Reasons why the Lightsaber Needs to be Made Respectable

[CaptainRAVE]

It can only be so realistic. Technology isnt a hold back anymore...but too realistic and it takes the fun out of the game play.

 

Also if that happens to the enemy then it should happen to you aswell which could become quite annoying.

[DeathBoLT]

If you lose your leg, you should be unable to move.. well maybe crawl some where. None of this hopping around..

 

You lose your arm(s) and you drop your saber. If one arm remains, you can recover your saber(assuming your opponent hasn't pulled it off to somewhere out of reach) and still fight.. just have your blocking/swinging ability reduced.

 

Those with missing limbs should be at the mercy of their opponents unless they crawl off or still fight with one hand. Limbs shouldn't be replaced until respawn. A much useful tatic in CTF could be to liberate your opponent of a leg but spare him death, so that the enemy team loses one teammate 'cos the guy can't do anything legless and can't replace the leg until he dies and respawns.

 

If I recall correctly, in ESB during luke and vader's duel on the platform over the shaft that luke's hand falls into, luke struck vader on the shoulder. Vader squealed so it had to have penetrated the his armor.

[CaptainRAVE]

Yea......but remember this is a game...bosses cant be killed in one hit . That just wouldnt be any fun

[Guest Kurgan]

One thing it sounds like some of you are forgetting is that it's NOT:

 

Forceless gunners vs. Force using Saberists

 

it's:

 

Force using gunners vs. Force using Saberists

 

Where multiplayer is concerned (and without getting any "mp classes" issues), and anyway, all players would in theory have the option to switch off and use whatever they felt most comfortable with.

 

In the movies and other source material, we normally don't see a Jedi "with a gun." In theory they could be the greatest marksmen alive, and do cool tricks like make their rockets seek out their targets. ; )

 

But some interesting ideas, indeed.

 

The way I see it, if we're going to have a "realistic" type of thing where I have to limp around holding my severed leg, I want that as an OPTIONAL MODE. ; )

 

It would be fine for me if it was just "classic" damage (though pain skins are nice) and the deathblow would hack off a limb or something "cool."

 

Kurgan

[Syndrix]

Posted by CaptianRAVE

Yea......but remember this is a game...bosses cant be killed in one hit. That just wouldnt be any fun

 

This is what I would NOT like to see repeated. Although I have pretty much consigned myself to major enemies that have massive health, I would prefer a different kind of boss.

 

I would like a guy that was faster, smarter and could get very good hits in on you, with no more health than you and would die in 3 or so saber hits. The same as the player should, depending on location hit. Because he is AI he can instantly switch between the force powers he needs. Force pushing thermal detornators away? Deflecting laser fire with his saber. Dodging splash weapons, the only fast way to defeat him is with the saber.

 

This way we get an opponent who is difficult to defeat. We have to work each time we player the game to get the kill, instead of finding a gun tactic and using it over and over again. At the same time he has to be like a real player, if you do manage to get him with a gun (he cant avoid splash weapons every time) he should take damage like normal and not be impervious to them (as it was in JK, I think).

 

I doubt this will happen, but I can dream. And I do realise this is off topic.

[Guest Krayt Tion]

Kurgan-

 

Assuming JK2 will be similar to JK it wouldn't be Forceless Gunners vs. Jedi Saberists, you are correct.

 

When I used Forceless Gunners earlier it was rather deliberate, I wanted to let another preference of mine out of the bag there but didn't want to get into it in detail.

 

Basically it comes down to this: there needs to be some way in JK2 that forceless gunners can compete against full-fledged Jedi. I'm sure there will be gunners who are up to the challenge and have the desire to face a Jedi just as other forceless humans and other species have throughout the SW movies.

 

MotS of course enabled forceless (I'm not counting defense as a force 'power') "personalities" like the soldier to face powerful Jedi in the same multiplayer game. Hopefully Raven can do a step better than this and work out a system that offers a wide range of settings that allow for similar things but without the restrictions of such personalities. As I stated, people should be allowed to have that 'My goodness I'm about to face a real Jedi' experience in multiplayer, which is perhaps most easily brought about by someone who doesn't have the Jedi's Force powers but does have guns, and can face him in the same game. Last but not least this is also a good back up plan in case Raven does not get (in our opinions) a good FF Guns vs FF Sabers (Jedi) balance worked out: what they possibly don't balance vs FF Guns might very well be rectified vs NF Guns. I'd rather it not come to this, however.

 

I don't think it was ever specified whether saber balance needed to be addressed vs FF or FF guns, just guns in general. However since gunners are at their deadliest when they can use the force, it makes sense that we should examine the balance where the greatest disparity is seen.

 

One man's Cup of Tea is another man's Itchy Straw Shirt, and for that reason I am by no means suggesting that FF Gunners not be allowed to play vs Jedi. Being able to jump dozens of feet in the air and blast away at my opponents below, for example, is what made JK fun and unique at times for me. I wouldn't want to deprive people of this opportunity. I just want better options.

 

What if these gunners use the force but also the saber as well? You could make arguments why this is perfectedly feasible in more of a roleplaying sense, but I bet could make just as many against it. This is why it would make sense to include another option besides what I've already mentioned, that enables only two kinds of characters, ones that can use only FF and guns and ones that can use only FF and the Saber. Getting more back to the topic at hand, I'll just say again that the saber needs to be balanced so it can still perform well in potential encounters like the ones listed above, at least on some very base level that doesn't factor player skill into the equation.

 

As far as I see it we now have another thing that factors into how feared and respected the saber should be: who you get to use it against, although I believe this isn't as big a factor as other things we have discussed are, because it was probably assumed by most that we were talking in relation to FF guns anyways. Still something to consider options-wise though.

[Wilhuf]

Yes, my comments about the relative weakness of the lightsaber are most relevant in a full force environment. Although I still feel the lightsaber is underpowered in the no force lightsabers v guns environment.

 

If I read your post correctly Krayt (I'm really not sure whether I am), are you suggesting that Jedi Outcast supports a 'Full Force Gunner personality' and a 'Full Force Saberist Personality?' If so, how would they differ? Also contrast them with a 'No Force Gunner Personality' and a 'No Force Saberist Personality?' What would this do to address imbalances?

 

Maybe what is needed is a sliding scale of lightsaber damage and speed that is directly related to the force level of the game at hand. E.g. the higher the force level permitted (again, we are assuming that Jedi Outcast will even support Force Levels to begin with), the greater the lightsaber damage and speed of attack.

 

Thus, no force games will have the lowest saber damage and speed, and highest force games will feature the highest saber damage and speed. Or is this adding unnecessary complexity to the game?

 

[ August 05, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]

[ed_silvergun]

Yeah, I think it's all staring to get too complicated. We've now moved from simply tweaking saber combat in terms of speed, blocking ability, etc. to talking about creating different player classes to appeal to gunners, saberists, force-users, non-force-users and even sliding scales of saber damage.

 

I think the best solution is often the simplest. I worry that people will simply be put off playing MP JK II if it is made too complex and daunting.

 

Still, I'm sure the "hardcore" will love it...

[WD_ToRMeNt]

LMAO. broadband users having an advantage in nf sabs over 65gayers? OMG you guy haven't a clue do you? Oh ya, it it doesn't matter if you can block 100% of ranged attacks, an intellegant person would just shoot next to you and catch you with splash. Blocking or not, your are still going to have to close to within close range of a person armed with long range weapons, who can probably backpeddle the at the same speed you run forward. JK and Q3 are like that.

[Guest Krayt Tion]

Originally posted by Wilhuf:

<STRONG>If I read your post correctly Krayt (I'm really not sure whether I am), are you suggesting that Jedi Outcast supports a 'Full Force Gunner personality' and a 'Full Force Saberist Personality?' If so, how would they differ? Also contrast them with a 'No Force Gunner Personality' and a 'No Force Saberist Personality?' What would this do to address imbalances?</STRONG>

 

If they are going to allow Dark and Lightside users alike to also use guns at FF like they have in the past, then yes I think those options should exist. And with the other option I mentioned: the ability for NF guns to play FF Jedi, it is simply another option like the one I just mentioned. One that allows people to play in certain styles more fitting for the Star Wars universe that I feel would be fun and are missing from JK MP. You could do that by making personalties like MotS, but what I would really hope would be a system that would let you characters within a certain range and type to enter the game. Idealy only slightly more complicated but oh so much more powerful for server admins.

 

To answer your question, these added options that I mentioned (NF Guns vs. FF Jedi) wouldn't address current saber imbalances, per say. They are more like extra things that Raven would have to address when balancing the saber and weapons if they were allowed in the game. They would have to take into account the powerfulness of the saber and force powers (combined) against gunners with no force, for example, as well as against gunners with full force.

 

What must suit one should also suit the other. If the saber and force powers were just powerful and deadly enough to compete with NF gunners (in terms of damage, speed, and range, and what not) then chances are FF guners would slaughter Jedi. And vice versa... there needs to point a middle ground for both.

 

So I think you understood me correctly when you suggested a sliding scale, because based on what I've said that makes sense to me. Although I'll skip commentary on that suggestion to cut back on the long windedness of this post.

 

Things we are discussing here in terms of saber balance are getting complicated, yes, but it isn't easy to pass new ideas by each other like this. I'm sure if we had to play current games that we've bought using an interface that was based off original design brainstorming it would be way too complicated for us! But if we were the actual developers, we would find a way to make it feasible and easy for the average user to use and understand.

 

Simple can be good but you've often got to go through the rough stuff to finally get to the simple answer.

 

[ August 05, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]

[Guest Vagabond]

I've skimmed through all the posts in this thread, and have a few comments to make - I hope I hit all the important points.

 

To begin, when playing MotS, the lightsaber was in fact my preferred weapon of choice, although the concussion rifle & carbonite gun were tempting favorites as well. With the Force (Level 7+), a saberist can kill any gunner, anytime, anywhere. Without the force, then a saberist is toast against a gunner.

 

To the point of this thread, I do believe that the saber should be made more lethal in combat, especially with the location-specific damage.

 

Having said that, I disagree with the suggestion that the lightsaber should be able to fend of heavy weapon fire. This is inconsistent with the movies and with what I view as common sense. In TPM, both Qui-Gonn and Obi-Wan were unable to sustain their defense against the automatic blaster fire from the Destroyer Droids, which is understandable given that even Jedi are mortal. Further, the idea that a lightsaber could defend against explosive/splash damage doesn't seem reasonable to me. Maybe, if the warhead/projectile were intercepted with the lightsaber, but if the impact were adjacent to the Jedi, then splash-damage will be your companion. Granted, such weapons could easily be labeled Jedi Killers, but the balance could come in the availability of ammunition and/or the firing rate (slower firing rate).

 

Summary:

 

• The lightsaber should be more powerful
  
• The lightsaber should not defend against splash damage
  
• Heavy Weapons should be balanced against lightsabers
  

 

 

Did I miss anything?

[DeathBoLT]

Just to set the record straight about NF sabers in Jedi Knight.

 

torment, in nf sabs, broadband users CAN have a advantage over 56kers. It all depends on your playing style..

 

now of course if the 56ker is nothing but a mouse jerker, well thats different, especially if its good mouse jerkers like YO_SmAcK or Dangersun. I've got no respect for mouse jerkers tho - and from what I gather(I stopped playing NF sabers nearly a year ago) most of NF saberists do that now.

 

Don't let mouse jerking affect your opinion of true NF sabering skill, 'cos jerkin consists of you scootin your mouse all over tthe pad causing massive bursting. Real nf sabering is just as hard as FF sabers in its own respects except theres no mapping or timing and it happens over a smaller space.

 

[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: [eVe]DeathBoLT ]

[DeathBoLT]

Oh ya, it it doesn't matter if you can block 100% of ranged attacks, an intellegant person would just shoot next to you and catch you with splash. Blocking or not, your are still going to have to close to within close range of a person armed with long range weapons, who can probably backpeddle the at the same speed you run forward. JK and Q3 are like that

 

If I were facing someone with a bowcastor in Jk2, I'd charge the bolt that you just fired at me thus intercepting it and of course using the force power(it was stated in gamespot/gamesmania-one of the two- that you could send it accurately for a fraction of your force) to send it right back at you. To hit me you would either:

a) fire close enough that I couldn't put enough distance between me and the shot and in that case, I'd charge the shot and block it.

b) put it far enough that I couldn't charge and intercept it in time and I would catch outter rings of splash damage. In that case I would run other way so that you would miss me entirely.

 

I simply wouldn't need to get close proximatey to you b/c you would be giving me a ranged weapon fire back at ya, via your shot + my block.

 

In TPM, both Qui-Gonn and Obi-Wan were unable to sustain their defense against the automatic blaster fire from the Destroyer Droids,

 

vagabond, I don't think they retreated because they were out matched.. I think it was a matter of time since neither was going down anytime soon.. they said something about a stand off if I remember correctly meaning neither overpowered the either - the jedis just didnt have time to deal with the destroyer droids 'cos they had a planet to get down to.

 

 

***

once the bowcastor bolt has hit, you shouldn't be able to block the splash damage. explosive weapons like rail charges or thermal detonators shouldn't be blockable.. well I could accept the thermal detonator being batted away, but it'd be a stretch..

 

[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: [eVe]DeathBoLT ]

[Wilhuf]

Speaking of film canon, didn't Qui Gon and Obi also block some heavy blaster cannon fire from one of those flying infantry droids in The Phantom Menace?

 

Raven could (and I think is) going to allow us to use a ration of force to block incoming fire. This would reflect the limited reserve of Force Obi and Qui had to fight the droids.

 

Now, if Luke Skywalker's lightsaber can cut through the armor of an AT-AT (TESB), and can block blaster fire (ROTJ), there really is no consistency problem with blocking rail charges that are more delicate than AT-AT armor and which travel at slower speeds than blaster fire.

 

The lightsaber could slash through the primer, detonator cabling, processor, etc. without actually setting it off. Maybe there would be a certain percent chance that the detonator charge would go off, even if blocking, dishing out some splash damage to our Jedi, to add to the fun factor. The better one's allocation of Force to Force blocking, the less likely the rail charge would detonate on collision with the lightsaber.

 

The consistency problem is that the Star Wars films really don't have very many explosive projectile weapons. We don't see Jedis block explosives because noone is firing explosives at them.

 

I'm not sure I would recommend weakening the gun weapons set for Jedi Outcast. Actually I'd try to beef those up too (at least the Imperial Issue Blaster and bowcaster, but not the rail or concussion).

 

Although as I've said, if the overall game speed is reduced, it's almost inevitable that the round speed and splash damage and radius would have to be reduced for weapons like the concussion rifle. Again, assuming we even have that weapon available.

 

[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]

[Syndrix]

Postyed by Wilhuf

This would reflect the limited reserve of Force Obi and Qui had to fight the droids.

 

Which droids were these Wilhuf?

[Wilhuf]

The infantry droids that were flying around a Naboo forest on those floating bike-like vehicles. They were firing some heavy cannons at Ben and Qui. Ben or Qui-Gon (I don't remember which) deflected a shot back at one of the bikes and destroyed it. I'm really hazy on what the droids are called...

[Syndrix]

But they didnt have limited reserves did they, I cant quite remember, but the only reason the were running was because the droid troop headed throught the forest was to large to fight. I think the only reason Raven would add "block laser take small amount of force" is balance. If indeed the saber is strengthened, it still needs some limitations other than dont make it a one hit wonder.

 

Now, if Luke Skywalker's lightsaber can cut through the armor of an AT-AT (TESB)

 

I also see no problem with the lightsaber blocking railguns etc. as long as its done with care. But just to be pedantic for a second luke did cut a grate or fan on the bottom of the AT-AT. A better example is probably the blast doors scene in TPM.

 

[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: Syndrix ]

[ed_silvergun]

Don't worry, Syndrix, I like pedantry, mainly because I'm better at it than just about everyone else.

 

Anyway:

 

Originally posted by -WD- ToRMeNt:

<STRONG>Blocking or not, your are still going to have to close to within close range of a person armed with long range weapons, who can probably backpeddle the at the same speed you run forward.</STRONG>

 

No, it's you who really doesn't get it. Stop stating the way it is in JK because the whole point of this thread is to address these problems. For example, this particular issue could be overcome by throwing the saber at the gunner. Now, instead of just worrying about shooting at the Jedi's feet, the gunner has to worry about dodging the incoming projectile too. This makes it harder for both players, meaning that extra skill has to be employed, and hence the game is more challenging, rewarding and fun.

 

To be honest, I would have thought that this is exactly the sort of thing that the "hardcore" would want. If it's so easy to fight saberists, then surely you guys would relish the challenge of having more powerful sabers. It'll be something new to do. It must have got dreadfully boring by now just grabbing the biggest gun on the map and aiming it at your opponents' feet...

 

Originally posted by Vagabond:

<STRONG>the idea that a lightsaber could defend against explosive/splash damage doesn't seem reasonable to me</STRONG>

 

Well, in ESB, Vader blocks Han's blaster fire without even using a saber. He just absorbs it with his hand. If a Jedi or Sith possessed the power to simply block or absorb blaster fire, surely they could do the same with the energy released as a result of a rocket impact or a concussion blast?

 

Originally posted by Wilhuf:

<STRONG>The consistency problem is that the Star Wars films really don't have very many explosive projectile weapons. We don't see Jedis block explosives because noone is firing explosives at them.</STRONG>

 

I think Wilhuf's hit the nail on the head here. The problem is, we're setting a precedent here. There's no "official" Star Wars canon which tells us how force-users would deal with projectile weapons. I can't think of a single instance in the films which would indicate how a Jedi could or could not block explosives, concussion blasts or anything like that.

 

Originally posted by Syndrix:

I think the only reason Raven would add "block laser take small amount of force" is balance.

 

As far as I recall from the previews, blocking doesn't use force power, but directing the blast back at the sender does.

 

<HR>

 

Think that just about covers things, except to say (because I haven't had a chance to yet) congrats to Vagabond and his family!

[Syndrix]

Thats correct ed, I typed that in a hurry and didnt really notice that until you mentioned it. I believe your right. Still my point was that Raven are going to do some things that while not breaking any clear rules slighly alters some ambiguous ones. Wilhuf was suggesting that the "deflect back, take some force" (got it right this time) was the reason Obi and Qui-gon were running in the forest.

 

I was saying that this was probably just a feature added for balance. After all they could just block the blasts( if we use JK2 rule, well supposed rules) because it takes no force. Then when they got close cut the droids down. Also in the blast door scene in TPM I refered to earlier we have a precedent. Obi and Qui-gon are deflecting the droids lasers, but the droids have shields and Qui-gon says they might as well leave because its a stand-off. Thats the only reason he give, nothing about weakening or they cant keep it up.

 

My point was that we should not assume that Raven did this because of the movies, it was most likely a gameplay decision/issue.

[Guest Kettch]

In TPM, both Qui-Gonn and Obi-Wan were unable to sustain their defense against the automatic blaster fire from the Destroyer Droids

 

When the two Jedi saw that the blaster shot, which they deflected were absorbed by the Destroyer Droids (or called Droideka), they had

• 1. no time for being on the ship to finish the Droidekas, because reinforcemence were on the way to intercept them,
  2. they had to escape to Naboo and later in order to warn the Naboo people.
  

 

Of course they sustained their defense against the Droidekas, and the could do this the whole time, but the easily had no time.

 

Further, the idea that a lightsaber could defend against explosive/splash damage doesn't seem reasonable to me.

 

Lightsabres can't defend against explosive/splash damage but Jedi can use the Force to deflect every projectile which are heading to a Jedi.

[Guest Vagabond]

ed,

 

Well, in ESB , Vader blocks Han's blaster fire without even using a saber. He just absorbs it with his hand. If a Jedi or Sith possessed the power to simply block or absorb blaster fire, surely they could do the same with the energy released as a result of a rocket impact or a concussion blast?

 

Deflecting the energy of a few blaster bolts is one thing, but shielding oneself from area-of-effect damage intuitively seems a taller order to fill.

 

Further, from a gameplay perspective, once one starts down this path, the journey has begun toward making the Jedi nearly invicible. If a Jedi can defend against any and every type of weapon and/or damage, then they could never be hurt.

 

Using this line of thinking, Qui-Gonn would have never died because he would have simply absorbed the energy from Maul's lightsaber just like Vader did to Solo's blasts, just like it appears some are saying that a Jedi should be able to do with area-of-effect weapons.

 

For me, if a Jedi were able to defend against every type of attack, then the gameplay would tend to get boring rather quickly. That was one of the strengths of MotS - that a skilled player could use combinations of weapons, powers, and tactics to defeat any opponents, Jedi or otherwise.

 

P.S. Thanks for the well wishes, ed

[wardz]

I agree with "pop"

 

There has to be a line drawn, Jedi should be very skilled and able to perform a multitude of tasks but they should not be so skilled that it becomes boring because they wont die.

 

I think we need to step away from the canon a bit. We all know in the films that the Jedi are the muts nuts but that is for film purposes, If we translate that directly into the game then we are going to have one very tedious game on our hands.

 

The key again is balance, I have faith in raven to meet this balance, if we are saying this now, this has probably been discussed in their offices months ago,

 

 

everything will be okay, I'm quite sure

 

wardz

[Wilhuf]

We definitely don't want some kind of Über-Jedi, capable of absorbing splash damage. Plus, I would expect Jedis to draw on their Force reserve to be able to block heavy weapons fire, and they wouldn't be able to block indefinitely.

 

BTW, note that in Full Force MotS games, even Force Protection really isn't sufficient to balance out a saberist v a gunner duel, IMO.

[acdcfanbill]

umm, wilhuf, those were S.T.A.P.'s in Esp 1. they were something something ariel platforms.

[Guest Krayt Tion]

I agree that including something to block or heavily absorb slash damage would make the Jedi too Uber.

 

Originally posted by ed_silvergun:

<STRONG>For example, this particular issue could be overcome by throwing the saber at the gunner.</STRONG>

 

Yes that is one factor. I would not however expect the saber to compete even remotely with projectile weapons in terms of hitting distance.

 

Other forces powers should be considered part of saber vs. guns balance if the only held weapon you are using against your gunner-ladden foe is the saber. There will be at least one ranged force power to get at your opponent, lightning. I would estimate however that this will only be able to hit from short to mid ranges.

 

Jedi currently do not have a long range power like destruction to help them combat against the hitting distance of guns. We'll see if Raven thinks it is necessary to include this for guns vs. saber balance.

 

All of the things mentioned in this post deal with the approach from long distances that a saberist must make to get to the gunner to land a saber blow. This is one part of balance that I can see, the other is saber effectiveness in closed ranged combat which I'm not discussing in this post.

 

It makes sense to me that a Jedi Saberist does not need many long ranged force powers to deal with gunners. The Jedi is not a Force Marine, she relies attacking and defending herself with the saber. She should rely primarily on evasive force powers like speed and jump to work her way to her target. 'Sneaky' force powers that conceal or trick should also be considered here as well. Then, when the saberist enteres midrange with a gunner, she could have confirmed powers like lightning available to her to increase her deadlyness as the gunner fails to keep her at bay.

 

Only one other thing: this assumes that a Jedi Saberist is not fighting a gunner in extermely cramped levels [but it applies imo to them almost as well, since it is dangerous for gunners to use their most damaging splash weapon fire (usually primary) in cramped areas].