'Playable Jedi' Debate (merged, no flaming)

[Kurgan]

He still doesn't. The ability to heal yourself and additionnal ammo compensates for a lot. You still haven't noted that the pilot class is really deadly in close combat. In fact, on the Jabba's Palace map, there's as many pilot with grenade launchers as there are rocket troopers.

They're abilities that are supposed to help the "team" but in a game that doesn't reward teamplay, they're used in solo.

 

You listed "extra ammo" for all the classes, btw.

 

So the Pilot is "deadly" in close combat? Well is the Sniper deadly in "far away combat"? Gee, so the Pilot is actually stronger than the Sniper, I see. So one class dominates another. Sniping after all, is not something you do in single combat normally. You pick somebody off from long range who's otherwise distracted. Or I guess you could play cat 'n' mouse wandering around a big map or something. Play SWBF one on one? Anyway, that's not the point. The point is, in "Rocket Arena" this close quarters guy will mop the floor with the "long range" guy. So he's the superior single combat class.

 

The argument "well everybody uses this" isn't always a solid one. I remember how in Jedi Academy Siege early on people only used certain classes until they learned the benefits of other ones (like the Tech and Demolitions). Now people branch out more (but of course "noobs" always tend to focus on certain classes that are easiest to use for them like Jedi or Assault).

 

As people learn the game they learn what works. When they don't know much about the game they pick what is most familiar and easiest to learn. It's like how people thought Protect or Grip in JK1 was unstoppable until they learned how to counter it and this knowledge spread.

 

Actually, here's what they carry:

 

-Regular infantry:

-Rifle

-Pistol

-3/4 thermal detonators

-2/3 anti-tank stick bombs

-Extra ammo

 

-Rocket infantry:

-Rocket launcher

-Pistol

-4 mines

-4 Grenades

-Extra ammo

 

-Sniper trooper:

-Sniper rifle

-Pistol

-3/4 grenades

-One droid

-Extra ammo

 

-Engineer/Pilot/Medic:

-Grenade launcher/shotgun/weird electrical gun

-Pistol

-5 med/ammo packs

-Wrench

-Extra ammo

 

So yes, the rocket trooper seems to carry the heaviest material.

 

Actually via your list his carrying stuff would be only slightly heavier than the standard soldier's gear. The Sniper Rifle obviously would be heavy, and carrying a "droid" for crying out loud would be the heaviest thing of all. The Engineer should be painfully slow with all the stuff he's carrying.

 

 

It is still relevant. All of those abilities will help you during single combat (except for vehicle repair). If this one class can kill everything else, then everyone will play it right? Even organized teams could not take down rampaging M60/LAWs, how can a single man expect to fight back?

 

So you have Medics throwing health on the ground and then grabbing it to heal themselves as they circle strafe around shooting at one guy they're fighting?

 

You're turning this into a "either every class is balanced or one class dominates all" thing. It need not be that way. I'd say it's more like "well these few classes are great in combat, and these other classes suck." So if you pick a sucky one, you're screwed if you come across one of the "good" classes alone unless you're just really that much better than he is. Since the game isn't based on single combat, it shouldn't matter at all.

 

You're putting up the false dichotomy that if one single class doesn't dominate, then all classes must be equal in combat. I'm saying that some are weaker than others, but they make up for it in other benefits to their team or completing objectives.

 

It depends on which game you play. In BF1942/Vietnam/2 and RtCW/Wolf:ET, engineers certainly weren't bad in combat.

 

Fine, but are you saying in those games any class can meet any other class in single combat and it's totally equal and balanced? Are you saying it cannot work the way I described? I know some people hate JA's Siege mode, and they rant and rave about what's wrong with it, but it's based on the idea of objective/map& team balance, not soldier vs. soldier balance like deathmatch.

 

 

And it should still reward those who work as a team, but we're talking in public server terms. How many organized teams do you see? Not many. Only a bunch of veterans can pull that off and that's quite a rare occurance on public servers.

 

A team need not be organized (though that really helps). Just actively help your team, rather than ignoring them and just going solo. In this game you can sort of go solo if you find a decent vehicle and just go around scoring kills. But on the infantry based maps it's rather foolish. Some classes are simply outmatched. You need not be veteran players.. this is why they have clans and stuff. You just learn to work together. Or players you know, etc.

 

Now it would help if you use teamspeak/ventrilo, etc. The console games have an advantage here because that's usually standard in online games nowadays for them. But you get the idea. You may be stuck with a team full of people who when you ask for cover or defense just say "I don't wanna!" and then you're screwed. Or they may be noobs, etc. I guess SWBF's community is so small you have little choice if everyone is playing the game wrong. That sucks.

 

 

 

If he didn't have a decent weapon, people won't use him. Again, pilots don't suck, they just require a slightly higher skill level to be used correctly in combat but it doesn't mean that a newbie will automatically be owned in combat with a pilot.

 

Not necessarily. I need to repeat why this can be so. People don't pick a class just because he dominates in kills, unless they're deathmatch minded. So what are they doing playing a dedicated team based game like this?

 

 

 

Absolutely, however, in SWBF, there is no reward at all (I'm not sure about JK/JA). A regular player will wonder what's the point of helping the team if he's going to end up at the bottom of the score sheet. We're talking regular players here. So why will he play a class that has no use in combat, if it doesn't reward him with anything?

 

This is what gets me. I can understand people in JA not being team players. They are used to deathmatch and duel, and they are totally out of place in CTF. However in SWBF, a game based entirely on the idea of objective, class based teamplay (there is no other game mode, period) it makes little sense to be a non-team player. So essentially what you're saying is that these people are like the "honorz d00ds" in JK2/JA... they play the game "incorrectly."

 

But this is no slight against the game itself, rather some idiots who play it.

 

 

How would they "fix" this? Give you 20 points everytime you healed somebody?

 

The balance is more similar then you'd think.

I see a lot of players playing as an engi in BF1942 too. Out of countless hours of playing, how many engineers helped in times of need? How many medics came and helped as I did with them? Not many. Why? There is no reward for helping your teammate. So the casual player must ask himself this, is my life worth it? Do I waste a life for him, if there's no personnal benefit?

 

In Team games the stuff I do I do for my team, that's how it's meant to be played. I don't just try to have the highest score via kills. I mean sure in a team deatmatch that might actually matter, but that's it. Not in CTF, an objective based mode like Assault/Siege/whatever and not in a Domination style game like SWBF is based on.

 

Sure, you can yell :"The game is about teamplay". But we're talking about selfish human beings. Unless you twist their arms into helping, they won't. You have to be realistic.

 

Then they shouldn't be playing team based games, 'nuff said.

 

It's not the game's fault if people don't play it right!

 

In these other games do you win via point totals or not? It's true that in Q3 engine games people whine in CTF when their score gets reset, even though kills don't matter one whit towards victory (ditto for Siege). But unless the point totals actually contribute to the team winning, there's little point. These people need to play Deathmatch where points matter. In Team based games they're just an indicator of personal performance but you can have a great score and still lose. In SWBF the "leader boards" list kills but they don't list control point captures right? Ditto for the score table. It's rather silly on a game based around that goal.

[Kurgan]

Now that I think about it, I don't even pay attention to my point score in JA team based games (except TFFA which I haven't played in ages) until the end of the match.

[TK-8252]

One-on-one combat is frequent in SWBF. If you're trying to capture a Command Post by yourself and an enemy spawns, you'll have to defend yourself.

 

In Battlefield 2, you get points for doing all sorts of things. Healing, reviving, repairing, distrubuting ammo, neutralizing an enemy outpost, capturing an outpost, assisting in capturing an outpost, assisting in killing an enemy, and more. This is a much better system to encourage players to work as a team.

[lukeiamyourdad]

You listed "extra ammo" for all the classes, btw.

 

That's because they don't all carry a single clip for their rifles.

 

So the Pilot is "deadly" in close combat? Well is the Sniper deadly in "far away combat"? Gee, so the Pilot is actually stronger than the Sniper, I see. So one class dominates another. Sniping after all, is not something you do in single combat normally. You pick somebody off from long range who's otherwise distracted. Or I guess you could play cat 'n' mouse wandering around a big map or something. Play SWBF one on one? Anyway, that's not the point. The point is, in "Rocket Arena" this close quarters guy will mop the floor with the "long range" guy. So he's the superior single combat class.

 

No, both are quite balanced, as long as the Pilot is smart. That's the thing with balance. If the Sniper is far away and I'm a Pilot, it doesn't exactly mean that I'm going to die. I could always find a way to kill him.

 

The argument "well everybody uses this" isn't always a solid one. I remember how in Jedi Academy Siege early on people only used certain classes until they learned the benefits of other ones (like the Tech and Demolitions). Now people branch out more (but of course "noobs" always tend to focus on certain classes that are easiest to use for them like Jedi or Assault).

 

As people learn the game they learn what works. When they don't know much about the game they pick what is most familiar and easiest to learn. It's like how people thought Protect or Grip in JK1 was unstoppable until they learned how to counter it and this knowledge spread.

 

It's been three years of BF1942 and people still haven't learned that you can't win Omaha Beach with 12 snipers out of a team of 16.

 

 

 

 

Actually via your list his carrying stuff would be only slightly heavier than the standard soldier's gear. The Sniper Rifle obviously would be heavy, and carrying a "droid" for crying out loud would be the heaviest thing of all. The Engineer should be painfully slow with all the stuff he's carrying.

 

It still hampers movement. But you're right about the engineer. The Droid however, is only a little bit bigger then a thermal detonator.

 

 

 

 

So you have Medics throwing health on the ground and then grabbing it to heal themselves as they circle strafe around shooting at one guy they're fighting?

 

Yes.

 

You're turning this into a "either every class is balanced or one class dominates all" thing. It need not be that way. I'd say it's more like "well these few classes are great in combat, and these other classes suck." So if you pick a sucky one, you're screwed if you come across one of the "good" classes alone unless you're just really that much better than he is. Since the game isn't based on single combat, it shouldn't matter at all.

 

You're putting up the false dichotomy that if one single class doesn't dominate, then all classes must be equal in combat. I'm saying that some are weaker than others, but they make up for it in other benefits to their team or completing objectives.

 

But people don't work as a team. If one class is stronger then all other in combat, why pick a support class if you don't have any personnal benefit?

 

 

 

Fine, but are you saying in those games any class can meet any other class in single combat and it's totally equal and balanced? Are you saying it cannot work the way I described? I know some people hate JA's Siege mode, and they rant and rave about what's wrong with it, but it's based on the idea of objective/map& team balance, not soldier vs. soldier balance like deathmatch.

 

Yes. A sniper can meet an assault and win and vice-versa, just as a medic can fight a soldier and win in RtCW.

 

 

A team need not be organized (though that really helps). Just actively help your team, rather than ignoring them and just going solo. In this game you can sort of go solo if you find a decent vehicle and just go around scoring kills. But on the infantry based maps it's rather foolish. Some classes are simply outmatched. You need not be veteran players.. this is why they have clans and stuff. You just learn to work together. Or players you know, etc.

 

I've been in clans. It helps, but you're not going to play with them all the time. If you play a lot, you'll stay in public servers for most of it.

 

Now it would help if you use teamspeak/ventrilo, etc. The console games have an advantage here because that's usually standard in online games nowadays for them. But you get the idea. You may be stuck with a team full of people who when you ask for cover or defense just say "I don't wanna!" and then you're screwed. Or they may be noobs, etc. I guess SWBF's community is so small you have little choice if everyone is playing the game wrong. That sucks.

 

BF1942's community is ratehr large. People never helped me. I tried to help them though.

Once, I was sitting on top of the Kharkov hill with what was left of my K98. I was almost out of ammo and a T34 was sitting there trying to cap the flag. I couldn't do anything so I called for help. Did it come? Never. Not the first time it happened too.

 

 

 

Not necessarily. I need to repeat why this can be so. People don't pick a class just because he dominates in kills, unless they're deathmatch minded. So what are they doing playing a dedicated team based game like this?

 

One must wonder. It's still is an unfortunate yet real fact. People are individualistic and they'll stay that way unless they can get some benefit for helping you.

 

 

 

 

This is what gets me. I can understand people in JA not being team players. They are used to deathmatch and duel, and they are totally out of place in CTF. However in SWBF, a game based entirely on the idea of objective, class based teamplay (there is no other game mode, period) it makes little sense to be a non-team player. So essentially what you're saying is that these people are like the "honorz d00ds" in JK2/JA... they play the game "incorrectly."

 

But this is no slight against the game itself, rather some idiots who play it.

 

^^^^

 

 

How would they "fix" this? Give you 20 points everytime you healed somebody?

 

Believe it or not, doing that (maybe not 20 points) helped teamplay greatly in RtCW and BF2. Before BF2 introduced points for healing, most medics would let you die.

 

 

 

In Team games the stuff I do I do for my team, that's how it's meant to be played. I don't just try to have the highest score via kills. I mean sure in a team deatmatch that might actually matter, but that's it. Not in CTF, an objective based mode like Assault/Siege/whatever and not in a Domination style game like SWBF is based on.

 

Like I said, some veterans who look for other types of gameplay experience actually do help the team.

 

Then they shouldn't be playing team based games, 'nuff said.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

 

In these other games do you win via point totals or not? It's true that in Q3 engine games people whine in CTF when their score gets reset, even though kills don't matter one whit towards victory (ditto for Siege). But unless the point totals actually contribute to the team winning, there's little point. These people need to play Deathmatch where points matter. In Team based games they're just an indicator of personal performance but you can have a great score and still lose. In SWBF the "leader boards" list kills but they don't list control point captures right? Ditto for the score table. It's rather silly on a game based around that goal.

 

SWBF does keep the number of CP you've captured. In both BF2/1942/Vietnam, you lose when your team's tickets dry out or when you've lost all of your flags and no one is left on your team. In RtCW/Wolf:ET, the attacker team wins if the objective is achieved in a set amount of time. If not, the defender wins.

 

In both RtCW and Wolf:ET, your personnal performance would help you acquire new weapons and bonuses.

Same for BF2, but not for 1942 and Vietnam, where there was no reward other then self-satisfaction and respect from the other players.

I've noticed that when somebody has a higher score, other players would follow him, help him out when he needs it. It's more psychological then gameplay, but it is fun to have a bunch of followers

Still, in SWBF, if you kill someone, it means -1 ticket for that team. Thus you helped your team get closer to victory. It follows the same ticket system then the Battlefield games.

Nevertheless, somebody could have a huge kill score but the team would still lose because, except for this one special player, the rest of the team sucks. You can't really give any orders on public servers, even if you're the best player and know what you're doing. People don't want to listen.

That's why we have BF2's commander and squad leader system. It seems to work for now, though there's a lot of mutiny votes.

[quixter]

Jedi would be cool for singleplayer only.

[darth anubis]

I really think playing as a jedi could really add an extra layer of depth to the game although I do think that there should be an option of whether you want to play as one or not because otherwise all of you "anti-Jedi" wouldnt buy the game and that would be a shame wouldnt it...

[Leviathan]

Yes, it is a good idea... (Which already exists in SWBF to allow - or not - Jedi to be present in Instant Action mode)

[darth anubis]

I think the whole issue over the Jedi in the game is one of choice as you don't HAVE to play as a Jedi nor can you not and the inclusion of them helps the game apeal to a wider audience which is hardly a bad thing is it?

[yoda-2nd]

yeah , give me a break

its so good theres no jedi

they r more anoying then flies

 

so when u want a jedi get "Jedi Outcast"or "Jedi Academy"

leave this game for the gunners

 

thx

 

 

first of all jedi are cool... cause my friend with the gunns says soo

 

second make him

[quixter]

Lol sorta agree!

[Leviathan]

Jedi are cool when they look like to real humans, and not to gods...

[Homer Simpson]

yo if u finished the game how do u pass nar shada im stuck, do u got any hints for the xbox version

[Homer Simpson]

jedis are basicaly gods in evry sens of the word

[Leviathan]

In your previous post, I think you're talking of KotOR II or Jedi Outcast...

Do not forget it isn't the right forum for this kind of questions...

[quixter]

Very true this is Star Wars Battlefront Forum?!

P.S. If your talking about Jedi Outcast 2.I've beat it a billion times! I guess you just talk you the bar tender if you haven't done that yet???

[Leviathan]

Please come back to the main subject, instead...

[AT-ATNemesis]

Playing as a jedi would defeat the object of battlefront

its a game for solders not gods with sabers who are invincible and can kill anything

Buy Jedi knight if u want to do that

there are going to be playable jedi in BF2 so theres no point discussing this any further

[Nerf~Herder]

I'm shore there will be a disable Jedi option when creating a server or a no Jedi battle. They will do the same thing they did for JA and JK when you can put light sabers only as an option when making a server but this time there should be a gun’s only. If they do this I will have no problem with Jedi but I can see the negatives that you guys speak of.

[Kurgan]

Try out the SWBF2 public beta. I think some of the naysayers may end up convinced that this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think they are actually fairly well done thus far...

 

This is in no danger of turning into "JA" at the expense of the beloved "grunts fighting each other."

 

And it's not just Jedi, all of the Heroes are quite useful and fun, but also quite mortal, and this is perfectly in keeping with the movies, especially as we've seen in ROTS...

 

***

 

PS: Going back and reading some of the old thread posts, I see I made one glaring mistake. I re-watched the TPM DVD and there were some Droidekas on the outdoor Naboo battle. You just don't see them until the Gungan shields go down. And one of them is destroyed also by Jar Jar's goofy "droid torso attached to my foot that fires when I kick it around" schtick.

My bad! Also the Pilots are not quite as helpless as I portrayed. Having played several more games of them since we had this debate I've noted that their grenade launchers are decent weapons (much better than shotguns) but they are still kind of crappy. Against clueless bots, yes they are awesome, but their slow rate of fire really makes them a liability in close quarters combat against faster firing weapons. Their blast radius is rather small too (not like a real thermal det) and even though they can toss health to the ground to stay alive, they typically have to grab two packs to restore the health lost from one blaster hit... So not totally helpless, but still not, IMHO, "combat equals" of all other classes in one vs. one.

[zerted]

No Jedi for me. A snippin' I will go.

[JohnLocke]

To me it's simple....

Jedi would be great to play.............in another game.

It doesn't belong in the Battlefront mentality.

[CidCaldensfey]

I think this game should have Jedis. It's just fine. Just reduce the speed of everyone who isn't a hero and make heroes just a little bit faster, though with moderate outputs of damage.

 

It's not that hard to make a melee class in such a way that it won't be overpowering. Just limit how many there can be per team and thats about it. I'll bet five clone troopers could take on a Jedi player with just blaster rifles.

 

I think one Jedi/hero per team is fair. And it depends on the maps too. Having a Jedi on a space map would be a bit annoying if he/she/it manages to get into the enemy spawn point. Also I don't know how useful force powers will be inside a ship =\

[TK-8252]

If you think that it would be balanced if it took 5 vs. 1 to take down a Jedi then that's not balance. If the classes are balanced then they could all go one-on-one with full ammo, full health, and each would have about the same chance of killing the other.

[CidCaldensfey]

If you think that it would be balanced if it took 5 vs. 1 to take down a Jedi then that's not balance. If the classes are balanced then they could all go one-on-one with full ammo, full health, and each would have about the same chance of killing the other.

 

It would be balanced considering the scale of which BFII is meant to be played. A single Jedi with at least 50 points in health, increased speed, and some good damage output for MELEE isn't going to be much of a threat in a 32 player game.

 

And besides, theres a little human variable which gets played every time and that is called skill. With enough practice, a single player can amount to anything.

 

Also, the fact that the Jedi's primary weapon, a saber, is a melee weapon. All you have to do is just get around behind him and shoot them in the back. It's not that hard of a thing to do. Or better yet, just stay away from them and don't let them get close

 

So even if it would normally take 5 vs 1, it's still very much possible to do 1 vs 1 due to the random factor which is player skill. A player may not be good as a Jedi, therefore it wouldn't take much. Or a player may be great as a random clone trooper. It really is dependant ultimately, in the end, on player skill.

[TK-8252]

If the Jedi player is good, they'll avoid the larger fight and just concentrate on taking out individuals. And when it'll take about five soldiers to take down the Jedi, they can just rack up easy kills while the other team suffers from a crappy round of Jedi whoring.