Scoundrel67
04-04-2000, 03:19 PM
I mailed this to Lawrence Holland some time ago and have yet to receive a response. Does anyone know of any patches that a non-programmer could insert into the game to address some of these problems? What do you know about this "extension" planned for XWA? Obviously, Totally Games and Lucas Arts have had a falling out, so who is going to produce the "extension" for XWA?
Hopefully not the same nitwits the gave us Farce Commander. Talk about a dissapointment; anything in developement for 3 years shouldn't have pathfinding flaws, mediocre graphics, and this obnoxious interface. Check out dailyradar for an accurate review of this stinker.
Back to XWA--here's my letter:
Totally Games
PO Box 6248
Terra Linda, CA 94903-0248
(Please note that Brad X, Sr. Technical Representative at Lucas Arts [techsupp@lucasarts.com], wrote that the following questions and comments should be addressed to you at Totally Games. I apologize if I’m picking at a sore spot between your respective companies regarding the development of X-Wing Alliance, but I can’t help but think that somehow or other the ball was dropped when the game was designed. It succeeds so well so much of the time that the following omissions and oddities are particularly glaring and disappointing. I’m sending this via snail mail in the hope that you can find a little time to address some of my questions rather than dismiss and delete yet another unwanted piece of frivolous e-mail clogging up your account.)
March 16, 2000
Dear Lawrence Holland:
I am very pleased with the game, X-Wing Alliance, but why were the missile launchers removed from the larger Imperial capital ships? The capital ships in X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter and Balance of Power had them and this feature made them very enjoyable opponents. Larger capital ships, platforms, and military stations should all have at least one missile launcher, period. Whether or not we furnish them with missiles for skirmishes should be up to the players, not your programmers. Also, even when the AI skill level is set at Super Ace, capital ships on Strike don’t fire missiles or torpedoes unless they have been targeted. Try this one in the combat simulator.
Distance: 6 kilometers
Setting: deep space
Team 1
6 Asteroid warhead launchers set at Super Ace and armed with Advanced Concussion missiles on Superiority.
6 Asteroid warhead launchers set at Super Ace and armed with Advanced Torpedoes on Strike.
Factory type 2
Team 2
Pick a fighter of your choice and arm it as you wish on Superiority.
Select a capital ship set at Super Ace and arm it with Advanced Torpedoes set on Strike.
The warhead launchers set on Strike don’t do anything at all to defend the factory or themselves from the capital ship and the capital ship only uses lasers to destroy the factory and warhead launchers. Additionally, only after you target the warhead launchers armed with Advanced Concussion missiles will they fire upon your fighter. Their rate of fire isn’t very intimidating, either.
Please consider adjusting the firing intervals for all AI controlled warhead launchers to make them more aggressive. A Super Ace AI capital ship, station, or weapon emplacement should launch a first volley as soon as its designated target type (primary or secondary) is in range regardless of whether or not the target has locked its targeting computer onto the warhead launcher. When that warhead scores a hit or is destroyed by defensive fire the warhead launcher should immediately fire again, not necessarily at the same target. The AI warhead launcher should select the closest enemy craft of its designated target type that has selected it as a target. If it has not been targeted by anything, then the AI warhead launcher should launch at the nearest appropriate enemy craft according to the warhead launchers assigned duty (Strike or Superiority).
As long as targets are within range, a Super Ace AI should not give the opposition a moments rest. Less able AI warhead launchers should incur a 5-second delay for each AI skill level below Super Ace (e.g. novice AI warhead launchers will take 25 seconds to launch after a hit or the destruction of a warhead). You might want to increase their missile lock range, too, so that they can select an appropriate target and launch at 5km. Isn't that the whole point to having missiles--killing at a distance?
On a related topic, it is far too easy to destroy individual target components. Yes, it is fun to “pull teeth”, but when a ship’s shielding is still at or near 100% you shouldn’t be able to damage much of anything. Those warhead launchers in the above scenario are a case in point. You can fly right down the line and de-fang the allegedly Super Ace AI warhead launchers without breaking a sweat. Those Super Aces, aren’t.
To remedy this situation, when the shielding of the target is in the 76-100% category, individual components should take no damage. As the shielding falls, damage to individual components will then accrue ¼ their full value at 51-75%, ½ at 26-50%, ¾ at 1-25%, and full damage at 0% shielding. Always round points of damage up. With PCs doubling in capability every 18 or so months, this shouldn’t be asking too much of your programmers or the hardware of the future.
Another noteworthy deficiency is the curious response of craft to friendly fire. I have seen TIEs chasing TIEs and rebel fighters pursuing other rebel fighters. It’s usually comical to watch, but this shouldn’t be happening. It’s not so comical when you’re in a dogfight against a TIE Defender and an X-wing in your squadron starts launching missiles at you after it flew into your line of fire. If your wingmate takes a full power quad burst or less in damage, a harsh rebuke would be sufficient. Damage from a deliberately locked missile attack or more than the damage equivalent to a single, full-powered quad-linked cannon burst should invite both a surly response and an attack. “Receiving friendly fire, returning same with smile!” On ships with only 2 cannons, anything more than two full-powered, twin-linked hits should be required to trigger a friendly fire counter attack.
One final series of omissions need to be examined by some of your technical people. On the defensive sub-menu, the manual lists 4 different options. I have never seen more than 2 on my screen. As listed in the manual numbers 1 (defend my target) and 2 (watch my six) simply do not exist. The MFD lists only 1 (help me out) and 2 (evasive maneuver). Also, when does the support craft menu come into play? I have never seen the opportunity to be reloaded by the CUV support craft in a tour of duty and cannot get the CUV to reload me during a skirmish. Reloads must be had in the hangar bay of the command ship during a tour of duty; otherwise, none are available. Why may I not reload in skirmish mode?
Another curiosity is the lack of hull strength and shielding on large gun emplacements with warhead launchers as compared with large gun emplacements without warhead launchers. The GW/P has a shield/hull rating of 8/2 and the G/P has a shield/hull rating of 80/19. Why the gross disparity in survivability? And not only does the GW/P have a glass jaw, it never launches any missiles, either. Why not? If it has launchers, it should launch. Will there be a patch for this?
The X-Wing series of games has evolved into a superbly rich gaming experience. The improvements in 3D graphics and 3D sound, chatter from your wingmates, and cut scene quality are all noteworthy in caliber. Keep up the fine work, fix the aforementioned glitches, and you will be getting more of my money if and when the next space combat simulator in the series is released. That’s a promise.
Thank you for the hours of entertainment.
Respectfully,
Hopefully not the same nitwits the gave us Farce Commander. Talk about a dissapointment; anything in developement for 3 years shouldn't have pathfinding flaws, mediocre graphics, and this obnoxious interface. Check out dailyradar for an accurate review of this stinker.
Back to XWA--here's my letter:
Totally Games
PO Box 6248
Terra Linda, CA 94903-0248
(Please note that Brad X, Sr. Technical Representative at Lucas Arts [techsupp@lucasarts.com], wrote that the following questions and comments should be addressed to you at Totally Games. I apologize if I’m picking at a sore spot between your respective companies regarding the development of X-Wing Alliance, but I can’t help but think that somehow or other the ball was dropped when the game was designed. It succeeds so well so much of the time that the following omissions and oddities are particularly glaring and disappointing. I’m sending this via snail mail in the hope that you can find a little time to address some of my questions rather than dismiss and delete yet another unwanted piece of frivolous e-mail clogging up your account.)
March 16, 2000
Dear Lawrence Holland:
I am very pleased with the game, X-Wing Alliance, but why were the missile launchers removed from the larger Imperial capital ships? The capital ships in X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter and Balance of Power had them and this feature made them very enjoyable opponents. Larger capital ships, platforms, and military stations should all have at least one missile launcher, period. Whether or not we furnish them with missiles for skirmishes should be up to the players, not your programmers. Also, even when the AI skill level is set at Super Ace, capital ships on Strike don’t fire missiles or torpedoes unless they have been targeted. Try this one in the combat simulator.
Distance: 6 kilometers
Setting: deep space
Team 1
6 Asteroid warhead launchers set at Super Ace and armed with Advanced Concussion missiles on Superiority.
6 Asteroid warhead launchers set at Super Ace and armed with Advanced Torpedoes on Strike.
Factory type 2
Team 2
Pick a fighter of your choice and arm it as you wish on Superiority.
Select a capital ship set at Super Ace and arm it with Advanced Torpedoes set on Strike.
The warhead launchers set on Strike don’t do anything at all to defend the factory or themselves from the capital ship and the capital ship only uses lasers to destroy the factory and warhead launchers. Additionally, only after you target the warhead launchers armed with Advanced Concussion missiles will they fire upon your fighter. Their rate of fire isn’t very intimidating, either.
Please consider adjusting the firing intervals for all AI controlled warhead launchers to make them more aggressive. A Super Ace AI capital ship, station, or weapon emplacement should launch a first volley as soon as its designated target type (primary or secondary) is in range regardless of whether or not the target has locked its targeting computer onto the warhead launcher. When that warhead scores a hit or is destroyed by defensive fire the warhead launcher should immediately fire again, not necessarily at the same target. The AI warhead launcher should select the closest enemy craft of its designated target type that has selected it as a target. If it has not been targeted by anything, then the AI warhead launcher should launch at the nearest appropriate enemy craft according to the warhead launchers assigned duty (Strike or Superiority).
As long as targets are within range, a Super Ace AI should not give the opposition a moments rest. Less able AI warhead launchers should incur a 5-second delay for each AI skill level below Super Ace (e.g. novice AI warhead launchers will take 25 seconds to launch after a hit or the destruction of a warhead). You might want to increase their missile lock range, too, so that they can select an appropriate target and launch at 5km. Isn't that the whole point to having missiles--killing at a distance?
On a related topic, it is far too easy to destroy individual target components. Yes, it is fun to “pull teeth”, but when a ship’s shielding is still at or near 100% you shouldn’t be able to damage much of anything. Those warhead launchers in the above scenario are a case in point. You can fly right down the line and de-fang the allegedly Super Ace AI warhead launchers without breaking a sweat. Those Super Aces, aren’t.
To remedy this situation, when the shielding of the target is in the 76-100% category, individual components should take no damage. As the shielding falls, damage to individual components will then accrue ¼ their full value at 51-75%, ½ at 26-50%, ¾ at 1-25%, and full damage at 0% shielding. Always round points of damage up. With PCs doubling in capability every 18 or so months, this shouldn’t be asking too much of your programmers or the hardware of the future.
Another noteworthy deficiency is the curious response of craft to friendly fire. I have seen TIEs chasing TIEs and rebel fighters pursuing other rebel fighters. It’s usually comical to watch, but this shouldn’t be happening. It’s not so comical when you’re in a dogfight against a TIE Defender and an X-wing in your squadron starts launching missiles at you after it flew into your line of fire. If your wingmate takes a full power quad burst or less in damage, a harsh rebuke would be sufficient. Damage from a deliberately locked missile attack or more than the damage equivalent to a single, full-powered quad-linked cannon burst should invite both a surly response and an attack. “Receiving friendly fire, returning same with smile!” On ships with only 2 cannons, anything more than two full-powered, twin-linked hits should be required to trigger a friendly fire counter attack.
One final series of omissions need to be examined by some of your technical people. On the defensive sub-menu, the manual lists 4 different options. I have never seen more than 2 on my screen. As listed in the manual numbers 1 (defend my target) and 2 (watch my six) simply do not exist. The MFD lists only 1 (help me out) and 2 (evasive maneuver). Also, when does the support craft menu come into play? I have never seen the opportunity to be reloaded by the CUV support craft in a tour of duty and cannot get the CUV to reload me during a skirmish. Reloads must be had in the hangar bay of the command ship during a tour of duty; otherwise, none are available. Why may I not reload in skirmish mode?
Another curiosity is the lack of hull strength and shielding on large gun emplacements with warhead launchers as compared with large gun emplacements without warhead launchers. The GW/P has a shield/hull rating of 8/2 and the G/P has a shield/hull rating of 80/19. Why the gross disparity in survivability? And not only does the GW/P have a glass jaw, it never launches any missiles, either. Why not? If it has launchers, it should launch. Will there be a patch for this?
The X-Wing series of games has evolved into a superbly rich gaming experience. The improvements in 3D graphics and 3D sound, chatter from your wingmates, and cut scene quality are all noteworthy in caliber. Keep up the fine work, fix the aforementioned glitches, and you will be getting more of my money if and when the next space combat simulator in the series is released. That’s a promise.
Thank you for the hours of entertainment.
Respectfully,