Talk about anything Star Wars here!

ISD DEFLECTORS

no avatar
User

Bear_food

Posts

6

Joined

26 Apr 2010, 07:01

Re: ISD DEFLECTORS

by Bear_food » 26 Apr 2010, 17:46

Well you know. I bet this is how they actually are. THey are problably shield generators. But as I said for the bridge. If you think about it. You take out the bridge... soo what, you still have to take down the rest of it because the guns are still functioning. Now if they could do that in this game. Where you could destroy the domes, and it takes out just the bridge's shields. You blow up the bridge and it can still go about, just with no way to maneuver, now that would be interseting! And much more realistic. Still saying though that blue print put up there sells me, cause it is direct relation to the film. I can understand where you are coming from but I really don't think it's much of a co-incidence. Think about writing a screenplay. The a-wing shooting down the dome would be a useless scene. As a matter of fact watch the film closely. After the A-wing blows up the dome, the next scene it has all the the officers shake in reaction from the explosion. They check the panneling, and bam their shields are down. That dome obviously did something to bring the shields down, other wise. A. That scene woud have not been placed or B. When the officer exlplains they lost the shields, they would have reacted to the first scene if you beleive that their is a time or cutting difference. The two scene's are joined. In screen writing nothing is generally ever a "co-incidence" as every scene adds to the story, and generally has purpose. My bet is that originaly Lucas has wrote out a huge battle with the Executor but it was probably cut from the screen due to time. Therefore they had to unfortunately find a quick way to dispose of such a big ship. Giving us somewhat anti climax... although it crashing was pretty cool. But I would have liked to see some B-wing attack the hell out of that thing.

And p.S using battleships today was a horrible reference as battleships or cruisers don't have shield technology. But as for the fact that no other ships have exterior shields... that is a valid point. Keep in mind star destroyers are huge, probably need several shield outputs.
Mahe Lystoise - Best fighter Pilot in the REPUBLIC!
no avatar
User

currican

Posts

1184

Joined

14 Feb 2010, 19:00

Re: ISD DEFLECTORS

by currican » 26 Apr 2010, 18:02

Wookieepedia wrote:There has been some controversy as to whether the domes on Imperial Star Destroyer bridge towers are actually sensor globes, or shield generators. Richard Edlund, one of the SFX artists on ROTJ, noted in the February 1983 issue of Cinefex that they were "radar domes", i.e for sensor purposes.

Later guidebooks from Dorling Kindersley devoted to the worlds and vehicles of the films, performed what was said to be "the most thorough research done on the vehicles" according to a LFL blurb in Star Wars Insider 68. These books also labeled them as sensor globes, but with local-area shielding vanes, instead of being the main shield generators on-board the ship.
"does "multiplayer only" mean it has no singleplayer?"

— Random

OMG! Here they come!
User avatar
User

Sushi

Rank

Developer

Posts

3219

Joined

14 Feb 2010, 05:05

Re: ISD DEFLECTORS

by Sushi » 27 Apr 2010, 00:21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_canon

If you look at the SW canon in the strictness sense, they're sensor globes. They will be as such in this game, too :) We have the shields placed all over the vessel that are very easy to hit with torpedoes.
Image
User avatar
User

arvg

Posts

13

Joined

26 Apr 2010, 06:44

Re: ISD DEFLECTORS

by arvg » 27 Apr 2010, 02:28

I would point out, that as sensor globes, they would still make a very valuable target to hit.

Nothing better than blinding a ship in combat.
User avatar
User

Sushi

Rank

Developer

Posts

3219

Joined

14 Feb 2010, 05:05

Re: ISD DEFLECTORS

by Sushi » 27 Apr 2010, 02:55

arvg wrote:I would point out, that as sensor globes, they would still make a very valuable target to hit.

Nothing better than blinding a ship in combat.

Agreed. We're working on way to do that, too ;)
Image
User avatar
User

sprolf

Posts

40

Joined

12 Apr 2010, 01:02

Location

Nowhere land.

Re: ISD DEFLECTORS

by sprolf » 27 Apr 2010, 04:55

I believe reading that they were the most likely long-range sensors, hence their rather dangerous position - for maximum scanning efficiency at long range, they had to be clear of the rest of the ship. Destroying them wouldn't blind the ship, per se, but it would take its glasses off.
User avatar
User

arvg

Posts

13

Joined

26 Apr 2010, 06:44

Re: ISD DEFLECTORS

by arvg » 27 Apr 2010, 05:40

well we already know that scanners are mountable... making them destructable and thus hampering a Star destroyers ability to see would have a number of key advantages, even, as Sprolf put it, if it is long range.

Presume that a Star Destroyer has a scanning range of 25k...

You want to slip your fleet past it.

You send your snub noses in on a strike mission, blind it to allow the fleet to pass through a blockade... smugglers would find this one the most useful.
no avatar
User

Baron

Posts

114

Joined

13 Apr 2010, 01:23

Re: ISD DEFLECTORS

by Baron » 28 Apr 2010, 02:16

Um, unless they found a way to make players detectable at different ranges, that wouldn't be possible, as regardless of your sensor range, player detection is always the same, according to two variables. Party detection range, and non-party detection range.


However, if W0dk4 or sushi came in here saying they did it, then I would totally not be surprised.
no avatar
User

currican

Posts

1184

Joined

14 Feb 2010, 19:00

Re: ISD DEFLECTORS

by currican » 28 Apr 2010, 13:49

Baron wrote:Um, unless they found a way to make players detectable at different ranges, that wouldn't be possible, as regardless of your sensor range, player detection is always the same, according to two variables. Party detection range, and non-party detection range.


However, if W0dk4 or sushi came in here saying they did it, then I would totally not be surprised.

This ^ and also, you cannot undock without a scanner nor power generator. You'll get that lovely lady saying, "Can't launch without a radar/power plant." - I do it on purpose sometimes just to listen to that lovely voice ^_^

But there was one time I can remember playing FW:Coalition where someone destroyed my sensor mount and all my targeting was gone. I couldn't even land as I couldn't target docking rings. So, I'm sure this can be done. Gotta thank Nanobots for that. They'll fix your hull but not your equipment. :lol:
"does "multiplayer only" mean it has no singleplayer?"

— Random

OMG! Here they come!
no avatar
User

Baron

Posts

114

Joined

13 Apr 2010, 01:23

Re: ISD DEFLECTORS

by Baron » 28 Apr 2010, 17:09

Well you could always have two sensors, a regular one that you're supposed to have, and then a fall back default one with very very very short range and is indestructible, so if you lose your sensors, you'll still be able to land.

Thing is, it wouldn't matter, since you'd still be able to see players like normal. It would just effect NPC detection.
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign
[ Time : 0.061s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]
cron