wishlist for 2.0 or latter
- Thread starter upyr1
- Start date
I guess that just shows that newton is in there.
Marc
Commodore
that's 100% true. I (being that "guy"), respect and understand completely that realism, or the application of it in a fictionnal setting, is often used to measure the quality of a product.MamiyaOtaru said:
But, and this is where I'm kinda alone, I think realism should take a back seat to the fun factor. Dogfights in WC3 where in no way similar to this game, they wheren't as real, but they where 10 times more fun. Enemy ships in your game react in a way that is very plausible if it where real life... and for that I say bravo, but it's not fun- again, just my little opinion.
Perhaps the current AI and controls don't let you appreciate the newtonian dogfighting experience. That's why I'm all in favour of manual navigation (the option of it). If you were able to perform more newtonian maneuvers, and if the AI did so too, with some sensible tactics (and not the ever so predictable ones it's using now), perhaps newtonian movement would be even more fun than fictional movement.
Imagine such a dogfight in a dense asteroid field. And I'm talking about asteroids which are still (not moving). Yet, avoiding them is no easy task. You should try making PR's asteroid fiels a little denser, with smaller asteroids (or at least greater size variety, like where WCU is going), and make them still. Try dogfighting in there. Fictional movement makes it real easy to dodge the (still) asteroids, but newtonian movement is another issue. You have to break, plan your maneuvers. You can't just face the target to go guns blazing because, if you do so, you don't see where you're going to (you still move in the same direction you were moving a few moments ago, since you're thrusters aren't that powerful). And that adds to the challenge, and the fun.
I remember a Freelancer mod that accomplished that... I think it was the rebalance mod. It was anything but perfect, but made me realize how fun can newtonian dogfighting be.
Add real collision damage to the mix, and you're set. There's real adrenaline flowing, since if you hit an asteroid, you're history. You can't afford hitting an asteroid, so you're senses fire up, alert at the possibility, ready to dodge any incoming asteroid. It's real fun.
Dire Wolf
Spaceman
I'm for easier shopping. Loading and reloading to try to spawn items is more frustrating than a feature, if that makes sense.
Feel free to make availability a mission reward, that is fine, but darn it all, don't just make it painful to try to find upgrades.
On that topic, having bought some confed ships, they are darn inferior to the plot ships. Interesting just to try them, but definitely not a keeper for any of them.
As such, I think that you don't need to take them out, they seem to add flavor without adding imbalance.
Feel free to make availability a mission reward, that is fine, but darn it all, don't just make it painful to try to find upgrades.
On that topic, having bought some confed ships, they are darn inferior to the plot ships. Interesting just to try them, but definitely not a keeper for any of them.
As such, I think that you don't need to take them out, they seem to add flavor without adding imbalance.
Dire Wolf
Spaceman
upyr1 said:
I don't mind the concept that you have to go to Perry for somethings, Pirate bases for others (just like buying stuff), but I'd like to have fusion guns, for example, be more routine at Perry (gee, I've gotten one after 20-30 shopping visits).
It goes from interesting to painfull quickly.
hmm...except that all of these things aren't wing commander....the flight model shold be like WC in all regards, etc...etc...etc. this is supposed to be WC after all and not some bastardized, hybridized amalgamation of 'i think this is cool, so add it!' type deal. hmm....maybe thats what LOAF was talking about when he said fans don't make good games.....
Just a question: If you want to make it exactly like the original. Why would you? Get dosbox and play the original instead. There must be room for a bit of improvement. I agree that fans tend to try and add a lot of "improvement", and even things that they consider improvement (that are not necessarily imprvements for everyone else). I'm one of them. I would like to see a lot of features that I always saw fitting to the Privateer style.
But, sometimes, some of those proposals are appropriate. For instance, nobody would have thought twice (correction, somebody did) about whether to use a 3D engine or a sprite engine (to resemble the original). Nobody would have thought, either, to limit resolution to 320x200, just so that it looked like the original.
I think making the stock market a little more consistent is a nice idea, and propper too for a remake. The tricky part is to answer the question: What does more consistent mean? Plasma at Perry? Well, that needs some thinking. But why throw out the idea?
But, sometimes, some of those proposals are appropriate. For instance, nobody would have thought twice (correction, somebody did) about whether to use a 3D engine or a sprite engine (to resemble the original). Nobody would have thought, either, to limit resolution to 320x200, just so that it looked like the original.
I think making the stock market a little more consistent is a nice idea, and propper too for a remake. The tricky part is to answer the question: What does more consistent mean? Plasma at Perry? Well, that needs some thinking. But why throw out the idea?
because gameplay wise its a pain in the ass to have to haul your ass through the more difficult areas, and have to go out of your way to grab the gear you want. it slows things down. privateer was balanced. thats the deal here, really.
and come on, don't be retarded. no one in their right mind would say 'make it 320x200!' and, as cool as you could make a sprite engine, meh...3D is the way to go because no one likes nostalgia.
i have the original, and i play it often. Newtonian physics, it doesn't fit with wing commander. not at all, unless you set up the flight model like its described in the novels. wing commander has never been about realism. 'improvements' should be derived from wing commander sources, not some off the top of the head 'holy shit i want, i want!' source.
oh, and the only thing there though Dyret, is one has to be wary of being a complete sheep (no offense meant to LOAF in anyway, he knows his stuff better than anyone i know and should in all cases be consulted on things canon)
and come on, don't be retarded. no one in their right mind would say 'make it 320x200!' and, as cool as you could make a sprite engine, meh...3D is the way to go because no one likes nostalgia.
i have the original, and i play it often. Newtonian physics, it doesn't fit with wing commander. not at all, unless you set up the flight model like its described in the novels. wing commander has never been about realism. 'improvements' should be derived from wing commander sources, not some off the top of the head 'holy shit i want, i want!' source.
oh, and the only thing there though Dyret, is one has to be wary of being a complete sheep (no offense meant to LOAF in anyway, he knows his stuff better than anyone i know and should in all cases be consulted on things canon)
That's what I meant. That kind of improvements are quite appropriate, and you're with me there rather than against me. Perhaps you got me the other way.
I was trying to sound retarded on purpose, to show my point. There's some kind of improvements that most people readily accept. That proves that there's a place for improvement. It's just about where to stop improving where most people disagree.
I wish I could play the original, but I lost it sometime between my 486 and my Pentium. And yes, perhaps you're right about newtonian physics. I don't know, and it's probably best to have the option to choose between them, since opinions are so divided on the subject.