Ardent Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Originally posted by Prime Do you have a link or something so I can have a look? So far the only things I have seen Raven mention are bug issues (like the server browser, for example). I haven't seen anything about gameplay changes, and I just want to see for myself. Thanks... Unfortunately, I do not. But I can link you to why I don't have an answer for you guys. http://forums.ravensoft.com/ib/ikonboard.pl?;act=ST;f=21;t=25416 Ravensoft lost a whole bunch of threads that had posts by staff members due to some technical issue. I knew I should have taken a screenshot. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeno Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 I think that Dual and staff should be more poverful and single should be for the more advanced players:amidala: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 I think you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Solar Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 I think Prime is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FK | unnamed Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Originally posted by Spider AL Unnamed obviously now realises that the risks of fiddling with gameplay outweigh the possible benefits. I'm of the same opinion, though I believe that patches nerf more the closer to initial-release-date they're made. The history of various games, UT, CS, JO itself and Tribes, supports this belief. No, it's people who will be doing the fiddling that I'm worried about. I can see them putting kicks back in for the first patch.... then taking 6 different force powers out at the same time. Raven has a way of "overkill" when it comes to fixing things. All they needed to do with 1.03 was fix the push/pull system like they finally did in 1.04. The backstab could have remained a 1 hit kill and it would not have been an issue. Look at JA, the 2 saber stance has a 1 hit kill (or damn near it 99% of the time) back slash, no one is bitching about it are they? But not only did they fix the broken pull system in 1.04, they *nerfed the hell out of the BS damage *and made it block able just like standard swings. So the move became utterly useless in 1.04. But when you nerf something all to hell like that, why not just remove the button sequence and animation all together? Honestly, my reason for not wanting *Raven to do the patching is they have absolutely no clue as to how people play their game "in practice" as opposed to the "in theory" method of game play mechanics. "In theory" a guy with absorb should be able to duel a drain whore and remain protected from the drain onslaught by using absorb. "In practice" he's pretty much committing suicide by even going into the match as a light sider. The reason Raven has no "in practice" knowledge of the game play is they don't play test it beyond the "does it work?" level. And they do not allow open public beta testing and feedback they way 75% of the other successful online FPS franchises do. It simply boils down to them being totally out of touch with their player base and me not wanting clueless people ****ing up the game even more for those who *do play it, *buy it, and *try to enjoy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FK | unnamed Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Originally posted by razorace I'm going to have to disagree. Gameplay patches can and do work. For example, the starfall ability in WC3 was simply too powerful at initial release. Blizzard patched it and things worked out. Yeah but look at the company. Blizzard has great player input/feedback support and is quite involved in the community that plays their games. They understand that happy players = happy customers = people who keep buying their products. I wonder if the fact that even after their games have been out for over a year, they still sit high in the top 10 list of best selling PC games, most of the time beating out the new releases (sales wise) has anything to do with what I just mentioned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Rumor: more along the lines of he doesn't want LA's incompetence to touch the game again.I don't think LA has much to do with it... Perhaps you mean Raven. If so, well. Raven bashing is a common thread in these... threads. Ardent: Raven has already said they're making gameplay fixes. They're very open about that. Which is exactly why posting a diatribe about it is no longer necessary.Oh, we'll see what they come out with. As we all know Ardent, your definition of "gameplay fixes" is a touch... malformed, so I think I'll just continue to sit here and remind and Raven people who read this thread that altering the gameplay to pander to a vocal minority less than a month from release, is a bad idea. No premature gameplay alterations, Raven! Remember JO v1.03! These are gameplay fixes. Will they be in the first patch?If the gameplay alterations you want such as kick cvars aren't in the first patch, that would be a good thing, since then they wouldn't be introduced prematurely. All for the good, my dear fellow, all for the good. Unnamed: No, it's people who will be doing the fiddling that I'm worried about. I can see them putting kicks back in for the first patch.... then taking 6 different force powers out at the same time. Raven has a way of "overkill" when it comes to fixing things. All they needed to do with 1.03 was fix the push/pull system like they finally did in 1.04. Raven did what vocal, lobbying people like yourself asked them to do. People asked them for auto-blocking, and nerfed guns, and nerfed Force powers. Raven obliged. That was after all the point of this whole debate, wasn't it? That no matter how well-intentioned, lobbying for gameplay alteration this soon produces abberant results, not merely due to the prematurely formed ideas that one group may demand be implemented, but because Raven will include ideas from MANY groups. There's no reason why they should listen to just you, or just the fellow asking for nerfed guns. They'll listen to both. Thus, 1.03. One can bemoan the fact that Raven should only have listened to certain ideas... but how are they to tell the difference. They don't know any of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Originally posted by FK | unnamed So the move became utterly useless in 1.04. But when you nerf something all to hell like that, why not just remove the button sequence and animation all together? I don't really see how you can complain about an obvious exploit being removed. Sure, it got nerfed and lost its effectiveness as a game winner, but it was a freakin' exploit. It went against the fairness and the spirit of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FK | unnamed Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Originally posted by razorace I don't really see how you can complain about an obvious exploit being removed. Sure, it got nerfed and lost its effectiveness as a game winner, but it was a freakin' exploit. It went against the fairness and the spirit of the game. Uhh… no. Even in the game manual it was described as unblockable and almost always a one hit kill if I remember right (too lazy to look). The dfa was almost always a one hit kill and unblockable as well, and once the spin part, saber in ground = instant kill stuff got removed it was never an issue. The problem was the screwed up pull system, everyone knows that. A level 3 pull user was not supposed to fall down when pulled, but he did. Hence the BS became instant close range death. Look no further than our current version of JA. The 2 saber stance has a backstab that is on par with the 1.03 backstab. No one is bitching about it because you can't just rip a guy off his feet and stick your ass in his face to kill him. You have to set him up just like any other saber move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FK | unnamed Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Originally posted by Spider AL One can bemoan the fact that Raven should only have listened to certain ideas... but how are they to tell the difference. They don't know any of us. You just made my point ^ Raven knows 0 about it's player base and how people play this game. Open public MP beta testing would have fixed 90% of the problems in JK2 and sure as hell would have made a much better game for the JA launch. Stupid crap like invisible models, the rocket bug, the master list issue, all that crap could have been avoided if they did what most devs do: open to the public MP testing. RTCW, MOHAA, BF 1942 and many other games had much improved initial releases directly due to letting players test a single map in MP for a month or so and listening to the player feedback. I really don't know who has the final say in this game, Activision or LA, but who ever is keeping the devs on a short leash and not letting them get involved with the community who buys and plays their games, needs a swift kick in the balls. I mean really, JK2 was an amazing and revolutionary game. Every other game in the Star Wars franchise that had saber combat up to that point was nothing more than generic 1-2 swings with a big clumsy stick. This game just plain got it right, and there is no reason why a game so strong and so well received should have virtually died and fell off the map of online gaming as fast as it did. But that is exactly what happened. Sure we can sit here and ponder this and that but the bottom line is, if from day one they would have done what companies like id software and Blizzard do, *listen to the people playing the game, we could have avoided a lot of crappy patches and not lost a lot of players. Hell look at JA, it's been out just a few weeks and servers are no where near as full as they should be for a top selling franchise game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Unnamed: You just made my point ^ Raven knows 0 about it's player base and how people play this game. Open public MP beta testing would have fixed 90% of the problems in JK2 and sure as hell would have made a much better game for the JA launch. Well hopefully I made my OWN point, but if our two points mesh well, so much the better. Firstly you seem to want to bash Raven. That's fine, you're entitled. Secondly you want open public beta testing on the assumption that that was Raven's decision to make, that's fine too, though if JO had been publically beta tested I think we'd have been playing an RPG-friendly no-kick emotefest by the end of it. The final point however is indisputable, that JO v1.03 wasn't Raven doing what they felt like, it was Raven responding to public demand. If this game gets gameplay patched to heck in a premature fashion, you and yours will have been the ones responsible for it, not Raven. No premature gameplay alterations Raven! Remember JO v1.03! Sure we can sit here and ponder this and that but the bottom line is, if from day one they would have done what companies like id software and Blizzard do, *listen to the people playing the game, we could have avoided a lot of crappy patches and not lost a lot of players.Raven "listening to the people playing the game" was what caused a lot of my contemporaries and friends to leave JO, shortly after the release of the publically driven v1.03. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardent Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Originally posted by Spider AL Oh, we'll see what they come out with. As we all know Ardent, your definition of "gameplay fixes" is a touch... malformed, so I think I'll just continue to sit here and remind and Raven people who read this thread that altering the gameplay to pander to a vocal minority less than a month from release, is a bad idea. If the gameplay alterations you want such as kick cvars aren't in the first patch, that would be a good thing, since then they wouldn't be introduced prematurely. All for the good, my dear fellow, all for the good. No need to keep trying to insult me, AL. I've gotten confirmation of my wishes. The map fixes will be part of the first patch. Those are gameplay alterations, even by your definition. I'll be happy if we get our cvars then, but I'm not petulent enough to try to go rubbing it in your face. In fact, I didn't try to rub it in anyone's face. It was a simple statement of the facts as we know them. As far as the Raven people reading this thread...no, you know what? Keep ranting. That's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Originally posted by FK | unnamed Uhh… no. Even in the game manual it was described as unblockable and almost always a one hit kill if I remember right (too lazy to look). The dfa was almost always a one hit kill and unblockable as well, and once the spin part, saber in ground = instant kill stuff got removed it was never an issue. I was referring to the BS spin as an exploit, not the unblockableness and the high damage. In terms of game balance, also as BS spin was removed, they probably could have gotten away without altering the damage or the unblockable flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Ardent: I've gotten confirmation of my wishes.I thought you wanted kick ported over to JA? Even you don't claim that that's been confirmed by Raven. I guess you're just sitting around with your fingers in your ears shouting "I WIN" again... Which is fine. The map fixes will be part of the first patch. Those are gameplay alterations, even by your definition.Map fixes you say? that's interesting. Fixes for maps? I gotta tell you though, updating, reworking, replacing or even ultracubifying maps may change the way those MAPS are played, but a game's own gameplay is entirely separate from the maps that are included with it. A game's own gameplay persists, across different arenas. I doubt you're on the same page as me there, but that's okay. I hope this clarifies my definition of gameplay somewhat... it's how a game plays. As far as the Raven people reading this thread...no,Well I think they're as likely to read it now as they ever were. No premature gameplay alterations, Raven! Remember JO v.1.03! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 [div3rse.jello] wrote: ---------------------------- quote: Originally posted by Kurgan We don't flame people for their opinions ("nub" or not), not on purpose anyway. There is no reason to respond in kind to insults, not when you have moderators around. ---------------------------- Read any of Al's posts lately? Yes, as a matter of fact I have. And I think you missed the tone of my post as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardent Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 Originally posted by Spider AL I thought you wanted kick ported over to JA? Even you don't claim that that's been confirmed by Raven. I guess you're just sitting around with your fingers in your ears shouting "I WIN" again... Which is fine. Nothing personal, but what all that I wanted may or may not be confirmed...you'll have to look into that yourself...the fact that gameplay alterations will be made is a fact. So it's only positive AFAIC. Map fixes you say? that's interesting. Fixes for maps? I gotta tell you though, updating, reworking, replacing or even ultracubifying maps may change the way those MAPS are played, but a game's own gameplay is entirely separate from the maps that are included with it. A game's own gameplay persists, across different arenas. I doubt you're on the same page as me there, but that's okay. I hope this clarifies my definition of gameplay somewhat... it's how a game plays. You don't have to tell me that you want to back up off your opinion about the difference between a bugfix and a gameplay alteration. That's fine, I wholly expected you to do so. Your rather nebulous definition of gameplay is an impossible standard to affix anything to, so I'm going to go with something a bit more perceptible. Well I think they're as likely to read it now as they ever were. I wasn't going to say this, but it may as well be shared. They're paying attention to e-mails (something our clique has been bombarding them with) and bug reports on the Ravensoft Jedi Academy forum. They haven't mentioned anything that hasn't been raised either through e-mails or on their forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrobot Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 Uh, as a level editor, myself, I'd just to clear something up...levels can have different types of gameplay, but that only goes as far as level dynamics. Level dynamics are separate from the base gameplay, which is what you (Ardent) want changed. Large levels play differently from small ones, but the base gameplay is the same...moves are the same, weapons are the same, ect. The changing of levels is handled by the level designers...they have nothing to do with anything to do with the base gameplay. Now, I hope that clears it up a bit...level changes have nothing to do with base gameplay changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardent Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 Originally posted by Gabrobot Uh, as a level editor, myself, I'd just to clear something up...levels can have different types of gameplay, but that only goes as far as level dynamics. Level dynamics are separate from the base gameplay, which is what you (Ardent) want changed. Large levels play differently from small ones, but the base gameplay is the same...moves are the same, weapons are the same, ect. The changing of levels is handled by the level designers...they have nothing to do with anything to do with the base gameplay. Now, I hope that clears it up a bit...level changes have nothing to do with base gameplay changes. Look. Listen. Come to understand. Here's the freaking KICKER: gameplay is an amorphous term used to describe both the indication and contraindication of certain elements in a game on a personal level. What is irrefutable: anything done to a game can and will affect gameplay because nobody's definition or idea of gameplay is the same. Period. Running around in circles all day is not my idea of time well spent or a well-intentioned debate. If you guys want to sit around and do whatever it is you do with your hands in a circle, that's fine. Just leave me the hell out of it. I've explained that gameplay = inalienable from any alteration made to a game. If you want to argue semantics, feel free to do so with a freaking dictionary. Stop wasting forum space, stop wasting my mailbox space and for the love of all that's sacred stop wasting everyone else's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FK | unnamed Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 how about we all work as one and push for the SDK release? This way you guys can do what ever you want in base JA, and we can do what ever we want in =X= mod 2? Sounds like a plan to me, glad you all agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrobot Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 Originally posted by Ardent Look. Listen. Come to understand. Here's the freaking KICKER: gameplay is an amorphous term used to describe both the indication and contraindication of certain elements in a game on a personal level. What is irrefutable: anything done to a game can and will affect gameplay because nobody's definition or idea of gameplay is the same. Period. Running around in circles all day is not my idea of time well spent or a well-intentioned debate. If you guys want to sit around and do whatever it is you do with your hands in a circle, that's fine. Just leave me the hell out of it. I've explained that gameplay = inalienable from any alteration made to a game. If you want to argue semantics, feel free to do so with a freaking dictionary. Stop wasting forum space, stop wasting my mailbox space and for the love of all that's sacred stop wasting everyone else's time. ??? Sorry, but you failed to show how it is possible to change gameplay, such as the ability to flip kick, through the levels...the notion seems completely illogical, and you really don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about. I'm glad FK | unnamed seems to have the right idea...I agree with what he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jevan Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 Ardent, you fail to understand that in JA, the majority of maps in JA (e.g. all of the default ones, and therefore the ones that would be fixed by patching) are basically similar for each gametype. They don't really force any style of gameplay due to the way that combat in JK series works. Because guns or saber fights in JK games don't ever kill instantly, there is a basic style of play that a player adopts for each gametype. The maps in JA are (mostly) eyecandy. Even in FFA maps where there is a risk of death by falling, most duels I have seen are in the areas of the map where there is simply an open space. Therefore the players have to rely on the game's mechanics - the base gameplay, e.g. how the game would play if the players were simply dumped onto a limitless flat surface - to provide an enjoyable experience, e.g. one where despite saber type/force power choice, the players are basically equal - a balanced game. Which is not currently the case. And I agree with Al that it would be a good idea for the players to actually discover (and prove, hopefully) all of the imbalances before Raven start tweaking the game - although two months does seem a bit excessive considering the rate at which some people play the game. Raven's dilemma is that in a game as complex (and while the idea doesn't sound complex, the execution is) as JA, changing one element of the game could easily break another - another one of Al's arguments against premature patching of the game. The problem that existed with previous patches I believe is that Raven changed something and then immediately released it, to satisfy some whiners who hadn't taken the time to build up experience in the game and therefore blamed several factors of the game for their lack of skill rather than accepting that they needed to invest more time in actually playing the game. This doesn't sound particulary threatening until you think about the fact that Raven probably didn't consider what these changes were going to do to the rest of the game. Also, it is completely impossible to satisfy everyone, hence the reason that mods exist. A patch is needed, but it needs to be carefully done, now that the game is effectively 3 times more difficult to balance, due to the addition of the extra saber types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jevan Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 Oh, and feel free to argue with my points (because I accept that they may be wrong), but do so with your brain rather than your ego, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardent Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 Go ahead and find a dictionary with a definition of gameplay. Seriously, go ahead. You won't have much luck because gameplay isn't a word with an accepted definition. The definition differs with every person you ask. You're all content to sit around and argue semantics until whenever. I'm not. The evidence is there. I'm sorry you can't see it, but it is there. If you can't understand that any change to a game will affect the gameplay because at least one person's definition of gameplay will include the subject of alteration... Then take your personal jabs and go away. You're not here to learn anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traj Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 wtf is the point of debating the meaning of the word gameplay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giddamon Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 Sorry if someone already said what I'm going to say but the idea to read throu all the 440 previous posts isn't much appealing so, my 2 cents: - Single saber - I think that the single saber sux only in FFA because you can basically hit one target at a time while players using lightstaff and double sabers can kill 2 or even 3 ppl at a time. or attack a target and defend from another dude at the same time. Also the yellow DFA is almost useless as it's impossible to hit someone with that odd rotation you do. The red DFA is still a cool move, too bad that you can't link it to other slashes (i.e. the classic 180 degrees backslash + DFA ). In the patch I would allow to link DFA to other moves and I would make the yellow DFA like the one in JO. - Double Sabers - IMO there are only two things to be changed here: the kata and the damages. The kata is way to powerful, especially for FFA games (i.e. you jump into a melee of 3-4 ppl, do the kata and kill them all...lame) and I'd the possiblity to move around while doing this special move. Also, I think that all attacks made with two sabers should be less powerful that the single sabers attack, the reason is quite obvius: pick a long rod and try to wave it using one hand, ok now try to wave it using both hands, 'nuff said! - Lightstaff - A lightstaff is supposed to have an heavier hilt so I'd make lightstaff attacks a bit slower but with the same power of single saber attacks. And please..do not include JO-kicks, they are soooo lame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.