Rear turret on Argon Nova

[cxz7410]

One of the funniest abilities of Argon Nova in X2 and X3, was the rear turret.

I watched the December 2017 video at the 29:00 where the argon nova appears.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... oxj2l5MkqY

I didn't notice any rear turret. Have you removed it in X4? (and with it, all the fun of piloting an argon m3?)

[CBJ]

I don't know what the design of that particular ship is in X4, but please bear in mind that it's not a question of having "removed" something if it's changed. The ship names may be the same, but the actual ship models have been created from scratch. At the point the models were created, they hadn't necessarily been matched to names yet, so differences in how they are set up and balanced are pretty much inevitable.

[Vandragorax]

So then the question might be, "Have you forgotten to add a rear turret to any of the "medium/large fighter" class ships such as the Nova?"

[cxz7410]

Thank you for the reply CBJ.
Unfortunately, I'm more worried now about the rear turret.
On the video it is mentioned that the Nova is a dog fighter. That means either an M3 or an M4 (using the X3 designation).
I assume that each ship category has only one model per race, because it makes no sense to create multiple ships of similar size, in a new game where every ship is designed from scratch.
If it is a medium fighter (M3), it seems that it doesn't have a rear turret. And yes, in this case, if there is no turret, then the turret is removed.

The question now is:
Is the Argon Nova an M3 equivalent in X4?

[CBJ]

If you insist on framing your questions around 1:1 comparisons with X3 then I can't really answer them properly. There is no "M3" in X4. The Nova is an "S" sized fighter. Note also that I can't guarantee that this information is final; that's just what I see right now.

[mr.WHO]

@cxz7410: Nova is just the name.

Look at P-47 Thunderbolt and A-10 Thunderbolt II. They might share the name, they even could share similar mission profile ("ground attack").

Same with US Navy constantly naming ships "Enterprise".

X-Universe races are probably fond on naming their ships with the same names, especially if the fit similar mission profile.

I'm not sure if it's canon or not, but all the ship with the same names are the "diffrent/next" model of the ship (e.g. Buster was in all games except X-Rebirth).

It seems there is rarely any change, unless completely new class is introduce. Even then there is stillsome nostalgy:
In X-BTF Elite was Argon M3, in X2 it was replaced by Nova, but then Elite returned as M4+ in X3:TC.

Therefore I wouldn't been too attached to the X4 names - both accuracy to lineage (e.g. Teladi Falcon seems to bo back to X2 design) as well as significant diffrences are to be expected.

[A5PECT]

it makes no sense to create multiple ships of similar size

If you line up a Nova, Buster, and Discover next to each other in X3 you'll find that they're all round the same size (IIRC the Discoverer is actually slightly larger than the Buster).

[cxz7410]

It seems that my question was a bit too specific to be answered. So I will try a more generic question:

Does ANY of the medium/large fighter class ships have a rear turret?

[Tomonor]

It is called 'retconning'. Egosoft tends to retcon a lot of stuff, actually. It usually happens because of technological advancements in terms of real life technology - eg, graphics are getting better, higher poly models are available, computers with stronger CPUs can process more datas, etc, OR because of overall balancing.

It always happened, from X-BtF to X-Tension to X2, to X3, to X:R, and finally to X4 now. X-BtF had a certain design direction, but it pretty much put the basis down. X2 loosely followed X-BtF's path, but retconned some of the elements to be more on point regarding the overall atmosphere of the game.

For instance, X2 introduced the ship in question, the Nova, as it was seen as a successor to the older Argon Elite. The Nova had 4 trusters, a back turret, and its design was similar to a Tie Interceptor from Star Wars. Then a major design retcon happened during X3, as that game had an improved graphics engine, and it would have been a waste not to use it out. The new Nova was nothing like its predecessor, the players were pretty much forced to accept the new Nova, which is fine by the way.

It still had a back turret, however the ingame description pretty much stated that the Nova was a unique ship, because that was the only fighter capable of housing and powering a back turret. Then X3-TC happened, and we got a reintroduced Argon Elite, which equalled to an M4 fighter - but with a back turret. So once again, a small retcon happened there, since now M4s could house back turrets as well.

What I'm trying to say to the OP is, that don't take the rules of the previous X games too seriously, because they tend to change once a new X title is introduced. X Rebirth changed a LOT of stuff, hell, they even included a ship that was copied from the X2's Argon Centaur model, but with a different name and designation.

And now, Egosoft wants to retcon the jumpdrive. From X Tension to X2, the minimum requirement for it was an M4 ship class. Then in X3, M5 ships suddenly became M container classes, and were able to use the jumpdrive too. Then in X Rebirth, only capital ships could use it, and a few DLCs later, the Albion Skunk. In X4, it is doubtful that we will get a jumpdrive at all. And this is all happening, because Egosoft is trying to figure out how their game(s) could be played the best, that it remains fun, rewarding, but still puts up a challenge for you.

[Vandragorax]

I'm actually 100% with the approach that Egosoft take, of only loosely following the lore/canon from previous iterations of the game.

Game design, like any good creative media, needs the space to breathe and grow organically for the betterment of game-play. To be constrained to certain things just because "That's the way it was done x years ago" always seems counter-productive and artificially limiting to me.

I can understand the other side of it, the lore lets fans absorb themselves in the universe and provides familiarity and comfort. However I don't think it should ever be a blocker for innovation and experimentation in the video game industry. We need to give the devs and designers room to manoeuvre so they can better balance gameplay elements with new technologies and new ideas that come along.

Anyone who has ever tried to write their own novel/book/story knows that it usually involves going back to the start several times over to re-write things in a way that makes more sense. Video games don't have that luxury when a product is already released, so iterations in the series have to be given liberty to be thought of as a "re-write" in a way, adding to or 'retcon'ing the lore so that it makes more sense in the current day.

Incidentally, whether the X4 version of a Nova has a rear turret or not doesn't really matter, as long as the game is actually fun and exciting overall

[LittleBird]

One of the funniest abilities of Argon Nova in X2 and X3, was the rear turret.

Funny you say?
Flying without rear turret was simply impossible.
Rockets just crushed you and that narrowed down your options for usefull fighters.

So I hope now we get just countermeasures and Egosoft not repeats the same mistake over and over...

[Tomonor]

One of the funniest abilities of Argon Nova in X2 and X3, was the rear turret.

Funny you say?
Flying without rear turret was simply impossible.
Rockets just crushed you and that narrowed down your options for usefull fighters.

So I hope now we get just countermeasures and Egosoft not repeats the same mistake over and over...

What about the disabled flight assist? You don't even need a turret anymore, just turn around to shoot the missiles while flying in the old direction.

[Fedora01]

What about the disabled flight assist? You don't even need a turret anymore, just turn around to shoot the missiles while flying in the old direction.

I don't think that would end as well as you think it would

Anyways, I don't much care if there are back turrets, so long as there's adequate countermeasures to make up for it.

[Skeeter]

One of the funniest abilities of Argon Nova in X2 and X3, was the rear turret.

Funny you say?
Flying without rear turret was simply impossible.
Rockets just crushed you and that narrowed down your options for usefull fighters.

So I hope now we get just countermeasures and Egosoft not repeats the same mistake over and over...

What about the disabled flight assist? You don't even need a turret anymore, just turn around to shoot the missiles while flying in the old direction.

Maybe for a players ship, but rear or any turret thats not forward facing would be a big help for npc ships who are vunerable to missiles and cant strafe or do moves like the player can.

[radcapricorn]

Drones. No need for a stationary turret when you can have multiple mobile ones.

[A5PECT]

Drones. No need for a stationary turret when you can have multiple mobile ones.

If drones work the way they did in XR, then a fighter like the Nova won't be able to use drones.

[Skeeter]

Turrets imo is cooler especially if you can use them urself like in X2.

[Honved]

Turrets imo is cooler especially if you can use them urself like in X2.

You could use them yourself in X3 as well, by pressing a Function key to cycle through the various views, but then nobody's flying the ship. Not exactly fun, crashing into a station because you were busy shooring at pesky M5s.

[Skeeter]

Ah but in x4 u have crew to take over while u hop in a turret and hopefully they can be told to evade fire or go to X or fight etc.

[Honved]

Ah but in x4 u have crew to take over while u hop in a turret and hopefully they can be told to evade fire or go to X or fight etc.

...rather than "Ram the closest Station".