10 hours ago, Jo Jo said:

But who would actually fly Tie Fighters if they were easy to destroy?

Everyone who enjoys flying high skill ceiling ships? High risk / high reward scenarios? Everyone who likes the Empire, or playing the bad guy in general? Everyone who flies TIE swarms in X-Wing?

The TIE Fighter PC game put you in the cockpit of easy to destroy TIE fighters, yet it was one of the most popular games in the series.

10 hours ago, Jo Jo said:

No one likes to play as a red shirt and just be cannon fodder for another player. Which I why I hate playing Battlefront 2 with all the hero spam.

That sounds like an opinion based on personal ability / experience rather than the global consensus you're presenting it as.

Battlefront 2 is a very fast paced arcade-action game. Like so many other modern action games, getting shot down and respawning is par for the course and to be expected and embraced. Despite that, I have no problem whatsoever regularly racking up 10+ killsteaks with regular TIE fighters, even flying against hero ships (which go down really quick if you, you know, co-ordinate with the other players on your team and gang up on them).

End of the day, you get out what of the game you put in.

10 hours ago, Jo Jo said:

They have to make them fairly even, its a clear gameplay over lore here.

No they don't and no it isn't.

Take the X-Wing Miniatures game, for example. On paper the TIE fighter is much, much weaker than the T-65 X-Wing. Yet most TIE pilots are more than capable of taking down a Cavern Angels Zealot when flown by someone who knows what they're doing.

TL;DR? This game clearly isn't Battlefront 2, skill matters more than ship ability and TIE's don't need shields.

I keep thinking about the comment about not having shields meaning you don't need to manage power for them. I think that will make TIEs interesting and different to fly than X-wings.

As I've gotten older I've really come to appreciate applying the concept of "bandwidth" to my thinking. The fewer demands on my attention the easier it is to do the things I'm paying attention to. I have more bandwidth for those tasks.

The other thing is you need to define "easier to destroy." Not having shields doesn't automatically make TIEs "easier to destroy" than X-wings. If TIEs are easier to destroy that doesn't automatically make playing on the Rebels side superior to playing on the Empire side. Shields doesn't even begin to be the only way to make the ships "fair."

2 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:

TL;DR? This game clearly isn't Battlefront 2, skill matters more than ship ability and TIE's don't need shields.

I don't see how X-wing is a good example here, since in X-wing you can field twice as many Ties as you can X-wings. In a game you can only pilot one Tie Fighter at a time, its not 10 vs 5 (as far as we know, maybe NPCs will balance that out). If its a true 5 vs 5 then there is no safety in numbers as you get with the Empire in other games. Not saying Ties should have shields, but I would wager that they have struck a balance where Ties are more durable than they ought to be so they are more forgiving for newer players.

I do agree that since Ties will only have to worry about 2 sub-systems, so they may be the easier craft to master than an X-wing. There should be less emphasis on sub-system management and more on just pushing the ship to get the most out of its maneuverability.

As far as swarm sorts of numbers go am I remembering correctly that there will be AI ships?

22 hours ago, Jo Jo said:

I do agree that since Ties will only have to worry about 2 sub-systems, so they may be the easier craft to master than an X-wing. There should be less emphasis on sub-system management and more on just pushing the ship to get the most out of its maneuverability.

Exactly. Fewer choices means faster decisions. You'll probably be able to "just fly" the TIEs compared to the X-wings which you'll need to make more choices and shifts about what you need to be doing at any given time.

There was something I read in a motorcycle magazine once. The rider was talking about riding in busy Tokoyo at 40mph being far more nerve racking than tearing across the desert at 100mph because of the difference in the number of decisions and demands on his attention, "It isn't how fast you're going. It's how fast you have to make decisions."

Also, smaller killboxes can be a thing. Imagine an x-wing and a tie jousting. Assuming the x-wing shield's are like a bubble all around, it would mean a fairly big hitbox; meanwhile the Tie can avoid shots that go right thru the engines.

Maybe once the x-wing loses it's shields, it also gets a silhouetted hit box.

@Jo Jo: Lots of people. Literally that is exactly how PvP X-Wing versus TIE fighter happened. I did. People did.

The mechanism was in place to have more respawns and that was the balance. You...You might not be the kind of person, but I promise you, this already happened. People played TIE fighters, that's what they did.

@Jo Jo: Lots of people. Literally that is exactly how PvP X-Wing versus TIE fighter happened. I did. People did.

The mechanism was in place to have more respawns and that was the balance. You...You might not be the kind of person, but I promise you, this already happened. People played TIE fighters, that's what they did.

😳

3 hours ago, Jo Jo said:

Nice! Red TIE Interceptors are now canon. (and a lot other new paint jobs, I suppose)

2 hours ago, Jo Jo said:

Oh, boy, there is the Imperial Raider! I'm officially hyped.

PS: did anyone see the Gozanti somewhere? I think it's the perfect counterpart for the GR-75.

So after watching the new coverage here are some of my takeaways (obviously balance stuff is subject to change):

1. Tie Fighters/Interceptors seem to not evaporate when shot. In fact every ship seems pretty tough and it takes a concentrated effort to bring one down.

2. Like Eckharts said, Capital ships are pretty scary and dangerous to attack. They are not just background dressing like they are in BF2.

3. It appears you cannot micro manage your Subsystems. Its either all power to engines, shields, weapons and then balanced. So you cannot incrementally pour more power to a system. Apparently you can, see below

4. Ships seem to have different versions or configurations based on the menu screens.

5. The gameplay doesn't seem quite as fast paced as the trailers made it out to be.

6. You can shoot ordnance, which is a pretty cool feature.

7. Seeing the Raider in action was pretty sweet

Here is a much more detailed explanation of gameplay-

11 hours ago, Jo Jo said:

Here is a much more detailed explanation of gameplay-

They need to add more "maps" (historical battles would be cool) and the B-wing + TIE Defender (or the TIE Striker, which incredibly has 6 guns).

I have to say I’m not that impressed so far. Final judgement held tho until after release of course.

On 8/15/2020 at 9:33 AM, KelRiever said:

I have to say I’m not that impressed so far. Final judgement held tho until after release of course.

Just out of interest, what would it take to impress you? What do you feel is missing so far?

6 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:

Just out of interest, what would it take to impress you? What do you feel is missing so far?

I would really be impressed if this game reflected more of the Star Wars perception of lore. TIE fighters that are on par with X-Wings is a massive lore break. Shooting star destroyers in 'vulnerable spots' and blowing them up with just your blasters, the same. And, especially since it has been done in video games a long time ago, making a pvp game which both reflects the lore and is fun to play, there really isn't any excuse not to do this.

Otherwise, why make it a 'Star Wars' game other than to slap skins on it and sell it? If it doesn't play like a Star Wars game, then you could just slap any old skins on it and have it be anything. WWII, flying dragons, doesn't matter. That's hyperbolic, but it's to make a point.

Anyway, it might be fun, but I already have an out of lore Star Wars game from EA called Battlefront, that's really there for my 10 year old to play and I play with him. $12 is what it cost, and that's about what BFII is worth. I don't think a better version of BFII is interesting at all to me. The game has to be worth it, and it's just not worth it to me if it's not reflecting the lore of Star Wars in some way . This isn't really so much a Star Wars game, it seems, as a vanilla star fighter game with a Star Wars nameplate slapped on it.

I imagine this is going to be another game that is meant to sell you, and then sell you even more. Unique vanity items, little things you can stick in your cockpit like Ewok bobbleheads, on and on. It's more just like a loot box 4v4 fighter game? So...I can tell you when I will get it. When it's $12 on sale a year after release for my 10 year old and me to play together. I think that's about it.

OK, fair enough. I don't agree with any of that opinion at all, mind you, but fair enough.

For what it's worth the devs have already stated outright there's going to be no microtransactions or loot boxes etc.

To put the final nail in the coffin of that particular concern:

(and courtesy of @5050Saint :

Updates from the official EA SW Squadrons Discord:

• There will be only a standard edition to order 6/15
• More details will come about how cross-play works 6/16
• Ammo system will be for abilities and not for the lasers 6/18
• When changing ships, you can do it when respawning, or by returning to your flag ship in Fleet Battles and changing inside the hangar 6/18
• Dogfight mode has the normal point cap and timer 6/18
• The targeting computer is manually controlled, but also has some automatic aspects 6/18
• Future PB’s will discuss changing loadouts in the ships 6/18
• Team is not currently planning dedicated mod support, and if they do add it then it will be like the DICE policy was - if it’s offline, it’s okay 6/19
• There will be a scoreboard to check mid-match 6/19
• Does not know if HOSAS will be supported, but it is unlikely 6/19
• All cosmetic and upgrades are earned via gameplay ; most are unlocked when player has progressed enough, but some have other sources 6/19
• Auto-aim cannon component is not as powerful and has some downsides to it 6/19
• Can toggle free-look in the cockpit, but there is nothing to share on TrackIR yet 6/19
• Will share details on skill-based matchmaking in the future 6/19
• Can avoid missiles with skilled flying 6/19
• Potentially bots will not be marked in the UI as it currently stands 6/19
• Primary weapons can be switched with a component, and there are 7 total component slots if the ship has shields 6/19
• The two factions’ customized pilots in the game will be the same regardless of ship used on each side 6/19
• Pilot customization can be changed in the customization menu outside of matches 6/19
• A live game demo would be difficult given the working from home conditions 6/23
• Nothing to share on the closed beta yet 6/25
• Capital ships move around during fleet battles 6/25
• AI fighters will use all ships, and will be part of the capital ships and flagships 6/25
• All cosmetics are authentic to Star Wars and the pilots players will play as 6/29
• The players’ pilot names can be changed 6/29
• In fleet battles, after the first dogfight, the winning team attacks the capital ships and the defending team attacks the starfighters; if the defending team is successful in that phase then they will start attacking the other side’s capital ships. Once one sides’ capital ships are destroyed, it is easier to attack the flagship. 6/29
• There will not be phase changes like in BFII Supremacy, instead the battle will flow toward the next phase 6/29
• A player from any platform can invite someone from any other platform to play with them 6/29
• Some resources have a cooldown while others are limited and can be resupplied by support ships and capital ships / flagships 6/29
• Usually if something is finite it uses ammo, like missiles; if it does something to the ship or changes a function, it is usually a recharge, like a repair unit / astromech 6/29
• Team discussed an Aurebesh option at one point, but it is not planned now 6/29
• The white spot on the throttle is the sweet spot for turning 6/29
• Can go to multiplayer after the prologue 6/29
• Voice chat is across all platforms 6/29

3 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:

For what it's worth the devs have already stated outright there's going to be no microtransactions or loot boxes etc.

That's certainly encouraging

16 hours ago, KelRiever said:

Shooting star destroyers in 'vulnerable spots' and blowing them up with just your blasters, the same.

Don't a pair of A-wings blow up a Star Destroyer Shield dome in ROTJ with just blaster fire?

1 hour ago, Jo Jo said:

Don't a pair of A-wings blow up a Star Destroyer Shield dome in ROTJ with just blaster fire?

Yep. Not just any Star Destroyer either, but the Executor . The Devastator and Subjugator suffered the same fate in canon depictions of the Battle of Endor as well, with various subsystems targeted and destroyed by Rebel starfighter pilots. Then there's the Persecutor in Rogue One, which had it's shield generators taken out by X-Wings before it was crippled with Ion Torpedoes during the Battle of Scarif... And that's not to mention snubfighters taking out one Death Star, then another, then Starkiller Base... 😂 😂 😂

This is all well established Star Wars canon. Targeting the weak points of capital ships is integral to Star Wars lore, and has been since the original trilogy films and their novelisations came out. I'm sure there's many more recent examples in Rebels, Clone Wars etc.

As for TIE Fighters not being "on par" with X-Wings? Err... well, surely that depends a great deal on the pilot? Take the X-Wing miniatures game, for example. Mauler Mithel can run rings around a Rookie Pilot. The capabilities of each crafty may be different (and that's great!), but that doesn't mean that one is inherently inerfior to the other.

But hey; everybody is entitled to their opinion of what a Star Wars game "should" be I guess!

On 6/22/2020 at 2:00 AM, FTS Gecko said:

The interview with Motive's Creative Director talks about the space battkes in Rogue One being a big influence for the game. That, coupled with the playability of the U-Wing and the TIE Reaper would seem to explain why the MC-75 is featured, I guess. Even if the campaign is set post ROTJ.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a sucker for classic Mon Calimari ships myself (especially the Liberty, finest ship in the fleet), but as we haven't really seen the Profundity featured in a game like this before, it makes a change. I guess.

Got to give it the benefit of the doubt. We've been waiting for and asking for a dedicated space combat game for a long time now - when was the last one, again? I mean, Jump To Lightspeed is the last real attempt at space combat simulation I can remember, and that was a: an expansion to Star Wars: Galaxies, and b: was fifteen years ago.

I understand @kris40k 's stance on EA, but if we don't support projects like this, then we'll be waiting a long time to see them again.

We have Star Citizen, my friend.
We have Star Citizen.

3 minutes ago, Arma Quattro said:

We have Star Citizen, my friend.
We have Star Citizen.

How is Star Citizen in 2020? Playable already? (seriously, I backed the game in 2013's Kickstarter and never played it)

33 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

As for TIE Fighters not being "on par" with X-Wings?

Imperial demand of rules engagement demands a 3 to 1 ratio in their favor, and that's lore.
Being 1 on 1 it's obviously no match, those ships were also designed differently.
The Tie/LN lacks life support device, hyperdrive, shields.. that is because the Empire has lots and lots of cadets to pick from.
The Rebel Alliance, in turn, has very few pilots and any one of them is precious and vital to the cause.

2 minutes ago, Arma Quattro said:

The Rebel Alliance, in turn, has very few pilots and any one of them is precious and vital to the cause.

...which makes shooting down the traitorous scum so, so satisfying!

No Shields. All Guts. Join the Academy.