Important Message

You are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login.
The content may be outdated and links may not be functional.


To get the latest in Freelancer news, mods, modding and downloads, go to
The-Starport

X3 - The Return

This is where you can discuss your homework, family, just about anything, make strange sounds and otherwise discuss things which are really not related to the Lancer-series. Yes that means you can discuss other games.

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:57 am

Thats because there is no real economy in FL, it caters for arcade fighters instead of any real trading. Within a day, you have no variety in trading, so all you are left with is the combat... which itself is also incredibly stale too. No variety either!

X2's combat is fine for me, I personally like it - its alot more difficult to combat well in X2 than FL - and when taking on a fleet of M2's with an M6, it is a real challenge. The diversity of the community shows that combat and trade are equal focuses for its players alike - many people do focus on combat more than trade (its how they make their money).

However, against combat, there is a severe lack in choice of weaponry or shielding (bog standards only). From what I have read about X3 though, this will be addressed to a certain extent (I doubt we will see FL volumes of weapons!).

The main issue for X2 that I found was the simple fact that its universe was unengaging. It was fine if you were just tradeing and shooting, but not if your exploring... because all the stations show on the sectors as you fly within radar range (large radar ranges), leaving nothing to discover (but discovering stations aren't that exciting either!).
There are no wrecks, no hidden treasures - and although they have pirates in the game, they don't act or behave like pirates. There have been mods to address the this aspect (pirates behaviour) - and some for genral action and fighting.

There is one reason why a majority of scripts focus on the trading though - instead of combat. When you are not in sector, the game engine uses a forumlaic calculation of the stats of your ships to decide the outcome etc. When in sector, it plays it out in "real time" - with the AI trying to outdo itself. However, most of the combat that is undertaken is in the first person - it is you, flying your ship - and attacking. There are no scripts to improve your own fighting, just like there are no scripts to improve your own trading. The scripts are nearly all aimed at your items that work independantly of your commands - such as your trading ships. There is nothing they can do script wise to make your OOS combat better, its the way its done - but there is one heck of a large amount of improvements that can be made to your traders - both OOS, and insector. They were dumb AI until the scripts came along and basically implemented player like decisions to be made.

It was awkward to manage large amounts of stations, it was awkward to mine, it was awkward to make loops and trade route specifics (something I still find). If you didn't have a station, then you had to get your AI Trader ship to go where you told it to go, then when it arrived, you had to buy the commodities, then tell it where to sell it - and wait for it to get there before selling it. The commands for your traders lacked any real AI about it, it required your input near always - which meant you could do little else.
The scripts made for the economy in X2 were made to release the player from having to tell each ship what to do when it landed somewhere - what to buy, to find out if the price was still the best in the sector, or whether it had risen. Now you can have a huge empire where you do nothing, but before all of this - after you had 20 ships you would be going insane by constantly trying to get them to buy/sell items, check all the prices manually and more.

The scripts didn't address the trade because it was a trading game - but because the AI was so hopeless in the trading, that it cocked up all you wanted it to do! IMO that is why you find the concentration of scripts on trading, because it addressed that issue to make playing more pleasurable, and less of a hair pulling out experience.

moving forward though, I really hope (although the beta teams are being rightly tight lipped ) that they have expanded upon the factions, increasing the diversity -, because the pirates on offer were merely cannon fodder only, and meek cannon fodder at that. I do know that there are more ships, more variety of weapons and improved AI - so they are also addressing the combat side of things where it was lacking. I also think that they maybe adding a little more substance to the space itself - so its not just stations and ships, but hidden items an treasures, jumpholes, gates not in predictable places etc.

Whether it lives up to my hopes I don't know, there is alot of effort on the interface, graphics and improved AI. Here is hoping that they didn't miss the small details too


Edited by - Mike G on 10/2/2005 6:01:10 AM

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:33 am

Yeah, I totally see what you're saying there. I couldn't even get past the early parts, before trade's really an option, because it just didn't hook me like FL.

The sad (or maybe scary) thing is that ever since I got past the SP campaign in FL, I've been wanting to rebuild all of the Stations and many other things, to add more uniqueness to locations and really give FL a much more "finished" feel. X2 seemed, by comparision, much more empty and generic than FL did, which is part of why I didn't stick with it- I got X2 for free with my video card after playing FL mods for months, and it just didn't compare, especially since I could give a hoot about trading- and I can always go play Free Worlds, Evo., or something other than what I'm building. The "what I'm building" is a reeeeeally big point with me. Yes, I know... I'm a modder... but not just a FL modder... I mod any game that lets me mod Egosoft's blurbs say absolutely nothing about making their engine easy to work with, so I have to assume that it's a pain in the rear.

Which is too bad... because between their surface shaders, normal maps, particle lights, reflectivity and other nice effects, I'll be the first to admit that it looks like the visuals will be drool-worthy. But, if I can't sit down and mod it, without taking months of near-insanity... the long-term appeal is very limited. I dunno... call me weird... but at this point in my life, I buy very few games at full price unless they promise to support modders. I bought HL2. I bought BF2. I bought FL. If Egosoft wants my money, they can talk about how to make content for their engine, so that I can inflict my version of their game design on unsuspecting users

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:52 am

Yeah, although FL's stations look a bit, erm, naff these days - at least you can land and do something - even if its walking to a bar and getting the same old voice files playing There is only a menu to interact with on X2, a big let down for an overall and complete game feel IMO (one which I am sure they aren't changing!). Its not high on my wish list, but it would add to the finished product in a positive way. Adding functionality to the stations would be a nice bonus, but I suppose it doesn't really add anything to the gameplay - probabily why they didn't bother (that and modelling, I kind of feel that they didn't have a team like DA did!).

Now if FL could be made to have nicer graphics (which you hint at ), then it will be a bonus, but only a superficial bonus, but still a bonus. As for modding further, well - Accushot is soooooooooo far in advance of my knowledge, that he knows what he is doing when it comes to the game.

He also said indicated that X2 shouldn't be to tough to do either, and I would imagine that if there was no extension or expansion - that people would undertake a more adventureous stance.

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:22 am

clearly there's no big mystery about having visitable locations on bases/stations, they've been standard space-sim fare since way back when. for x2 I think it was either an oversight, maybe they didn't have the time, or they deliberately left them out, trying to concentrate on a more cerebral experience. initially you don't really notice because the structures themselves are so massive and impressive, but after a while docking just to use a menu is indeed rather dull.

who said Privateer 2 was pants? <shakes fist>

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:25 pm

Mike - Maybe, but the thing that annoys me is why should I have to prove that I own a game in order to download patches? Patches are released to address problems (and/or to add content), and if problems are present in a piece of software, then I would argue that the company in question has an obligation to provide of the patches to all and sundry through the traditional channels. As for EgoSoft's "copy protection" method, it is fundamentally flawed because it only requires one person to download a copy of the patch and then place it on "BitTorrent" or similar which would allow anyone with a pirated copy to obtain it. Unless of course, they use personalised patches which is most unlikely. I do not find such a system very ethical.... Hang on. Haven't we had this discussion before? I feel like we have. Odd .

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:34 pm

i remember the early screens of FL, and some rather loud speculation about it being an mmo

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:59 pm

Yup, as I have said before - I disagree simply because I don't actually see what issue (ethical) it raises...

The patches are non critical updates (the game plays without the updates just fine, they refine gameplay - not allow it to happen) - the game will play fine without them, you don't need patches to play. It doesn't make your system vulnerable to anything, it doesn't cause system instablity either - and since you can uninstall and ask for a refund under your consumer rights (within reason) - I further don't see where there are moral obligations to make every service or improvement for your customers freely available to those whom aren't actually customers . Entering that number is no different from telephoning customer support for any other product. Companies are the same, for example: Orange won't offer assistance or sim updates for those that aren't customers, and you require an account with them to obtain it.

I just don't see where they have moral obligations to do that, which is what ethics are - a moral obligation.

If its just the need to prove you own the game part, well - you have to do that for every game to even play it... if you have no problem with that, then I do not see how entering a code on a site just once to receive unlimited help and patches/improvements etc is any different.

Now companies like Microsoft do have a moral obligation, because if they release a patch to address a vulnerability that either makes operating systems unstable, or vulnerable to hacking/viruses - then they are morally obliged to allow all users to download it (whether registered or illegal) - because otherwise it will aid the propogation of viruses and hackers to cause damage to work and computers worldwide. There is where I can accept they have ethical responsiblities towards both registered, and unregistered (or illegal) users. MS do this by allowing unregistered people to download security and critical updates - therefore fulfilling their moral obligation.

Edited by - Mike G on 10/3/2005 12:38:54 AM

Post Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:27 am

I tend to agree (more or less), however you are acting under the assumption that the patches are "non-critical". One could make the argument that if there is a serious flaw in a game then it can be seen as "critical", even if it may not necessarily make the game unplayable. For example, the PC version of "Fable" does not seem to allow most graphics cards (including mine) to utilise the maximum setting for in-game shadows. The game is still playable, but I see the flaw is nonetheless serious and hence, would like a patch to address this.

Post Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:05 am

It is all about whether the authors intend to exercise their copyrights and police it to their ability to do so.

It isn't an ethical question at all. All Egosoft is saying is that they want proof (no matter how full of holes it may be) that the person seeking patch "paid" for the game ... somehow.

It certainly won't foil those truly intent upon "cheating" the system but it may discourage those who casually engage in "freebies" from trying to take advantage.

*Wonders whether there are enough fogies on the site who remembers the days before the internet when copy machines, VCRs and tape recorders caused similar ruckuses in the world of intellectual property*

Post Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:53 pm

I remember those days Indy, and I can see both sides of the argument, but one of my main concerns (aside from the moral/ethical issues) is the need to provide an email address. I do not feel that ANYONE should be required to provide personal information of any type to a software company after purchasing a product. Privacy is very important to me, and I feel that such a registration system intrudes upon a consumer's privacy. Indeed, the issue of privacy was one of the main reasons why I was so "steamed up" when Valve released HL2 .

Post Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:56 pm

...

The reason why 'net piracy continues to be a non-dead issue is that it combines the utility of all the aforesaid devices, plus several others that weren't even thought about in the 80's.

I remember hacker BBS's, before there was an Internet. They weren't terribly controversial, mainly because getting access to them was rather more complicated and irritating than firing up Limewire, and less likely to score you anything really cool anyhow. I was too young to really get into acoustic-modem nonsense anyhow- I had Bronze Dragon, Prince of Persia, Autoduel and Dark Castle, which was more than enough entertainment for those ancient days. Ah, the joys of 16-color sprites blitting at 15 FPS... analog joysticks and the pure joy of Hellcats Over the Pacific (which, in my mind, still rates as one of the most fun "flight sims" ever made, albeit in 16 shades of gray on a Powerbook 160).

...sigh. Getting old.

Getting back to topic ... at least to some extent...

X3 vs. a FL2 would be an interesting competition. Sadly, whatever rumors have been floating about from the MS side of things have been completely un-substantiated, last April Fool's notwithstanding (that was a good hoax, darn Bargib to heck...).

I'm not sure what game engine I'm going to mod next. This has been bothering me for quite awhile- I thought for a little bit that I'd try modding BF2, but the development/import/export tools that were much-ballyhooed seem to be mainly vaporware still, and I have very little interest in making guns or skins for a game if I cannot re-write fundamental gameplay. BF2 was looking very promising because of the large support for vehicles, and I'm sure that the mods that get developed will be very cool... eventually. But it's not looking like something I can just drop into and work with, and I really prefer messing with game engines where I can step in and start making interesting things right off the bat.

I've been kicking around trying to get some coders to help me build something, but I have a terrible fear of having to deal with people who do things I don't know how to do myself- having worked on one large, promising project that got abandoned by the only person capable of finishing it, I know how frustrating that is, and I don't intend to have it happen ever again.

But all of the "game-engine-kits-for-people-who-don't-code-real-well" things I've looked at, thus far, seem to have a lot of promises that they don't keep (such as promising to support modern features like shadows, bumpmaps et al, but not telling people that such support implies you're a C++ coder who can link DX8-9 features into their SDK, ect.- we're not talking about an on/off script function), so I'm not sure if I can hack out something all by myself or not. And I'm pretty sure I won't get over my fear of coders, either- while I have met nice, responsible ones who do what they say around here, I got very badly burned working on TXC At least my current slate of FL stuff will keep me preoccupied for at least another few months, so that I can put off making decisions

Post Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:30 pm

As for X3 the reunion, this descent computer(2.6 Ghz, 512MB RAM, Radeon9600 Pro), cannot probably keep up with the newer generations of graphics. So on that case, I am usually stuck in the past on this one. It looks pretty cool and I'm surprised to see it come out on a console system.

If I had a higher spec computer, I would probably buy it.

As for the online universe, Jumpgate(By Netdevil) appears to be have a closer match on what online universe and gameplay would be like.

Edited by - Calliloya on 10/3/2005 11:30:07 PM

Post Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:48 pm

Based on what we're seeing in the screenies, I'll be really surprised if it doesn't play pretty badly on anything less than a GeForce 7800 with a 2Ghz Athlon 64 and a gig of DDR. That's just my opinion, of course, but they're throwing a lot of surface shaders onto things, and I don't see many clear signs of really low-fidelity LODs being used- even objects in the far drawing distance seem to be pretty high-poly and the shaders are still being used. This is worrisome, from a performance standard, because shaders are FPS killers for anything but a top-end system- they're CPU-intensive, because much of the math isn't directly supported by most 3D cards yet. Then again, they're showing us X3 at its best, which is probably not what we'll be able to crank out. Which kind've bugs me- it'll be like HL2, which looks wonderful if I crank it way up, but is virtually unplayable, at 15 FPS. It's just like Unreal all over again- the current set of games coming out (and here I have to include some things that aren't out yet, like Serious Sam II) are all using feature-sets that current mid-range systems can't hack at all... and the price gulf right now between mid-range and "decent" is pretty big right now - I've been putting off upgrades for months, hoping that the prices would drop some

Post Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:06 am

There is an other upcoming space-sim game with promising features: Darkstar One ( Link .
The features show that the game will place itself "somewhere in the middle" between FL and X2. They promise "Special missions, for example in canyons, on the surface of planets or inside of planets". But there will be no Multiplayer-part (Source: fansite Darkstar-network)

Publisher is the German Ascaron company. Daniel Dumont has published there the games "Patrizier 1&2" (no idea if this was published in English too). Reason why I mention this here:
This game had a fully functional dynamical trade system. It's not a space sim of course, but you have to trade for getting credits to build up your home city and colonies. Quite an interesting game btw.

Post Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:07 am

Wow! Eve looks amazing! So deep, with plenty of options for development

I might try it. Before I do, has anyone played it? It looks extra complicated.

Edited by - athena on 10/4/2005 4:25:29 AM

Return to Off Topic