Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Nuke on June 26, 2005, 07:19:47 am
-
just played it through the fs port (which i much enjoyed i might add). damn what a bunch of poorly designed missions. and to think i almost bought it a few years ago.
a few things that confused me, i thought it was cannon that the shivan fleet vanished after the lucifer was defeted, st sugests a long strung out battle. with the rapid assault of the lucifer fleet i dont see how the gti had the time to build a ship the size of the hades. its sad to see such a worthless parasite strapped to the back of such a great game.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
just played it through the fs port (which i much enjoyed i might add). damn what a bunch of poorly designed missions. and to think i almost bought it a few years ago.
a few things that confused me, i thought it was cannon that the shivan fleet vanished after the lucifer was defeted, st sugests a long strung out battle. with the rapid assault of the lucifer fleet i dont see how the gti had the time to build a ship the size of the hades. its sad to see such a worthless parasite strapped to the back of such a great game.
No; the Shivan fleet became disorganized and 'defeatable' after the Lucifers destruction IIRC. So they were forced on the backfoot.
EDIT; think...maybe a bit like the Germany army after losing Stalingrad in WW2.
-
What information are you basing your assumption that the Lucifer Fleet 'just disappeared' after the defeat of the Lucifer itself? I've read in many places that, after the Lucifer's Destruction, the Shivan Fleet was 'dissorganised and easily defeated without their command ship [Luci]', nothing about it abbruptly disappearing. I mean, i think they'd have taken note had several remaining Demons, Liliths & Cains suddenly just disappeared...
...Also, you should really trying playing the ORIGINAL before judging the actual game. Sure, the FS Port is pretty good, but their port of ST is by no means as polished and well done as their Port of the FS1 Campaign...
Originally posted by Nuke
with the rapid assault of the lucifer fleet i dont see how the gti had the time to build a ship the size of the hades.
...Why wouldn't they? Just because they're still fighting the Shivans doesn't mean that all industry and business suddenly grinds to a halt! The Hades was obviously constructed AFTER Luci's destruction, likely during the mopping up of Shivan forces (when they were percieved to be 'all but defeated' and thus no longer a threat to lose any sleep over), so i'm sure that the construction of the SuperDestroyer would have gone unhindered in the GTI's secret (and probably VERY well defended) Shipyards...
Originally posted by aldo_14
think...maybe a bit like the Germany army after losing Stalingrad in WW2.
That's a pretty apt analogy come to think of it...
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
That's a pretty apt analogy come to think of it...
Derail: That analogy is so wrong on so many levels that I cannot even comprehend it.
-
Originally posted by Janos
Derail: That analogy is so wrong on so many levels that I cannot even comprehend it.
...How's that...?
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
...Also, you should really trying playing the ORIGINAL before judging the actual game. Sure, the FS Port is pretty good, but their port of ST is by no means as polished and well done as their Port of the FS1 Campaign...
Why would the Port team waste valuable time doing more than needed to make the original/crappy ST playable when they could be putting that effort into ST Reborn?
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
...How's that...?
Uhh.
We can draw analogies between destruction of Lucifer - apparently a strategical command place - and loss of 6th army in Stalingrad (which would be a moral loss).
However, after destruction of Lucifer the Shivan morale plummeted, they didn't bring new assets, did not really do any prevalent counterattacks and were quickly pocketed and decimated. After Operation Uranus and Saturn the Soviets were pushing back the Germans, but Manstein's forces counterattacked successfully. In summer the Germans did another attack, Kursk - which was a clear strategical defeat for them.
However, the effect of Stalingrad has been somewhat exaggerated. Germany's industrial capacity only geared for complete wartime production AFTER Stalingrad. They launched several more or less successful attacks and the war lasted for over 2 years after the Paulus's army had surrendered. The Soviet production, however, was going fine and they were throwing new assets into the battle. Allied air campaign damaged the Germany's industrial base, which in turn severely affected their capability of manufacture, transport and deploy new forces, weaponry and all that jazz. Germany certainly didn't become disarranged after Stalingrad, and quite a lot of knowledge earned the hard way was later put on use - on both sides.
Also, Germany did not lose it's HQ or planning center. In Stalingrad, they lost an asset - 6th Army - but not the means or know-how of waging war and how to use what they got. Shivans lost their command elements. It's a huge difference. Loss of Lucifer would be like a CVBG losing the carrier itself, the main projector of power and the head of planning and operations.
I never though I would discuss THIS, but hey, it's fun.
-
I wasn't comparing Stalingrad to the loss of the Lucifer in terms of the material loss, but in the historical perspective that it can/is seen as the beginning of the turning of the tide (IIRC the first major German defeat, and the furthest east they got), but - like the remnant Shivan fleet in FS1 - it scarcely signalled the enemy (Germany) dissolving.
I'm not sure there is a direct (historical) analogy for the Shivan fleet in FS1.
-
Not on a strategic level. Perhaps a tactical one...
Originally posted by Nuke
with the rapid assault of the lucifer fleet i dont see how the gti had the time to build a ship the size of the hades. its sad to see such a worthless parasite strapped to the back of such a great game.
You must have missed the fact that GTI knew about the Shivans before everybody else did. And had Shivan help in building the Hades!
-
How were the missions poorly designed?
The last one was kind of dumb because the hades just sat there, but the others seemed fine to me.
-
Burn the ****ing heretic.
-
You mean me?
-
he means nuke...i think
-
Anyone who doesn't like ST.
-
Originally posted by DarthWang
How were the missions poorly designed?
The last one was kind of dumb because the hades just sat there, but the others seemed fine to me.
if the first two missions dont make it self explanitory. as much as i enjoy blow **** up missions, those were kinda rediculous. the objectives list didnt group out what needed to be shot down, unlike an fs1/fs2 mission. other little annoyances as well. not sure if its because of the way it was ported, but damn those missions were not on par with ther ones from fs 1 and 2, and they werent all that fun either. also it was much less immersive and the story seemed of poor quality.
-
Originally posted by BlackDove
Anyone who doesn't like ST.
:wtf:
ST wasn't very well conceived... Hell, The Great War Part 2 was better conceived...
ST:R may be good, and hopefully can clear ST's name, but until it's out, no one will know.
-
I think it will. :)
There seem to be a lot more ST-related threads recently. Not sure why, but if this builds anticipation for ST:R, it's a good thing. :)
-
Originally posted by Raa
:wtf:
ST wasn't very well conceived
Heretic
Burn
-
Any mission which has people sticking an elastic band on the joystick and walking off to get a cup of tea can't claim to have been well concieved.
-
I also hated Silent Threat. The last mission was like as if it had been done by a complete FREDing novice.
I bet that 9 out of 10 FRED Academy missions' first versions are better than that mission. I don't remember the others very well, all I remember is that I had to protect some(or only one) escape pod until they/it reached the jump point. That mission was also abhorable.
-
For that matter, any mission that asks you to singlehandedly destroy a hostile superdestroyer with only your primaries isn't exactly stellar. Of course, I think the idea behind ST was worth persuing (the Hades remains one of my favorite canon Terran ship designs aesthetically), it's just that the end result was quite lackluster.
-
The idea of the GTI revolution was brilliant and only added more depth to the storyline. Unfortunately although some of the missions were okay others were executed with outstanding incompetence.
The final mission is the icing on the cake though. If you play as a bomber it's a little lackluster and a definate poor ending to the campaign but if you play as a fighter it's abysmal.
@TopAce. It's not just that all the FA missions that I've played are better, I doubt I'd even assign anyone something that idiotic in the first place. :D
As Stratcomm says, taking down a superdestroyer with primaries? Didn't anyone from :v: playtest that mission?
-
The mission was probably a lot easier with the 'big damage' flag non-existant.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
For that matter, any mission that asks you to singlehandedly destroy a hostile superdestroyer with only your primaries isn't exactly stellar. Of course, I think the idea behind ST was worth persuing (the Hades remains one of my favorite canon Terran ship designs aesthetically), it's just that the end result was quite lackluster.
If you're any good at escort, you're using a dozen Ursas, not just your primaries.
The mission still sucks ass.
-
* goes off to try ST *
-
Originally posted by StratComm
For that matter, any mission that asks you to singlehandedly destroy a hostile superdestroyer with only your primaries isn't exactly stellar. Of course, I think the idea behind ST was worth persuing (the Hades remains one of my favorite canon Terran ship designs aesthetically), it's just that the end result was quite lackluster.
What if your primaries are beams or shivan super lasers?
-
Originally posted by DarthWang
What if your primaries are beams or shivan super lasers?
Then you are looking at a whole new level of mission creation silliness ;)
-
I once built a mission with custom cheat codes using the 'key-pressed' command. Some of them caused a bunch of big targets to warp in that you could shoot with Shivan Super Lasers and get more points.
-
i take it st was interplay's idea. to charge $20 for that (back when it came out, iirc), seems like a publisher's tactic to me.
-
i think they stuck it to FS1 as a value pack.
-
I think that the final mission of ST would have been better if the destroyer you were based on (GTD Soyokaze IIRC)(sp?) had jumped in to provide assistance as well, throwing in additonal escort fighters. Then the Hades could have displayed her new teeth in the form of shivan beam cannons (or superlasers had it been for the original FS1 engine), prompting the player to knock out those turrets to prevent the destruction of the Soyokaze.
-
Hey, if the Superlasers on the Hades were ANYTHING like those on Luci, the Soyokaze wouldn't have lasted nearly long enough for the player to knock out the cannons, but still, and intruiging idea...
-
You know...with that mission I managed to take the Hades down to 10% in the first 4 minutes of its arrival. I had the perfect attack strategy (all bombers with Synaptics and bombs) and I never had to get an elastic band to take the Hades out.
Took a few minutes at the most.
Stupid yes but I managed to tactically beat that mission in a very short period of time.
-
I've always taken out the Hades in under seven minutes of its arrival.
-
i used the time compression feature many times whilst playing the fs port :D
-
I simply flew a bomber and kept rearming :)
-
Wrong the German army wasnt defeated at stalingrad the German army was defeated when they stared the war agains Russia and when they lost the whole Army Group Center. That was the begining of the end for the german army the start of the war with russia
-
It's a matter of opinion when the Germans sealed their fate. Starting the War with Russia, the Dash for Stalingrad, whatever! The fact remains that you can argue that they lost the war ANYWHERE. I like to believe that the war was lost back in 1919, when Ebb (or something starting with 'E', i forget his name) failed to tell his comrade (who's name i've also forgotten) that he wanted Germany to be reformed back into a Monarchy, and his comrade announced that Germany was to become a Republic; begetting the Weimar, begetting NSDAP, begetting Hitler becoming Chancellor, begetting...well, you get the picture...
...anyhoo, i've found a way to kill the Hades in no time flat - screw Silent Threat! Play FS2!!...
-
Originally posted by AlphaOne
Wrong the German army wasnt defeated at stalingrad the German army was defeated when they stared the war agains Russia and when they lost the whole Army Group Center. That was the begining of the end for the german army the start of the war with russia
Army Group Centre was destroyed in 1944s' Operation Bagration, after the Battle of Stalingrad was lost in 1943. This was after the Russians had begun their counter-attack, including winning the Battle of Kursk and liberating Kiev.
I wouldn't thus define that as the turning of the tide, as the tide had already demonstratably turned. Likewise for the initial invasion; had the Germans managed to achieve their intended rapid victory over the Soviet Union - as was possible during the commencement of Operation Barbarossa - then it would have been no 'turning'. The key point here is the definition of when the war turned against the Germans; I'd reckon that first sign would have been Stalingrad, although I guess you could perhaps attribute it to the earlier battle of Moscow (which halted the German blitzkreig).
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I wouldn't thus define that as the turning of the tide, as the tide had already demonstratably turned. Likewise for the initial invasion; had the Germans managed to achieve their intended rapid victory over the Soviet Union - as was possible during the commencement of Operation Barbarossa - then it would have been no 'turning'. The key point here is the definition of when the war turned against the Germans; I'd reckon that first sign would have been Stalingrad, although I guess you could perhaps attribute it to the earlier battle of Moscow (which halted the German blitzkreig).
Actually, while the entire Operation would have done much, much better, had it started on the pre-arranged date - Barbarossa was delayed until the 22nd thanks to the ineptitude of the Italian "War Machine" (no disrespect, but they REALLY screwed over their allies, the Germans :p) - it is highly doubtful that the Operation would have succeeded. As the predecesor to Speer as Minister of Munitions (i forget his name, but he died in a plane crash that Speer was 'talked out of going on' by Hitler the night before *taps nose*) plainly pointed out; the Germans were by no means equipped to fight a war in Russia, as they planned to Bltizkreig over the entirety of the Soviet Union - an impossible mission - and as such were doomed even before the fighting had begun. So, even if you ignored the persistant cock-ups by the Armies involved (a big one being the gigantic traffic jam created when the 6th Army turning South ran into the 4th Panzer Army turning North), not to mention the ineptitude of German High Command at the time (a bloody Glass of Water would have done a better job than they did), there wasn't a chance in hell the Germans could have achieved their 'Goals' in Russia, hell, i'd go so far as to say that when Germany became dedicated to an invasion of Russia - a feat that no man throughout history has been able to accomplish, and there have been many attempts - was the turning point of their domination of Europe...*sigh* giving a speil about WWII always makes my fingers tired...what was this thread about again...?
-
Actualy it wasnt the german high command that made the mistakes it was Hirler(I for one am greatfull he didnt leave the job of overseeing the war to his generals) . Manstein actualy said to hitler if he knows what exactly is to conquer Russia if he knew what that means. But regardless if the generals had the last word Europe might have actaly spoken german and we (europeans) might actualy salute now in the old mannor of "Heil Hitler" . I for one am convinced of this !
But regardless the fact that the Hades was constructed during war time is by no mean surprising. Especialy if it was constructed by the GTI. The fact that they had shivan help is at least in mi mind clear. There was no way they could of implemented that much shivan tech and got it to work in such a short time if they had not had help!
I do admit that I didnt find it to be that much of a problem. I mean I have more dificulty taking down a Aeoleus or a Deimos or Sobeck but eh....that is me...!
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
hell, i'd go so far as to say that when Germany became dedicated to an invasion of Russia - a feat that no man throughout history has been able to accomplish, and there have been many attempts
Except for the Mongols of course. They pretty much took everything they wanted in that country :p
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
I've always taken out the Hades in under seven minutes of its arrival.
I flew a Ulysess and kept flying across the ditch in the middle of the Hades really close so the Lokis couldn't get me, back and forth and back and forth at 1/3 throttle, I would get about 2% of the hull down every run until it was 1%, then I would move to the rear by the engines and shoot from long range then run away so I didn't get caught in the blast.
Probably not the best way, but it felt more realistic.
-
I thought that ST was worth the price just for the user-created single missions. In particular, I loved the seven-mission Destiny of Peace campaign; the storyline for that was better than that of the main ST campaign. :) As for ST itself, the only two really bad missions that stand out in my mind are the one where you have to protect the Krios's escape pods (has anyone ever managed to save all eight without cheats?) and the final mission, for aforementioned reasons. Even with the uber-strong Hades, that last mission would have been manageable if not for the infinite wing of six Lokis that quickly finished off my wingmates and the Fenris cruiser that jumps in. I beat that one by hiding right underneath one of the engine nacelles, where the AI couldn't discover me, and applying a good helping of time compression and rubber band. :p Another mission which I seem to remember in a negative light is one where you had to capture a Faustus from right under the nose of a Typhon; I had a devil of a time just protecting the Elysium transports, and I don't think I was ever able to kill the Typhon. The one mission that really stood out to me as well-done was the one where you had to recover the volatile cargo from the asteroid field near an Arcadia; the hidden enemy Chronos freighters among the friendly convoy were a nice touch.
-
It's one of my main faults that I simply can't remember good things about a campaign I didn't like at all. So I don't remember that mission with the Faustus under the Typhon.
-
IIRc Destiny of Peace had some really horrible scripting issues in the last couple of missions, though. Namely being able to destroy 2 destroyers in the 2nd last mission, that popped up unharmed and on your side in the last mission.
Otherwise a really good campaign, though.
-
I've never understood the community's "rubber-band" rantings.
You all must've been playing on Medium/Easy and below for that to happen.
-
So? What the f**k does the difficulty level people play at have to do with whether a mission is poorly designed or not?
-
I remember that for FS1, I created a campaign in which a second Lucifer appears. The second Lucifer comes with a massive armada of over 10 Demons, and hundreds of Cruisers, tens of thousands of fighters.
In a last ditch effort, the GTD Crusader, the flagship of the GTA, amasses the entire Terran fleet of Orions. The PVN does the same and we both have a massive, bloody war against the Shivan fleet. :) :) :)
Best campaign I ever made. Some missions could be considered "Battle of Endor" themed that worked exceedingly well....
A pity I no longer have it...
So, in my campaign, the Shivans are no longer over-confident, nor disorganized. They are hell-bent on wiping out the GTA and PVN and we are hell-bent on killing them. :)
-
Originally posted by Lone Knight
A pity I no longer have it...
:( Why not?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
So? What the f**k does the difficulty level people play at have to do with whether a mission is poorly designed or not?
Exactly. A good mission functions correctly under all difficulty skills.
-
I say all missions should be optimised for Medium. Make the difficulty harder if you wish, but I don't think the FREDer should suffer with optimizing for Hard, too.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
:( Why not?
It was made for FS1 several years ago. It got lost either through me uninstalling it or deleting it. I may remake it for FS 1 and/or 2 if I have the time.
-
It takes a little extra time but with fred you can "REALLY" customize each level.
For instance with insane the users will face ALL generals for enemy AI. An assasin flight(a flight spawned to specifically attack Alpha1) or two would make it real exciting:D
On hard it would be mostly Colonels and a general or two, no assasin flight. On medium mostly majors and a colonel or two no assasins. Medium would be mostly cap and a major or two. Easy would be all caps. No need for very easy :eek:
This is the exact mission leveling structure for the campaign we are making now.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
So? What the f**k does the difficulty level people play at have to do with whether a mission is poorly designed or not?
It has to do with the fact it works with one setting and it doesn't with the other.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Exactly. A good mission functions correctly under all difficulty skills.
No.
"Good mission" has nothing to do with a difficulty setting.
-
If I may just give my opinion on ST...
It could have been much better, and I was quite disappointed. The last level was terrible, 'cause I was in an Ursa, yet couldn't rearm 'cause there were fighters swarming around (Which apparently couldn't find me... o_O ) and they killed the rearm ship.
However, Silent Threat /is/ canon, and it gave me something to do, if nothing else...
(As a side note, I just found the shinemapped pics of the Fenris/Leviathan... Holy crap, SCP d00ds, GET SHINEMAPS WORKING ON ATI! NOW! @_@ )
-
This all boils down to BD being one of those fanatics. Like the kids in the HalfLife forums. Blind fanatacism. Truly sad.
-
Originally posted by TopAce
I say all missions should be optimised for Medium. Make the difficulty harder if you wish, but I don't think the FREDer should suffer with optimizing for Hard, too.
I remember that Volition actually balanced the missions for 'Easy.' However, efforts were made to ensure that they were still pretty beatable up to Hard.
-
I remember the mission where you are piloting, what was it, Ursa class bombers and you needed to protect the escape pods.....what a hard level....
-
Originally posted by BlackDove
"Good mission" has nothing to do with a difficulty setting.
If I made a ship mod that only worked 50% of the time without crashing FS, or programmed a... program that only worked under a specific set of conditions, both cases would be an unnacceptable failure.
Making a mission which only works under a certain set of assumptions about player actions and difficulty settings is failing to meet the needs of the player, and it's not more acceptable than buggy software or dodgy mods.
It can still be a bad mission with all these taken into account (although anyone intelligent enough to consider these factors should be clever enough to make a good mission), but if you leave in bugs because you only play it in a certain way, then it's definately a bad mission.
-
Originally posted by Grimloq
(As a side note, I just found the shinemapped pics of the Fenris/Leviathan... Holy crap, SCP d00ds, GET SHINEMAPS WORKING ON ATI! NOW! @_@ )
This what you're after?
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,33061.0.html
-
Originally posted by Raa
This all boils down to BD being one of those fanatics. Like the kids in the HalfLife forums. Blind fanatacism. Truly sad.
Nah, I just understood[/i] what the whole thing was about - a concept lost on many people here. Truly sad.
Originally posted by aldo_14
If I made a ship mod that only worked 50% of the time without crashing FS, or programmed a... program that only worked under a specific set of conditions, both cases would be an unnacceptable failure.
Making a mission which only works under a certain set of assumptions about player actions and difficulty settings is failing to meet the needs of the player, and it's not more acceptable than buggy software or dodgy mods.
It can still be a bad mission with all these taken into account (although anyone intelligent enough to consider these factors should be clever enough to make a good mission), but if you leave in bugs because you only play it in a certain way, then it's definately a bad mission.
Agreed, however from my end, it always worked flawlessly. Granted, the bugs may be there, but no matter how many times I attempted to re-produce them, it was _never_ buggy to me and my way of playing.
Yes, it was obviously rushed. Yes, there were ways to acknowledge that and move on, because like it or not, the game DOES give you a certain set of options which make the mission work. It happens. Move on and do it in the way it's possible to do.
I'd understand if it was broken beyond repair, and you went "Oh my, catastrophic failiure".
But it does work.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
If I made a ship mod that only worked 50% of the time without crashing FS, or programmed a... program that only worked under a specific set of conditions, both cases would be an unnacceptable failure.
Making a mission which only works under a certain set of assumptions about player actions and difficulty settings is failing to meet the needs of the player, and it's not more acceptable than buggy software or dodgy mods.
It can still be a bad mission with all these taken into account (although anyone intelligent enough to consider these factors should be clever enough to make a good mission), but if you leave in bugs because you only play it in a certain way, then it's definately a bad mission.
All true, but you have not mentioned difficulty here. ;)
In my opinion, it's acceptable if a mission is hard enough if you have to replay it once or twice, but replaying the mission since the beginning for four or more times suggests bad game balance. Not to mention that if you have to do this if you lose the mission five seconds before you could complete it(*cough* Derelict *cought*).
-
Originally posted by TopAce
All true, but you have not mentioned difficulty here. ;)
In my opinion, it's acceptable if a mission is hard enough if you have to replay it once or twice, but replaying the mission since the beginning for four or more times suggests bad game balance. Not to mention that if you have to do this if you lose the mission five seconds before you could complete it(*cough* Derelict *cought*).
I think the odd, really hard mission is perfectly acceptable. I know that there was more than one or that variety in the FS2 campaign, why not in user-made missions as well?
-
Originally posted by Grimloq
(As a side note, I just found the shinemapped pics of the Fenris/Leviathan... Holy crap, SCP d00ds, GET SHINEMAPS WORKING ON ATI! NOW! @_@ )
Shinemaps have worked on ATI cards when using OpenGL for quite a while now.
-
Well, last time I tried it, the OGL didn't work... Eh. I'll mess around.
-
If you're gonna try AIT+OGL+Latest Cats, I'd suggest using THIS (http://icculus.org/~taylor/fso/willrobinson/20050602-win32r.rar) build. I've experienced some "weirdness" with any of taylor's newer builds under OGL. Not that there isn'e weirdness in this build, but its not something that can't be overcome. There's also an OAL-enabled build of this release available.