la X-wing Alliance, what they got was a web browser shooter with complexity of fighter battles in Battlefront or SWOTOR, at best.

I agree there, but we're talking LoL, COD, WoW mass appeal. The last few Battlefield titles have fallen in the same meh category as COD rehashes, and EA's repeated profits for a number of years were BF and Fifa microtransations as opposed to AAA successes like DAI, DS3, ME3.

I'm still curious as to why Attack Squadrons was cancelled. Also, if Dreadnought is a success, then that is more evidence the genre isn't dead. It also helps that the Dreadnought devs are the same guys who made XvT.

If I recall correctly. I read that Attack Squadron was cancelled due to negative feedback from testers. What people hoped was a space sim a'la X-wing Alliance, what they got was a web browser shooter with complexity of fighter battles in Battlefront or SWOTOR, at best.

I couldn't even get it to run on my laptop before it finally went, so I couldn't test it. That's a even bigger disappointment then the last four EA games.

Does anyone know how the matchups are mathed out in the XB version?

My son enjoys the game, but is impatient to get some of the upgrades. I don't mind playing in his login, from time to time, to help him level up, but I'd hate for that to dump him in the deep end of the pool, having a bunch of toys and constantly getting beat down because he lacks the experience that others have.

Does anyone know if that actually makes a difference?

I don't think it matters, and after level like 25 the toys don't matter.

I'd argue level 15...

Level terminus between players or matchmaking? There is no leveled matchmaking in Battlefield/Battlefront.

TBH, the jump pack is probably the biggest game changer. Being able to jet out of being tracked/locked or shot does help, it also massively opens up the maps.

The next upgrade i found 'useful' was the DL44, in tunnels maps its just brutal.

Everything else is just tailoring to playstyle.

I can do as well with an e11 you get early on as i can with a DL44 on most maps.

Likeewise the jawa/lee enfield gun is amazing close up and easy to get early on.

Right now im grinding from lvl 37 to try and get to 40 as i just want scout trooper armour.

The best way to 'get good' (well at least at part of the game) without worrying about upgrades is 'fighter squadron' as there are no upgrades so its a level (bar a wings) playing field.

Its also worth remembering to 'flip' any goals you cant or are unlikely to do. Rather than try and get 25 kills with an ATAT you might be better offf spending 200 credits to flip your goal twice (or once for 100) to get something you can do like 'get 25 kills' or 'play as a hero 3 times'.

Since i started paying attention to the goals i've shot up levels.

Jump pack is almost too good. I try to not use it cause i hate the graphics for it, and feel that everyone having jump packs kinda makes it lame.

Upgrading your stat cards so that the cooldowns are less is key. Find what you like, upgrade that.

I really REALLY like the EE-3 and T21B, but all guns have their uses.

I usually carry an Ion Missile for the Walker and Supremacy levels (if Rebel) to deal with AT-STs. As Imperial I carry long range fire and a grenade. The Jump Pack is nice but it just feels weird.

But I can be amazed at how people can shoot me from across the map when I sometimes have a hard time getting a hit in at all. Guess I need more practice (though other games don't give me that problem. Ah well).

I ask that same question with snapshotters in WoT. I say it's anything from practice to sheer luck.

Maybe larger tv's as well, making it easier to spot stuff. .

Its just a combination of playing a lot and luck.I

I've got people with incredible shots before by chance... like shooting someone in the head who is jumping across the screen.

im not a great player but play enough and the 1 in a million shot will come up.

Im pretty good at fighter squadron. Its rare i die more than once , if at all, as rebel and not much more as imperial and i often rack up most kills but i do play that 80 per cent of the time i load the game up.

I once called in the wife to witness a game where it was me versus 10 other guys on the others side (ive never seen that happen before) and i racked up no end of kills on that one!

Honestly, i was the *only* rebel player in the whole game.. which consequently made it almost impossible for any imperial player to score a non ai kill as i was in an a wing

Well, Fighter Squadron is another thing altogether. Though I sometimes die just due to my grandstanding and going for the nice maneuvers instead of the straight kills. .

Jump packs are good, but the reload time on them can be annoying. I find myself sometimes waiting for the right time to use it...and end up never really using it. I do like it to get to higher places on some maps, though. There are other times when it's no use at all. When indoors, I don't find a lot of good for it. I will say that there have been times I've been brilliant with it the jump pack, though. Hit and run...jump away to regen at the last minute. Come back to fire on the flanks....jump away when they come at me, etc.

My loadout: Whatever gun I feel like using for the map and situation (changes a lot, T21B, EE3 most usually) Pulse rifle (I love getting double kills or fighter kills with this) Upgraded Ion Torpedo (If you kill a fighter with this, bonus - it's used to force them to evade). Explosive, Scan or Ion shot (each upgraded).

I try not to use jump pack as mentioned previously.

Only Rebel Player Gadge? You must have been up against pretty poor imps. The A-wings agility and hardtohitness only works if a wingman can pluck them off your tail before they finally get lucky.

At the risk of sounding arrogant, i think its less 'poor imps' and more that i spend too much time playing fighter squadron.

Im usually in the top three players on my side in any match and often first.

its probably also the reason why im in the bottom 5 of infantry matches all the time too

edit: tbh i'd have paid £30 for fighter squadron alone, the other modes are a bonus!

At the risk of sounding arrogant, i think its less 'poor imps' and more that i spend too much time playing fighter squadron.

Im usually in the top three players on my side in any match and often first.

its probably also the reason why im in the bottom 5 of infantry matches all the time too

I'm the same way! Well...not actually that good at fighter squadron anymore. I realized that the night where I was doing amazing must have been a group of less experienced players. Nowadays I'm usually the high-middle of the pack.

Yeah I am the same. I've gotten better at the ground game now. I was always top half, but these days top 25% . practice practice practice, sniper rifle sniper rifle sniper rifle.

I've also been practicing ARMA3. Which is hard mode gaming (just like the other ARMA games).

I was always a better pilot then trooper. PSP Battlefront was also obscene with boosting Interceptors. Unfortunately, I see the Rebel ships outperforming Imperial ships greatly, especially the Interceptors in regards to dogfighting. One of the reasons I preferred the Fighter balancing and Galaxy's heavy Z-95/TIE variants.