Reasons why the Lightsaber Needs to be Made Respectable

[Syndrix]

Of course, and this is for pure arguements sake only. Taking that last example Vagabond, the Jedi could just step to the side (remembering the speed at which a rail charge moves) and still slice through the charge.

I beleive Qui-gonn deflects a blaster shot headed for the Queen, this would be precident that Jedi dont have to be directly behind their lightsaber to block incoming shots. Thus the charge that is now two pieces (and quite incapable of exploding, from your example only) glides past and hits an object or runs out of velocity and fall to the ground.

 

I dont think that should happen, but thats just in opposition to you last example.

[Guest Vagabond]

In game terms, there is no real point into deflecting blasts that are directed to other individuals. Further, how to indicate to the game that that is your intention, is also something of an interface issue.

 

No, I submit that fire deflection only pertain to fire directed directly at you. It's easier, it's cleaner, and it makes more sense. If you want to deflect fire intended for another, assuming you have the reflexes to spot it in the first place, then just place yourself in front of the shot and try your best to deflect it. Remember, we're not real Jedi, as such we don't have the real Jedi reflexes of Qui-Gonn. Our regular Human reflexes will have to do.

[Syndrix]

Well I dont think coming up with a blocking system like that would be all that hard, but what it would do is over complicate the controls. I do agree with you, that was just what may be possible if we saw a rail charge fired at a Jedi in an actual movie.

 

No, a much better system is just to allow force push to force it off target, as others have pointed out.

[Guest Vagabond]

Again, assuming your reflexes can react fast enough. The sequence of events:

 

1. Enemy fires weapon.

2. You, the Human, must spot the incoming fire via the game display.

3. You must propertly position your character.

4. You must target, or aim at, the incoming fire.

5. You must depress the appropriate button(s) in invoke the necessary force power.

 

With rail charges, this may, repeat may be possible. Anything faster would likely require near-Jedi reflexes.

 

In any event, it would seem a waste of effort to implement a force power that could only be used to deflect rail charges.

[ed_silvergun]

Originally posted by Vagabond:

<STRONG>

What I am illustrating is that your apparent position that a lightsaber can move through matter, without resistance, is not supported by the visual evidence from the movies. Let's recap:

 

1. Luke's blow to Vader's shoulder armor (TESB).

 

2. Qui-Gonn assault on the blast door (TPM).

 

3. Obi-Wan's inability to penetrate the shield door (TPM).

 

4. That lightsabers do not pass through each other (all movies).

 

5. Luke's assault on the skiff guards that apparently resulted in no dismemberment (ROTJ) - I found that odd though.</STRONG>

 

Numbers (3) and (4) on that list have nothing to do with matter at all. Both the shield door and sabers are made from energy, not matter.

 

However, despite the fact that the physics behind pure energy causing friction when travelling through matter are very questionable to say the least, the evidence presented in official Star Wars canon would point to this being the case. If this is so, it would be reasonable to assume that smaller, weaker objects (like the steering vanes on a speeder bike) would be more easily cut than stronger materials such as Vader's protective body armour. Similarly, Luke had to go for the unprotected and more vulnerable underside of the AT-AT rather than trying to slash its frontal armour (which even snowspeeders couldn't blast through).

 

Either way, Vagabond is right: while the evidence would indicate that a rail charge could (theoretically) be slashed by a saber, either it would detonate or be split into a couple of pieces which would still hit the Jedi. I would therefore conclude that if rail charges were to be deflected, some sort of Force power (like Force push) would be by far the best way of going about it.

[Tap[RR]]

Force push should NOT be used only for rail's, i think pushing rails outta the way with this force power, will be a bonus. An addition to the power, also i think force push should be interactive with everything like a lost saber, and that would put the force powers to use, instead of them being an added bonus, or just used for pushing the opponent. It would also give the force-pull some use the force pull could counter the force pushed saber, and help you get it back before the other jedi or gunner gets you. Also i stated in page 4 of this topic, that in the jk2 video you notice that the force counter dissappears when he selected a gun, and reappeared when he withdrew his saber. Maybe raven has set a balance to force using, i personally hope so. (GO READ MY POST ON PAGE FOUR!!! )

[KillerBee]

"In game terms, there is no real point into deflecting blasts that are directed to other individuals. Further, how to indicate to the game that that is your intention, is also something of an interface issue."

 

I got 2 nfer mates wif blasters

and I am standing in front wif a sabre..

[Guest Vagabond]

That's assumimg there are personalities/classes in JKII. I hope JKII has something similar to MotS personalities, but we've not yet had confirmation of that yet.

 

Still, the fact remains that it would be infeasible, in the game, to block anything faster than a JK-style rail charge simply because we couldn't react fast enough - by this I mean that we couldn't position our charachter in the path of the incoming fire quick enough for the assumed "auto-blocking" feature to engage.

[Denise]

Either way, Vagabond is right: while the evidence would indicate that a rail charge could (theoretically) be slashed by a saber, either it would detonate or be split into a couple of pieces which would still hit the Jedi. I would therefore conclude that if rail charges were to be deflected, some sort of Force power (like Force push) would be by far the best way of going about it.

 

Excuse me, isn't that exactly what *I* was saying from the start? Thank you.. didn't know about my name change, though. Does this mean I get moderator abilities?

[Wilhuf]

I guess it's worth repeating now: consider the game balance. Regardless of your position on 'physics', if you charge the Jedi a portion of force for saber blocking at the very least it should be capable of deflecting heavy weapons fire. Otherwise the lightsaber will again be left as a side-show curiosity, rather than a weapon of first resort.

[Guest Krayt Tion]

Physics, which most here now agree shows us why you wouldn't want to directly block a rail to begin with (because you would take damage in some form or another as most have deduced), plus the fact that you can easily avoid the rail at its current pace, makes the rail as I see it a moot point of discussion. Since this is all hypothetical I won't add the fact that the Rail is not confirmed to even be in JK2 to this equation. The only saving grace of this is probably that there might be a weapon that servers a similar function of the Rail in JK2.

[Guest Kurgan]

On a somewhat releated not, I once read somebody claiming that they could (in JK or MotS, maybe both) use Force Destruction to detonate incoming Rail charges.

 

Anybody ever try this? In all my years playing I never ran across this and I forgot to test...

 

If it worked, maybe that would be a possible "solution" to this.

 

Kurgan

[Guest Krayt Tion]

Originally the force taken for a Jedi to block was for the proposed ability to Return Fire To Sender. I assume you still remember this, so are you now proposing that on top of being able to redirect fire of certain weapons directly back to sender that Jedi be allowed to block all types of weapon fire and return them all to sender?

 

From a pure balance standpoint, the Jedi is now too Uber. There must be another way consider this that doesn't produce the conclusion that if Jedi can't block heavy weapons the saber will still be a joke.

[Wilhuf]

Add to that, we don't actually know what Jedi Outcast's overall tempo will be so conclusions about how easy it will be to avoid the rail aren't based on observation. Just experience with JK/MotS. Same is true for all gameplay elements.

 

Although somewhat interesting, these theories about splitting rails and shrapnel damage aren't really helping address the question of how to improve the saber. (Btw one could swat a rail off to one side like a baseball, completely avoiding shrapnel damage.)

 

Look at the problem from a gameplay perspective. Seeing how frequently splash damage occurs, blocking heavy weapons fire really isn't that much of an improvement, and worries that it would make the saber an uber weapon aren't well-founded. Sure it will work against the occasional direct shot, but how often does the direct shot really occur? Sometimes, but not often.

 

For instance, if you've tried the 'Spork' mod for Jedi Knight you see how rare the 'return to sender' event actually is. In Spork, splash isn't blocked. Only direct concussion shots. It's very infrequent that a concussion round is defelected back.

 

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]

[Guest Krayt Tion]

Although somewhat interesting, these theories about splitting rails and shrapnel damage aren't really helping address the question of how to improve the saber. (Btw one could swat a rail off to one side like a baseball, completely avoiding shrapnel damage.)

 

I thought we were going to address the game from a balance standpoint, but since we are still sneaking in BTWs: I said most of us agree that directly blocking the rail means you will still take damage, as in easier to manange blocking that is more stationary in nature. I've read Syndrix's example of swatting the rail from the side, but even he admits that while this is theoretically possible they should not implement this because it would over complicate things; it does not make sense from a "gameplay persective."

 

Spork is based off an engine that is over 4 years old and counting, all without proper collision detection. Who is to say that Raven cannot enable autoblock to cover a wider range and scoop lower to the feet of the Jedi, denying gunners their absolute maximum splash damage where they aim for it and need it the most? Why do you assume that Raven would only allow blocking of mostly the upper body only?

 

What you propose might seem harmless enough at first, but when you consider how far they could easily take blocking, something needs to be put in check to insure we don't have uber Jedi; nothing was specified in this regard and that is easily something to worry about.

 

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]

[ed_silvergun]

Originally posted by Denise:

<STRONG>Excuse me, isn't that exactly what *I* was saying from the start? Thank you.. didn't know about my name change, though. Does this mean I get moderator abilities?</STRONG>

 

Yes, looking back through the posts on this thread, I see that it was you who originally brought up this point. I'm sorry, but I quite simply can't remember exactly who said what throughout the entirety of a six-page topic. I hereby offer my most sincere apologies for attributing it to Vagabond, who I feel should also apologise for so rudely stealing your idea in the first place.

So, to make amends:

 

Originally posted by Denise:

<STRONG>So when you slice through that projectile the pieces will, as they say, "tend to remain in motion". If you're in any postion to put your saber through one it will probably be "tending" directly towards you and you're going to get hit anyway. I wonder what it feels like to get slammed into by a fist-sized glob of semi-molten material? There must not be much consolation in actually stopping the explosion at that point.</STRONG>

 

Either way, Denise is right: while the evidence would indicate that a rail charge could (theoretically) be slashed by a saber, either it would detonate or be split into a couple of pieces which would still hit the Jedi. I would therefore conclude that if rail charges were to be deflected, some sort of Force power (like Force push) would be by far the best way of going about it.

 

[Guest Krayt Tion]

Also to note: maximum splash damage will always be achieved at the feet, unless a Jedi is backed up against a wall or is traveling along side it, which are two far less likely scenarios. The damage done from splash weapons that would be ruled outside the feet blocking radius of a super-human Jedi cannot be determined by anyone here, although if most previous games are an indication there is usually a rapid decrease in the splash effectiveness beginning over very short distances from the target. All to not make splash guns too powerful of course.

[Wilhuf]

Good point. The Saber blocking zone could be a hemisphere, centered on the lightsaber handle and extending the distance of the lightsaber length (or possibly just shorter than the length). It would face the direction the Jedi is looking. And even the Jedis feet could get some protection (although the width of this zone would be smallest at the feet).

 

The gunner could easily defeat this zone by aiming in front or aside of the target, outside of the blocking sphere, but within splash range.

 

One way to tone down the supposed 'Über-Jediness' of heavy weapons blocking would be to add an 'acquisition time' requirement. The saberist has to see the incoming projectile for say 0.5 seconds in order to properly 'set up' a block. If the projectile is fired at close range with very short flight time, the defender wont be able to effectively block. Note this proposed 'acquisition time' would apply to the heavy weapons projectiles only. The logic being that the Jedi needs time to assess how and where to hit the target in order to neutralize its detonator. Deflection of lasers would not have an acquisition time.

 

This would encourage the gunner to close in for the kill. But moving in would also increase his vulnerability to the saber-bearing target.

 

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]

[Guest Krayt Tion]

I agree that the gunner could defeat the zone, but from where I'm standing it would not be an easy thing to do.

 

I'm no slouch at FPSes but aiming and getting as close to someone's feet as possible while they are jumping and dogging left to right has never been extremely easy. Add to that the fact that I'll have to worry about avoiding their blocking radius (and doing it all at the pace of their force speed).

 

Front on rushes by Jedi are another thing to consider as I see them being even harder to fend off then shooting at a Jedi who is merely traversing the level and not heading directly for you. You'd have to worry about preventing the Jedi from squaring away with you during his approach, other wise his frontal feet block would scope up most of your heavy weapons fire and you wouldn't be able to get at him before you reaches you with his quickness.

 

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]

[Guest Krayt Tion]

The saberist has to see the incoming projectile for say 0.5 seconds in order to properly 'set up' a block.

 

For clarification purposes, what counts as seeing? Peripheral vision- ie so long as the projectile is on your computer screen for a certain time, even if it is coming from a corner that you aren't aware of it because you are focusing on another part of your screen, this still counts? As far as I can see your system would have to find a way to exist in harmony with the current proposed idea of a saber blocking radius (which is heavily influenced by the angle in which you can see and face the incoming projectile) or replace it entirely.

 

If the projectile is fired at close range with very short flight time, the defender wont be able to effectively block.

 

For clarification purposes again, what do you mean by effectively? Does this non-effective blocking entail you not being able to get a saber in front of the projectile so it in turn hits your person?

 

Note this proposed 'acquisition time' would apply to the heavy weapons projectiles only. The logic being that the Jedi needs time to assess how and where to hit the target in order to neutralize its detonator. Deflection of lasers would not have an acquisition time.

 

Your idea was making sense until you got to this. I suppose you figured I would have a problem with this part... I think you know why... I still think that anything you would do to block/come in contact with the heavy weapons projectile (short of side-stepping it and then slashing it, which I see only adding complexity to the game and it might be beyond a player's reflexes as well) would still cause you harm.

 

Other things:

 

I'm not meaning to fully explore this tangent now, but saber deflecting versus non-heavy weapons Sniper Fire would factor into the first two things I quoted you on in this post as well.

 

The power of the sniper is in his concealment and often surprise from long distances. If you can't see the sniper or where his fire is coming from, then the 'Saber Blocking Radius' of a Jedi would be meaningless according to your current idea we are exploring (even a direct shot to the front of a Jedi), because all laser fire would not require "aquisition time." My point being that a good sniper could absolutely reck havoc on a group of Jedi with this acquisition system, depending on how powerful one sniper shot is. Even if the Jedi had Force Seeing on I personally could probably drop three Jedi in a group with well-placed shots before they can use Force Seeing to locate me. That seems kind of unbalanced to me...

 

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]

[KillerBee]

I think the idea of stopping the rail wif a sabres pointless, the jedi should use the force.

Hell he should pull the gun to start with

force push/throw should deflect the shots..

 

from a SW physics pov thats very plausible

the conky is different, instant travel for secondry, + its just air..

If the conky is in jk2, I would like to see the splash balls do near 0 damage, and just be used to knock people about.. where as the stream fire is similar to a rail, but not pin point damage.. but thats where the pain comes from.

rails, should be easy to disarm at range (pull or push them)

at close range, the sabrest should be able to destroy the weapon itself with a sabre.. like luke in rotj..

damage to rof rates should imo be used to make heavy weapons bad for straight combat, with blasters doing a ton more damage per second. to make the use of the splash weapons limited to taking out groups.

you could sabre a guy with a rail.. I used to in cargo soldiers for fun..

 

if their is a class system, which is like AvPs ie classes have unique powerups. so jedi cant use guns, then the advantages of the force and a sabre should be enough.. if you got a guy with a rail, you ambush him..

seeing v someone without seeing, if you got a melee weapon and they got a ranged weapon would be Very fair...

[Syndrix]

Posted by Krayt Tion

My point being that a good sniper could absolutely reck havoc into a backs of Jedi with this acquisition system, depending on how powerful one sniper shot is. Even if the Jedi had Force Seeing on I personally could probably drop three Jedi in a group with well-placed shots before they can use that to locate me. I'm not sure things should go down like that...

 

Please clarify this, Wilhuf's acquisition system only applied to heavy weapons, the sniper is just a blaster bolt still. So if someone were facing in his general direction, within the "sphere", it would be blocked automatically. The acquisition principal doesnt apply to a sniper rifle, so it could do quite a bit of damage to the back of targets whatever the blocking system, couldnt they?

Also, I think to many people assume Force Seeing is going to be the same as it once was...

 

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Syndrix ]

[Wilhuf]

'Seeing' means seeing the incoming projectile: You can see it on your screen, peripheral or dead ahead, no difference. Seeing in this case has nothing to do with 'Force Seeing.' If someone shoots at you from behind with a rail and you turn to see it before it hits, but still don't have time to 'aquire,' you take the hit. Likewise, if someone shoots you and you see the projectile long enough (.5 sec maybe less?) you block the shot, provided it intersects your blocking zone.

 

For lasers (including sniper fire), acquisition time doesn't come into play. Nor does 'seeing' the incoming fire. You just block if the shot intersects the blocking zone. Fairly straightforward.

 

And of course the Jedi can only block so many rounds per second. Massive repeater fire would not likely be 100% blocked, for instance.

 

Snipers could still shoot a Jedi in the head from behind without the shot being blocked. Nothing controversial in that, really. If the round hits the target without passing through the blocking zone, its a clean hit and the Jedi is damaged.

 

The Jedi would have to turn and face the enemy sniper in order to block (presumably hitscan) sniper shots. Not because the Jedi must see the shots, but in order to place the blocking zone between him and the enemy.

 

The defensive blocking zone is really just a hemisphere in front of the Jedi. (Actually it would more likely be a plane or diamond shaped volume for ease of calculation).

 

I will make a diagram later to illustrate my concept! That should be fun.

 

For clarification what I mean by 'If the projectile is fired at close range with very short flight time, the defender wont be able to effectively block:' It's simply that if a gunner attacks a Jedi at close range, the projectile travel time will be very short of course. So, the Jedi will not be able to acquire the incoming projectile, will not be able to block, will take the hit and take full damage. His attempt at blocking would be 'ineffective.'

 

Don't worry about 'sidestepping' shrapnel. That just adds unnecessary complexity. Conceptually, when blocking, the Jedi simply smashes the rail out the way, swatting the shrapnel aside, neutralizing the detonator. Concussion rounds are deflected. Batter up!

 

In some cases the Jedi might deflect a concussion round into a nearby wall or the ground, giving himself splash damage. Jedi have to be careful where they deflect concussion rounds.

 

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]

[Syndrix]

Posted by Wilhuf

And of course the Jedi can only block so many rounds per second. Massive repeater fire would not likely be 100% blocked, for instance.

 

Oh Wilhuf dont say that, please, one of the things I want corrected is this exact problem. If you are charging towards a gunner, like Krayt Tion said, the gunner should somehow be able hit the saberer with splash damage. But conversely the Jedi charging towards the gunner should be able to block all direct non-heavy weapons fire.

 

If not then we would see a repeat of JK, the saber blocking a shot when you go to attack, you dont actually attack because when you pressed the button it auto-blocked instead and then the next few shots get past your auto-block. So you get damaged and dont actually do any damage to the opponent.

 

A Jedi would be limited to a certain amount of blocks a second, but in game terms I dont think any gun fires at a fast enough rate. I believe even the repeater gun isnt fast enough to get past an experienced saberist (which I assume Kyle is), it only fires at a shot a second, I think . The only ways non-heavy weapons fire should be able to get past a saber is with supercharge thing, the accelerated fire rate may be too much to block all the shots. But I think that should be taken out anyway, make it more strategic. Or perhaps if shots from two different people came in at the same time, one would get through.

 

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Syndrix ]

[Wilhuf]

Well this is a good example supporting my reasoning that auto blocking should be a toggle, not just always active. If you don't want autoblocking, switch it off.

 

Anyway, the gunner has to be able to get at least a few rounds through the saber blocking zone. Otherwise, what is the fun in an all-blocking Überjedi?

 

BTW I hope they boost the Repeater power significantly. It seemed pretty weak in JK.