NR_SC_ReBoRN__ Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 I think that a good solution to the gun/saber inbalance would be to have the saber do more damage to someone who is using a gun... its tricky enough getting to the gunner before you dead, let alone dealing with 3 or 4 heavy swings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by NR_SC_ReBoRN__: I think that a good solution to the gun/saber inbalance would be to have the saber do more damage to someone who is using a gun... its tricky enough getting to the gunner before you dead, let alone dealing with 3 or 4 heavy swings. Simple and to the point. I agree, for a sequel the sabre should do more damage than it does in JO at the moment. But I think it should be area based, headshots = death etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Solar Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Well, Spiky AL... if we'll get area based damage, I sure hope they work on some new saber-swings. The ones we have are all pretty much alike and aimed at the torso. That's how it seems anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeTRiTiC-iQ Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 ahhhh, but area damage isn't required because its a simple matter to decapitate whichever limb is hit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by FatalStrike Yes that is exactly why. Do you play BF1942? Why don't you come to the Brother's in Arm's server and show me your skill . HAHAHAHAHA... pardon me while I laugh some more... HAHAHAHAHA... now.... DON'T try to compensate for your crappyness in JO by challenging me to a game that I have never played before. LOL I think Spider_Al put it the right way. I think that a good solution to the gun/saber inbalance would be to have the saber do more damage to someone who is using a gun... its tricky enough getting to the gunner before you dead, let alone dealing with 3 or 4 heavy swings It does. Blue lunge move does damage, red overhead does 1 hit kills, and yellow does some serious damage. But yes they should be made more powerful (except the red special move) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smood Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by Doctor Shaft Some good ideas here. Although I am a promod player these days, I did at some point take pleasure in JO. I like using guns and sabers (sniper plus saber - sweet). Most unfortunately, I came to the game when 1.03 came out, and my first reaction was "what the..." It just didn't feel right. Even the original JK didn't have things that bad. Guns were powerful in JK, but so were sabers. If you didn't have what it took to get close, well, you were dead. Then again, that conc rifle with force destruct was pretty unbeatable . I'm ready for a change of atmosphere though. I'm talking restrictions on what weapons you carry. More force powers would be nice. Stop giving us the same list with a few amedments. I know it would be difficult to make more powers that wouldn't be ridiculous or useless, but come on, the developers have time, start brainstorming. Explosives and stuff. I'm all for it, I think it would be nice if we got rid of the "I walk around with all 10 weapons, fully loaded, at a break neck speed". I say give everyone all the explosives and stuff they want, but impose carrying limitations, and weight restrictions. Of course, once again this wouldn't fit the Dark Forces tradition, in which I carry enough stuff to arm 20 people. Personally, I would gladly welcome the disappearance of that one tradition. Kyle must never disappear. Ever. I'd like to see different characters, but Kyle stays. Saber combat should be made more difficult. I'm right there with you. JO combat was nice, and Promod's aim thing is nifty, but it isn't all that great. There's still that feeling of just random clashiness. It needs to be fast, it needs to fps style, but we should get a variety of stances and the methods of getting hits and blocking should have more depth. Some swings that go low, some swings that would be used if my opponent enjoyed leaping everywhere. Right now, we have a variety of saber swings, but they all go in the the frontal area, at about the mid section. Swinging low CAN be done, but the game doesn't really take that into account in terms of blocks. People that jump and leap around are generally safe becasue the swings are all designed to fight someone who likes to fight fair and stupid. Hacking gunners wouldn't be so hard if our saber swings weren't merely designed for saber clashes. If gunners were dangerous, but I had dynamic saber moves, I mean things that lunged me across the floor, let me do specialized techniques that attacked both the ground beneath me and the air above me, then we wouldn't have so many complaints (perhaps). YESSSSSSSS! MY GOD YES! FINALLY A BELIEVER!!! Hey spider AL take a look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zodiac Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by Spider AL Nevertheless it contained those two statements. It's hardly my responsibility to compensate for the fact that your posts contradict themselves and each other. Those sentences are there for context and to help clarify my overall statement. Like I said before: you can not quote a few sentences and then come to a conclusion, based on those few sentences and not the entire post(s). If you would've read my post correctly, it'd be clear that those sentences are there purely as context to help people understand what my point was. It's like if someone said: "I like fags, they are so useful for lighting cigarettes"... and you quoting only the I like fags part and concluding he's a homosexual. It is not a correct way of discussing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Skywalker Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by Zodiac It's like if someone said: "I like fags, they are so useful for lighting cigarettes"... ah my... roflmao, you mean lighters, a 'fag' is a british term for a cigarette, you dont light cigarettes with cigarettes, well you can, but im sure you meant lighter.. right? right? this thread will probably get locked like the other one soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zodiac Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 LOL. darn!. You are so right! I thought a fag was a lighter in British. I ment lighter yeah. , so the sentence should be: I like fags, they are good for smoking and relaxing.. and someone quoting only the "i like fags"-part and concluding i was homosexual. sorry for the mistake, my Dutch brain got them a bit mixed up. are these correct? Pub = Bar 2 pints of stella = 2 pints of beer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Skywalker Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 lol, yeah those are fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smood Posted February 14, 2003 Author Share Posted February 14, 2003 I was wondering where all those individuals were that supported ideas not so different then my own (refer to the beginning of the whole thread!). It is so refreshing to have some people on my side. No more Spider AL + (the world) vs. Myself. Fatal Strike makes some valid flames as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by Spider AL Simple and to the point. I agree, for a sequel the sabre should do more damage than it does in JO at the moment. But I think it should be area based, headshots = death etc. This simple change alone would go a long way in making the saber one of the most useful weapons in JO. See how simple this all is? No more Spider AL + (the world) vs. Myself. Ahh Smood! Don't look at it that way! I'm not against you anyway. Just because we disagree on a few issues, our goal remains the same, to make JO fun to play. It's always good to debate different points of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by DeTRiTiC-iQ: ahhhh, but area damage isn't required because its a simple matter to decapitate whichever limb is hit ANOTHER ONE! My god man, decapitate a limb? SEVER! SEVER! Sigh. Twice in one... set of threads. I'd like to see an overall area-specific damage map actually. Guns and sabres. Originally posted by Smood: YESSSSSSSS! MY GOD YES! FINALLY A BELIEVER!!! Hey spider AL take a look I don't think he says that he agrees with your more... outlandish theories anywhere in that post, Smood. Possibly he agrees with some of your more sane ideas. Of which there were few. And why do you persist in the annoying practice of quoting an entire message just for a two-line reply at the end? Ugh. Originally posted by Zodiac: Those sentences are there for context and to help clarify my overall statement. Like I said before: you can not quote a few sentences and then come to a conclusion, based on those few sentences and not the entire post(s). Wrong. The snippets I quoted were not merely self-contained sentences, but also standalone paragraphs. Self-contained units of text that convey ideas. There's no way you can get out of it linguistically. You said it. Now if you didn't mean to say it, that's fine, but you did say it, and that's a wrap. Originally posted by Zodiac: "I like fags, they are so useful for lighting cigarettes"... and you quoting only the "I like fags" part and concluding he's a homosexual. It is not a correct way of discussing things. Wrong again Zod, that's three words, not a whole paragraph, not even a sentence. I always quote paragraphs for preference, sentences when the paragraphs are too large, and I always preserve context no matter what I quote. You said it. Just because you contradicted yourself later, doesn't mean you didn't say it. Here's an example: Detritic says: "I am a goldfish!" Then posts later: "I am not a goldfish." Then I could quote the first line, and say with all legitimacy that he had claimed to be a goldfish. The fact that he contradicted his own statement later does not make his earlier statement defunct, whether he intended to post it or not. He can't come back later and say "I meant to say that I wasn't a goldfish, and my second line was a clarification of that sentiment". It just doesn't work that way. Unless you're a politician, but they're subhuman and they don't count. Originally posted by Smood: No more Spider AL + (the world) vs. Myself. Heck, persecution complex much? Your ideas aren't too good. Get over it. Originally posted by Smood: Fatal Strike makes some valid flames as well. Yes, I've noticed you following me around into other threads, posting "LOL NICE 1 NICE 1" whenever anyone disagrees with me. Vindictiveness is such a pleasant, mature thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeTRiTiC-iQ Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by Spider AL ANOTHER ONE! My god man, decapitate a limb? SEVER! SEVER! Sigh. Twice in one... set of threads. For crying out loud Spider, READ... I very deliberately put a wink emoticon (for example: ";)") after that line, I was referring to the page long argument on that very issue... jeez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UgonDieFoo Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by Prime I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on most of these points First regarding having force used up for defending with the saber. The problem I see is the same thing that happened when heal was much more powerful. People would get their force pool low and then run off until it came up again. There would have to seriously get the pool usage levels right for it to work. In a full force game, people probably wouldn't use force powers because as soon as they did, they would get chopped down with no ability to defend themselves. The biggest problem would be with gunners. This would make guns against sabers even more deadly. If I attack you with even my alt-fire blaster rifle, I could just stand there and lower your force pool because you would have to deflect all my shots. This gives me a great advantage because I am reducing your ability to use absorb, defend against push/pull, and whatever else, all the while my force pool is increasing to the max because all I'm doing is pulling the trigger. Hell, then I can pull out my rocket launcher and blow you away, because you don't have the mana left to push the rocket back, or I'll lightning you, as you can't use absorb. I don't see how push and pull are useless right now. You say that push should not have much affect on someone with full force, and more effect on low force. Isn't that the way it is now? If I push someone with full force, they counter that and don't get moved, knocked down, or whatever. If someone has depleted their force pool, they get shoved around. So what's the difference? And combining this with your proposed saber system would probably mean I can't use push because I'm spending all my power defending. I also don't see how what your proposing for Force See is drastically duifferent than what we have now. And frankly, seeing is very useful. Besides the handy thing about seeing through mind trick, and as has been said before, you can spot snipers and detect people behind walls, and so on. And the higher the level, the farther you can see. This is just what you are wanting, isn't it? I do like some of your ideas for getting more information from force sight, like maybe force alignment and health. You have very valid points Prime. I had even realized some of the weaknesses in my system that you pointed out when I was making my post. Serious reworking of the force powers and the overall amount of force each player gets would be needed. A lot of thinking would have to go into how much force powers would cost, how powerful they would each be, how they would work, and some other stuff I can't even think of right now. There would also have to been lots of testing on the saber combat as well as the effectiveness of guns vs. saber defense. I would agree with anyone who asserted that all that balancing would be extremely difficulty to do. My system would be very complicated to properly implement because the main elements of combat would be totally interdependent on each other. However, despite its potential problems, I still believe that the system I proposed could work, if all the necessary balancing and adjusting was made to all the areas where it was necessary. The issue of gunners draining someone using a saber of his force might not even be an issue at all if it was properly balanced. The issue of people not willing to use force powers might be resolved, provided that the amount of force each player gets was properly adjusted. If all of this was done, then the interdependency of the force and the sabering might work out to be a very good system. The reason I proposed it in the first place was because everything would be tied together. This could make the entire gameplay experience much more dynamic and skillful. Obviously, this kind of system would not work with the way thing are in Jedi Outcast, but perhaps with a fresh start it could work. Regarding what you said about force push and pull, are you sure what you said is true? Is push or pull really more effective against someone with little force? I though it said somewhere in the 1.04 patch description that it was based on how many points each person had in push or pull. Anyway, the reason I said they were worthless was because push and pull seem to work so rarely, other then move a guy a little bit which isn’t helpful. When you do knock someone down they, flip up immediately. I guess they do have other uses, like pushing people off of cliffs and stuff, but again they still work rarely. All this of course is debatable. It’s just my take on push and pull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by UgonDieFoo However, despite its potential problems, I still believe that the system I proposed could work, if all the necessary balancing and adjusting was made to all the areas where it was necessary. The issue of gunners draining someone using a saber of his force might not even be an issue at all if it was properly balanced. The issue of people not willing to use force powers might be resolved, provided that the amount of force each player gets was properly adjusted. Regarding what you said about force push and pull, are you sure what you said is true? Is push or pull really more effective against someone with little force? I though it said somewhere in the 1.04 patch description that it was based on how many points each person had in push or pull. Anyway, the reason I said they were worthless was because push and pull seem to work so rarely, other then move a guy a little bit which isn’t helpful. When you do knock someone down they, flip up immediately. I guess they do have other uses, like pushing people off of cliffs and stuff, but again they still work rarely. All this of course is debatable. It’s just my take on push and pull. Perhaps what is needed is something other than force power to accomplish the same goal. Like maybe a strength or stamina meter (I'll call it strength for now). That way, the defender's ability to use the force would not be diminished, and would be available for counterattacks. Sort of like your idea, if player 1 blocks player 2's overhead strong swing, this would deplete substantially player 1's strength meter. Then player 1 has less ability to defend against the next attack. This strength meter would of course ramp up rather quickly to full strength. Blue stance attacks that are blocked would drain less strength. Also, glancing blows would drain less strength than direct blocks. If a player makes a few blocks, his strength meter momentarily drops to a lower amount depending on the strength and directness of the blow. Now, I like Spider Al's area damage idea, so maybe that could be incorporated as well. When a player has full health, his strength is at 100%. If a player has been hit and his health is lowered, that would lower the maximum that his strength meter can recharge to. So if a player gets hit in the arm and his health is at 60, maybe his strength can only reach 60% of max. I always thought that someone with 5 health points left meant that they were really hurt and near death. And yet, in the game, they are still running and jumping like just had a good nights sleep. And for those who care about such things, this would reflect the movies, for example when Luke is fighting Vader in Cloud City. After beating on Luke for a while, and Vader starts flinging hardware at him, you'll notice that Luke is much less effective at defending himself with his saber. Or when Luke start wailing on Vader with overhead chops in ROTJ, Vader can't defend himself nearly as well as he could in the beginning. Now you know why, their strength meters were low! All this would still allow the player to use the force to full capacity, and not be affected by their sabering. What I was trying to say about force push/pull is that if you push someone who has little or no force mana left, they will be pushed far or even knocked over, whereas someone with full force strength will just counter and not be moved. IIRC the 1.04 readme is refering to the case where someone pushes someone else when both are at equal force strength. In that case the person with the higher rank will be more effective. I know what you are saying about push/pull being ineffective, but I think the real strength of these powers is using them at the right times. If used strategically, they can be very powerful. Anyway, I look forward to hearing what people think of this modified idea. And if you need a break, it might be a fun drinking game if you read this post and take a shot every time you see the word "strength". Strength, strength, strength, strength... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by DeTRiTiC-iQ: For crying out loud Spider, READ... I very deliberately put a wink emoticon (for example: ";)") after that line, Does one read images? Anyway, there wasn't any winky there when I read it. *Coughcougheditcough* Now I know you're going to deny it, but frankly who can trust a man who claims he's a goldfish? *** Prime: All good points, I actually like the... well, sort of RPGesque strength score idea. In a sequel, nothing would please me more than the kind of successful cross-genre blending that we saw in say... System Shock 2. The positive simplicity must be preserved, however, and I have a feeling that once you start introducing ability meters of the type you suggest, you'll never be able to stop. You know what I mean, stamina dials, dexterity dials, etc etc. What I'd like to see in a JO sequel then, is everything that was good about JO, (1.02 w/o rotating backswing, in other words ) with some added benefits, area-specific damage map, some JK1-esque longer range Force powers, beefed up sabre damage... But here's an important point: Unless there's a paradigm shift in the mentality of games developers, they will continue the always-harmful gameplay-altering patching process with every game that comes out. As long as this is going on, I doubt we'll ever have an ideal JK game. Too many fanboys spoiling the broth, in an already much too player-majority-pandering online society. Perhaps we should be turning our turgid, obviously active minds to the problem of how to stop people like Raven listening to the inevitable whining? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_NinjaGaiden_ Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 the expansion no matter what it contains will be cool ....... you guys need not worry about it ..... Lucasarts got it covered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJedi Kaga Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Just scanned the thread so not sure if these have already been said, but here are my ideas for the expansion: -The dark side needs to be rebalanced. Absorb makes nearly every dark side power useless. Dark rage works but thats an automatic life and force loss. The way the other dark powers interact with absorb needs to be changed, or new darkside powers have to be added or used as replacements the current ones. - The saber needs some changes so that it can be more useful against guns. My suggestion, if it's possible with the game engine, is to have both saber throw and saber swings destroy guns with a well aimed swing or throw. I would also increase the number of saber throw rotations for those with rank 3 in saber throw. The saber should spin twice instead of once when it comes into contact with someone thus causing 60 damage. - A new gun would be nice. Perhaps they could bring back a version of the concussion rifle. Primary fire could be a concussion blast and secondary could be some sort of concussion grenade that causes damage and knocks people down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zodiac Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by Spider AL Wrong. The snippets I quoted were not merely self-contained sentences, but also standalone paragraphs. Self-contained units of text that convey ideas. There's no way you can get out of it linguistically. You said it. Now if you didn't mean to say it, that's fine, but you did say it, and that's a wrap. Wrong again Zod, that's three words, not a whole paragraph, not even a sentence. I always quote paragraphs for preference, sentences when the paragraphs are too large, and I always preserve context no matter what I quote. You said it. Just because you contradicted yourself later, doesn't mean you didn't say it. That's where you're wrong Spider Al. This is not an essay or assignment, this is the internet. I don't use ordinary hard returns to create paragraphs on a message board on the internet. I use them to make the post more easily readable. If you had the idea they were separate paragraphs, then you didn't read it as I intended it to be read. I could not've used hard returns, but this is a whole other discussion. If you got confused by my way of writing: sorry. But this is the internet and I don't actually care about spelling or paragraphs.. all I care about is: can people easily read the words I write down? And even if it actually ARE paragraphs.. did I ever say the two worlds would be separated forever/permanently? No. Did I ever say a gunner couldn't grab a saber in a fight? No. You quoted these two sentences of mine Originally posted by Zodiac: They can't be equal. They need to be different. They ARE different. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And this: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Zodiac: Future developers have to realize that sabers and gunners are 2 completely different worlds; with different styles, different tastes, different gameplay and different players. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seems like you said it to me. Did I ever say those worlds should be separated permanently? No. Did I say they are totally different: Yes. Does that mean a player can't play with both sides? NO!. I did say they had to be separated, but did I say permanent or does that mean forever? No!!! also because in the same post I explained they wouldn't be separated forever and that eventually they would find eachother. So my point still stands: There are two really different worlds. They should be separated. But does that mean permanent separation? No! I never said forever or permanent and I'm still not saying that! I never said a saberist couldn't or shouldn't be able to grab a gun in combat!! So stop with this bickering, admit you didn't read my post as I intended people to read it (which could also partly be my fault, due to misunderstood hard returns), so we can close this and get on with more useful things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by Spider AL Prime: All good points, I actually like the... well, sort of RPGesque strength score idea. In a sequel, nothing would please me more than the kind of successful cross-genre blending that we saw in say... System Shock 2. The positive simplicity must be preserved, however, and I have a feeling that once you start introducing ability meters of the type you suggest, you'll never be able to stop. You know what I mean, stamina dials, dexterity dials, etc etc. I didn't really intend it as an RPG thing, so maybe strength meter is a bad name for it. I was just proposing some sort of measure that could determine how good your saber defence is going to be. I think in a FPS, the "RPG ability scores" should come from the players themselves, not determined by the game (dexterity and so on). A good example of this is the saber lock. I feel that this translates strength from the player in a good way. Originally posted by _NinjaGaiden_ the expansion no matter what it contains will be cool ....... you guys need not worry about it ..... Lucasarts got it covered I agree Dispite the debate of how to maybe improve the game, I think that Raven has made a great game. Originally posted by IronJedi Kaga -The dark side needs to be rebalanced. Absorb makes nearly every dark side power useless. Dark rage works but thats an automatic life and force loss. The way the other dark powers interact with absorb needs to be changed, or new darkside powers have to be added or used as replacements the current ones. - The saber needs some changes so that it can be more useful against guns. My suggestion, if it's possible with the game engine, is to have both saber throw and saber swings destroy guns with a well aimed swing or throw. I don't think that the light/dark force balance needs to be tweeked too much. The thing is, absorb is the only power lightsiders have against the dark side. If it wasn't for absorb, lightning and drain would be spammed o'plenty. The difference is that when lightsiders use absorb, there is no damage or other affects to the darksider. A darksiders powers DO affect the lightsider, and so lightsiders are at a disadvantage. In my view, absorb balances this trait. By altering absorb and allowing dark side powers to affect it, dark siders will be much more powerful than lightsiders. the idea of being able to destroy guns with the saber is very interesting. I like this idea a lot. In close combat, the saber should have the advantage. This would definitely tip the scales to the saber in this situation. Originally posted by ZodiacSo my point still stands: There are two really different worlds. They should be separated. But does that mean permanent separation? No! I never said forever or permanent and I'm still not saying that! I never said a saberist couldn't or shouldn't be able to grab a gun in combat!! So stop with this bickering, admit you didn't read my post as I intended people to read it, so we can close this and get on with more useful things. I really don't understand what you are trying to say here. If they should start out seperated, what changes so that they should come together later? If you're saying a saberist should be able to grab a gun, why should gunners and saberists start out seperated? If saberists and gunners are going to end up interacting, shouldn't this happen from the start? If not, wouldn't things be unbalanced, as the tactics that would be developed during the seperated time period would not translate to success in the new reality of gunners vs. saberists? I'm not trying to flame you, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of what your views are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeTRiTiC-iQ Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by Spider AL Does one read images? Anyway, there wasn't any winky there when I read it. *Coughcougheditcough* Now I know you're going to deny it, but frankly who can trust a man who claims he's a goldfish? Either you're connection is incapable of loading tiny emoticons, you're blind, or you're lying. I only agree with you when I have reason to, right now you are only succeeding in annoying even those who have supported you in the past. I've known what "decapitate" means since I played Decap Attack on the Mega Drive, ie A LONG TIME AGO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zodiac Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by Prime I really don't understand what you are trying to say here. If they should start out seperated, what changes so that they should come together later? If you're saying a saberist should be able to grab a gun, why should gunners and saberists start out seperated? If saberists and gunners are going to end up interacting, shouldn't this happen from the start? If not, wouldn't things be unbalanced, as the tactics that would be developed during the seperated time period would not translate to success in the new reality of gunners vs. saberists? I'm not trying to flame you, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of what your views are What I'm saying is that Raven tried to balance the game in a way that saberists and gunners could play with eachother in a fair and competitive way on the same server. That is a noble goal and I respect and support that. But I think Raven used a wrong balancing method. They tried to balance it, while each separate setting, like pure saber and pure gunning still had its flaws. Like the sabering hit system wasn't good yet, and some guns were too powerful in comparison to other guns, etc. And while they were fixing those things, they also edited the different gameplay-settings to get them balanced. All at the same time. I don't think they should've done everything at the same time. They should've split it up. My point: Concentrate on each separate setting first, like only focus on sabering, and perfectionize this setting to get the best gameplay with this setting only. Now after that, write down what makes sabering great and what not. Now do the same for all other settings: Make the gameplay perfect for all individual settings first. (And if you have multiple development groups, you can work on each different setting at the same time.) After you've done that, THEN try to balance it with eachother, and keeping in mind what was great about a setting and keeping it and what was not good about a setting. If something that was fantastic fun has to be deleted from the game, just because it can't be balanced to another setting: don't balance it! Special moves and special skills will evolve like that, because players will adapt. It's better to let the players adapt to it than removing something that's enormously fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by Zodiac: That's where you're wrong Spider Al. This is not an essay or assignment, this is the internet. That is no excuse for bad English. Get your act together, soldier! You use too many full-stops too. Originally posted by Zodiac: I don't use ordinary hard returns to create paragraphs on a message board on the internet. I use them to make the post more easily readable. If you had the idea they were separate paragraphs, then you didn't read it as I intended it to be read. Pfft! With your poor layout, you'd have to be psychic to know how you intended that post to be read. Originally posted by Zodiac: If you got confused by my way of writing: sorry. But this is the internet and I don't actually care about spelling or paragraphs.. all I care about is: can people easily read the words I write down? Apology accepted! but paragraphs are there to assist you, and when used correctly they make ideas easier to convey, and easier to read. from what you're saying, you're guilty of mangling the written word as well as contradicting yourself repeatedly. Originally posted by Zodiac: And even if it actually ARE paragraphs.. did I ever say the two worlds would be separated forever/permanently? No. Did I ever say a gunner couldn't grab a saber in a fight? No. You're grasping at straws there. You said this: Originally posted by Zodiac: Sabers and guns should be kept separated! History has shown us (= JK1 AND JK2) that there is no way you can balance them and please both sides. So if you then say in another post that they should go hand-in-hand, you're contradicting yourself. There's no way you can squirm out of it. You may have misunderstood what you were typing, but I certainly didn't misunderstand what the finished text meant. once again, it's not my responsibility to compensate for your mistakes. Originally posted by Zodiac: But I think Raven used a wrong balancing method. They tried to balance it, while each separate setting, like pure saber and pure gunning still had its flaws. Like the sabering hit system wasn't good yet, and some guns were too powerful in comparison to other guns, etc. Ah, an interesting point to address here, how powerful is "too powerful"? I think the guns in 1.02 were perfect, but what do you believe was wrong with the balance? And the sabre in 1.02 was exemplary... what was wrong with that? Originally posted by Prime: I agree Dispite the debate of how to maybe improve the game, I think that Raven has made a great game. Thinking about it, this is true. Even 1.04 JO is more inspiring than the flat-pack fast-food releases of the past year, and I'd rather play 1.04 than UT2k3, any day of the week. Which is why I don't play anything at all, probably. Originally posted by DeTRiTiC-iQ: Either you're connection is incapable of loading tiny emoticons, you're blind, or you're lying. I only agree with you when I have reason to, right now you are only succeeding in annoying even those who have supported you in the past. Methinks Deditric doth protest too much! Besides, here's an important point: support what you agree with, not the person who posted what you agree with. I certainly don't automatically support someone I've happened to agree with in the past. You shouldn't go around pledging allegiance to all and sundry, because vocally supporting someone when you don't agree with what they're saying is always dishonourable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeTRiTiC-iQ Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by DeTRiTiC-iQ I only agree with you when I have reason to By which I meant, I only agree with you when I think you're right. Spider, if you learnt the following about PEOPLE, it might help you better defend your own "honour": - This is the internet, its a lot harder for some people to express their meaning in words alone. - Just because you interpret someone's words in such a way that they are wrong, doesn't make that person wrong. - Calling strangers "my son" can only be interpreted as arrogance. - Credit people with some intelligence, you may disagree with them, they may even be completely wrong. But this does not give you the right to talk as though you have the entire "real gaming" world behind you. - Many people, including myself, find it difficult to convey a meaning by both written and vocal means. Make sure you fully understand what people are trying to say before you jump on them and lecture them about "honour". Oh, and the only people i've met who have considered YOU honourable are you clanmates, who I might mention are extremely obnoxious during games btw: I didn't edit the post, there was a ";)" there all along, if you read the post AND placed it in the context of the post above it your small mind may stand a chance of understanding. In fact, I have NEVER edited a post of mine after it has been quoted. I post corrections seperately to maintain continuity. (disclaimer: by "small mind", I of course refer to narrow-mindedness) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.