Jump to content

Welcome to Ace Combat Skies
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

Kono/PA Don't Want To Do Trench/Tunnel Run Missions Anymore, But Feel Obligated To Put Them in AC7 Because of AC Fans


63 replies to this topic

#41
Brain Golem

Brain Golem

    Poison of Snake

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,701 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Plane:F-117A Nighthawk

I've brought up ideas before, even posted them here. Remove the universal all targetting "missile" with dedicated weapons. Have a large number of weapons, even loadout customization. All of a sudden that F-15C becomes near useless for A2G and that A-10 can carry an excellent variety of A2G weapons all at once. They start to fill their own niche. Different weapons for different tasks: HARMs for SAMs and ground radars, anti tank missiles (quicker reload time) for lower damage. Anti ship missiles for larger amounts of damage, longer range, long reload time. Different weapons for different targets. Many possibilities.

That's just going to lead to everyone taking multiroles with one air special and one ground special so it'd end up playing nearly identically to the current system though. Instead of using standards for air and XAGM/LAGM/SFFS for ground I'll just take use QAAMs for air and XAGM/LAGM/SFFS for ground.

I guess it does mean fighters/attackers will be kinda shit since they'll be pretty useless on maps which have a mix of air and ground targets though. Did you want that to happen? Because that doesn't sound good.


  • 0

#42
PositronCannon

PositronCannon

    very likely to be not ded

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,815 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain
  • Squad:Funky Arrows Unit
  • Plane:EF2000 Typhoon

Exactly. It sounds like overcomplicating things just for the sake of "realism" anyway. I've heard plenty of ideas on how to "refresh" AC through the years and the only ones I've ever liked are the ones the developers themselves have enacted in AC04 and AC6. It remains to be seen if AC7 will be the next evolution or just a failed attempt; so far it's looking more like the latter to me, but going for more realism isn't the answer either. Rather, I would ask myself "does this change make the game more fun?", and toggling through 3-4 weapons instead of 2 doesn't sound like it'd really add any fun to me, just micromanagement, which is exactly what I don't want in a fast-paced arcade game. Plenty of sims out there for that.


Edited by PositronCannon, 15 February 2017 - 08:30 AM.

  • 0

#43
Flogger23m

Flogger23m

    Seasoned Chicken Nugget

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

That's just going to lead to everyone taking multiroles with one air special and one ground special so it'd end up playing nearly identically to the current system though. Instead of using standards for air and XAGM/LAGM/SFFS for ground I'll just take use QAAMs for air and XAGM/LAGM/SFFS for ground.

I guess it does mean fighters/attackers will be kinda shit since they'll be pretty useless on maps which have a mix of air and ground targets though. Did you want that to happen? Because that doesn't sound good.

 

Well my idea would require the following:

 

1) Doing away with special weapons, with exception to the 1-2 unique experimental sci-fi planes. Instead there would just be weapons, as I outlined above. 

 

2) Weapons would be based around a purpose, so no more generic missiles or "XAGM" and the like. Of course, with a loadout system, you can always just select 2 weapons if you don't want to cycle through a bunch.

 

3) Missions/maps would have to take any gameplay changes into account, which is what this thread is about. Multi-role missions would have to have enough targets for air to air and air to ground aircraft to be passable. You don't have to kill every single thing on the map, but instead plan what you want to hit. Give us a bit of a challenge.

 

I'd take some changes like this otherwise the game will feel too stale, IMO. Currently some not so fun missions or gimmicks are thrown in to change the pace up. In AC4 we had to be below an altitude of 5000 to avoid the super weapon, in AC5 they simply reversed it to being above 5000. What is next, between 2500 and 7500? Point being, it gets old and isn't as fun as it was the first time. The tunnel missions are probably the most boring because they're linear. And they rely more on quick reflexes than thinking. Of all the missions I replay, those few are the ones I skip over. Then you have some of those really odd ones, like the one in which you put out gas in AC5. It just doesn't fit in the game very well, isn't that interesting and feels unnecessarily cheesy. Although 5 had the worst mission design of the PS2 games, but that is another topic.

 

I'd rather engage my brain a little bit and spend 20 seconds thinking about how I want to tackle a mission and selecting the right tools for the job. What I don't want to see is lots of unlocks (traditional earning cash by completing a mission to buy planes is okay), invisible upgrades that magically make your plane 3% faster and the like. As mentioned, if they make changes, makes them based around the subject matter. Don't copy MMOs, Borderlands and the like. Or we'll get Assault Horizon 2.0. And I'd rather have a re-hashed AC4 than that.


  • 0

#44
PositronCannon

PositronCannon

    very likely to be not ded

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,815 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain
  • Squad:Funky Arrows Unit
  • Plane:EF2000 Typhoon
I'd rather engage my brain a little bit and spend 20 seconds thinking about how I want to tackle a mission and selecting the right tools for the job. What I don't want to see is lots of unlocks (traditional earning cash by completing a mission to buy planes is okay), invisible upgrades that magically make your plane 3% faster and the like. As mentioned, if they make changes, makes them based around the subject matter. Don't copy MMOs, Borderlands and the like. Or we'll get Assault Horizon 2.0. And I'd rather have a re-hashed AC4 than that.

 

At risk of sounding like a broken record, AC6 already started going in that direction with its mission design, it just seems like PA is ignoring its existence as far as gameplay goes, unfortunately. It actually works both ways: you can tailor your plane/weapon choice to the mission, and you can also tailor the mission to your plane/weapon by choosing the more appropriate operations. I would like to see a further refinement of that system, but again, AC7 is far more likely to regress to AC5 levels than anything else.

 

Still, I wouldn't want a system so limiting that you are practically forced into certain choices for each mission. I see plane/weapon selection as a more of a "choose your own difficulty" thing, nevermind just plain variety, and not something that should be the focus of the game.


  • 0

#45
Broth3r

Broth3r

    ゴゴゴゴゴ

  • Members
  • 6,906 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lisbon, Portugal
  • Squad:DAS FUNK
  • Plane:JAS-39C Gripen

I'd take some changes like this otherwise the game will feel too stale, IMO. Currently some not so fun missions or gimmicks are thrown in to change the pace up. In AC4 we had to be below an altitude of 5000 to avoid the super weapon, in AC5 they simply reversed it to being above 5000. What is next, between 2500 and 7500? Point being, it gets old and isn't as fun as it was the first time. The tunnel missions are probably the most boring because they're linear. And they rely more on quick reflexes than thinking. Of all the missions I replay, those few are the ones I skip over. Then you have some of those really odd ones, like the one in which you put out gas in AC5. It just doesn't fit in the game very well, isn't that interesting and feels unnecessarily cheesy. Although 5 had the worst mission design of the PS2 games, but that is another topic.

 

Been done, actually - variable altitude burst missiles in JA.

 

In either case, the issue is neither that bad, nor is your proposal a good solution for it. There have been good and bad gimmicks in the series; one should focus on their quality, rather than their existence. For example, ACX executes altitude limits really well. When fighting the Gleipnir, you're forced above or below its altitude to avoid its attacks, but critically, you retain full combat capability in the process. If you're a good enough pilot to continue dogfighting despite the low altitude and the shockwaves, the game allows you do so. It's an additional layer of challenge, rather that a hard limitation on gameplay. The closes thing it has to a canyon mission, Rolling Thunder, follows the same principle: missile attacks frequently force you under 800m, but the canyon is open ended and allows you to plot your own routes back and forth, rather than fly linearly.

 

I believe you're too focused on the values of strategy and realism, where the tenants of good mission design go much further than that.


  • 0

#46
Brain Golem

Brain Golem

    Poison of Snake

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,701 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Plane:F-117A Nighthawk

2) Weapons would be based around a purpose, so no more generic missiles or "XAGM" and the like. Of course, with a loadout system, you can always just select 2 weapons if you don't want to cycle through a bunch.

Why wouldn't XAGM exist? It has a purpose, doesn't it? And shit, even if it doesn't, I'll just take QAAM/SFFS/LASM then. They cover pretty much everything, so the only real difference from the current system is now I get to have three special weapons instead of one, and I can spam them more since I assume they'll come with more ammo to make up for not having standards.

This change really doesn't seem like it'd add much. You act like it'll add great amounts of strategy and planning, but it won't. You just take the weapons that are appropriate and you're done. All it'll do is make it slightly more annoying to play since there'll be way more switching back and forth depending on what you're aiming at.

 

I don't think the game really needs to worry that much about being stale at this point. It's been a very very long time since the last good singleplayer AC. They don't really need to make any radical changes, they just need to make a good game and that'll be enough.


  • 0

#47
Hue

Hue

    Top Gun

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,298 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Plane:Su-35 Flanker-E

Why wouldn't XAGM exist? It has a purpose, doesn't it? And shit, even if it doesn't, I'll just take QAAM/SFFS/LASM then. They cover pretty much everything, so the only real difference from the current system is now I get to have three special weapons instead of one, and I can spam them more since I assume they'll come with more ammo to make up for not having standards.

This change really doesn't seem like it'd add much. You act like it'll add great amounts of strategy and planning, but it won't. You just take the weapons that are appropriate and you're done. All it'll do is make it slightly more annoying to play since there'll be way more switching back and forth depending on what you're aiming at.

 

I don't think the game really needs to worry that much about being stale at this point. It's been a very very long time since the last good singleplayer AC. They don't really need to make any radical changes, they just need to make a good game and that'll be enough.

 

It seems that his fix is too superficial to work, for the problem is in the core mechanics dumbing themselves down over time. Things like missile mechanics, general combat mechanics, making attackers have some purpose other than weapon loadouts on any difficulty, proper planning of aircraft tiers, giving aircraft more distinct styles that make them fly uniquely even if that would require a more advanced FM. AC 6 was one of the more successful attempts at changing the core, but it didn't catch on for multiple reasons, with being an Xbox exclusive in a series originally for the Playstation series of consoles being one of those reasons. But it did try to get rid of the circlejerk, it did try really expanding the scale of combat and it did try making planes feel unique: a trait that was lacking since AC 4. Core mechanic changes those were with the possible exclusion of scale of combat. AC AH was also an attempt at changing core mechanics, but it was executed rather badly because the devs didn't seem to see past the aesthetics.

 

However, that's what would be required to make the AC series no longer peak at AC 3/AC 4 in gameplay, not exactly to make an AC that is considered ok to AC standards.


  • 0

#48
Flogger23m

Flogger23m

    Seasoned Chicken Nugget

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

AC6 is the one of the games I have not played much, but I do recall the flight model feeling slightly better. Probably the "best" and most ideal for an AC game, but I only played the first mission. You wouldn't want to add much if any more complexity to the flight dynamics than 6. Except maybe drag depending on weapon loadout. Would only make sense in a MP mode with limited (realistic) loadouts. SP campaign with 60-80 missiles? Pointless.


  • 0

#49
Grimace

Grimace

    Top Gun

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Santiago, Chile.
  • Plane:Su-37 Flanker-F
But, i want my tunnel anyway.

Edited by Grimace, 18 February 2017 - 01:54 AM.

  • 0

#50
Angelfire

Angelfire

    Straight outta Belka

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,426 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Banterbury
  • Squad:Belkan Air Force
  • Plane:F-14A Tomcat

If they do do a tunnel (which will probably happen), I kinda want it more complex than the simple straight-line or gentle-turn tubes we've seen so far. Something like the Avalon 'tunnel' or something even more complex.

 

Hell, they could do a proper cave system and have a tunnel and canyon map.


  • 1

#51
PositronCannon

PositronCannon

    very likely to be not ded

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,815 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain
  • Squad:Funky Arrows Unit
  • Plane:EF2000 Typhoon

For all the utter shit JA was, I gotta admit its tunnel mission is pretty cool, just way too short. 3D tunnels and all.


  • 1

#52
Georgia Ace

Georgia Ace

    New and improved

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbus, GA
  • Plane:F/A-18F Super Hornet

If they do do a tunnel (which will probably happen), I kinda want it more complex than the simple straight-line or gentle-turn tubes we've seen so far. Something like the Avalon 'tunnel' or something even more complex.

 

Hell, they could do a proper cave system and have a tunnel and canyon map.

 

Maybe something like the Second Death Star Mission from X-wing Alliance on the PC. Like you have multiple ways to reach the Core, all the while you have lots of hazards to dodge plus TIE fighters actively tailing you.

 

Like imagine if Hamilton was actually a major threat as you go down the tunnel, instead of just holding down the button for thrust and him becoming an afterthought. 


  • 0

#53
Angelfire

Angelfire

    Straight outta Belka

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,426 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Banterbury
  • Squad:Belkan Air Force
  • Plane:F-14A Tomcat

Maybe something like the Second Death Star Mission from X-wing Alliance on the PC. Like you have multiple ways to reach the Core, all the while you have lots of hazards to dodge plus TIE fighters actively tailing you.

 

Like imagine if Hamilton was actually a major threat as you go down the tunnel, instead of just holding down the button for thrust and him becoming an afterthought. 

 

ACES's tunnel sadly didn't get interesting until the end where they threw in the closing doors and obstacles, and it became actually challenging to avoid splattering yourself against a wall - or those damn crane things right before the end. They could have made it more twisty before you reached Bartlett to even it out.


  • 1

#54
Hue

Hue

    Top Gun

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,298 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Plane:Su-35 Flanker-E

ACES's tunnel sadly didn't get interesting until the end where they threw in the closing doors and obstacles, and it became actually challenging to avoid splattering yourself against a wall - or those damn crane things right before the end. They could have made it more twisty before you reached Bartlett to even it out.

 

More importantly, they could have added a checkpoint or something right before the tunnel.


Edited by Hue, 19 February 2017 - 10:34 AM.

  • 0

#55
Grimace

Grimace

    Top Gun

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Santiago, Chile.
  • Plane:Su-37 Flanker-F

More importantly, they could have added a checkpoint or something right before the tunnel.


It's NOT the tunnel's fault that you crashed.
  • 0

#56
Hue

Hue

    Top Gun

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,298 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Plane:Su-35 Flanker-E

It's NOT the tunnel's fault that you crashed.

 

True, but several minutes before having the opportunity to try again gets on one's nerves. It's like trying to play IWBTG with each death requiring one to watch the entirety of the Bee Movie.


  • 0

#57
Grimace

Grimace

    Top Gun

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Santiago, Chile.
  • Plane:Su-37 Flanker-F
Yeah i give you that lol, i think it did happened to most of us specially when trying to go full speed like a moron.
  • 0

#58
Angelfire

Angelfire

    Straight outta Belka

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,426 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Banterbury
  • Squad:Belkan Air Force
  • Plane:F-14A Tomcat

More importantly, they could have added a checkpoint or something right before the tunnel.

 

They could've added checkpoints in a lot of places (read: Four Horseman, Solitaire, Unsung War) but they didn't until AC6.

 

Not sure why.


  • 0

#59
Grimace

Grimace

    Top Gun

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Santiago, Chile.
  • Plane:Su-37 Flanker-F
Checkpoints? And a lot of people here cry for a realistic gameplay.
  • 0

#60
Hue

Hue

    Top Gun

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,298 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Plane:Su-35 Flanker-E

They could've added checkpoints in a lot of places (read: Four Horseman, Solitaire, Unsung War) but they didn't until AC6.

 

Not sure why.

 

Maybe PA just didn't know how.


  • 0



Reply to this topic



  

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users