Why did the game die/is the game dying?

[shock ~ unnamed]

Originally posted by DeTRiTiC-iQ

Good players don't spam, they use attacks only as much as they need to. Good players may use individual moves a lot in succession, but that's not the same as spamming. Because with a good player almost every single shot is well aimed and will probably hit you unless you evade.

 

"Spammers" just fire non-stop without really aiming in the hope that they'll actually hit something, the problem with pull/push spamming is that it actually WORKS.

 

A Spammer is one of those people who doesn't get many kills, but they lag the server to hell and back with non-stop shots. In JK2 its quite evident with lightning users, since they keep firing even when they're not actually facing the target.

 

True but my whole beef with the “Spam” thing is:

 

1-Spam by “definition” is the same thing over and over correct?

 

2-If a person repeats the same tactic; you know what is coming, so prepare for it.

 

Of course any person with even the slightest game plan won’t fall into a pattern of doing the same move/attack over and over so by nature this “spammer” is what many would call a “noob”.

 

Complaining (not you just anyone in general) that you can’t beat the predictable unskilled player and in turn considering yourself skilled is just kind of silly to me.

 

The lightning example was actually a good one.

 

There is always some guy in a FF/SO FFA blasting level 3 lightning like crazy.

Generally the players who ignore him and just run around swinging their sabers have scores much lower than Mr. Lightning.

 

However the players who zero in on him the second he makes it back to the fight and rush him w/ absorb or grip kick him the second they see him are usually the players with higher scores and ironically, players who don’t get killed by lightning.

 

People simply don’t put any thought into what they do.

Why bother to learn how to combat Force based attacks?

Just call the person gay or a “lamer” and vote them off the server.

 

Why bother picking up a gun in a FFA, just run around and try and saber the guy shooting 6 rockets at your head. If you die tell him guns are for noobs and call a vote to kick him.

 

That sadly, is the JK2 norm and has been for some time.

[RpTheHotrod]

What ever happened to that JK2 mod that had a TFC feel?

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

See, Al, I actually tried to be polite and such.

Could have fooled me.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

But you know what? You can sit around a bitch and moan about how fanboys ruined the game. It doesnt' make it true. What ruined the game was not fanboys bitching, but rather the way in which the changes they advocated for were implemented.

Oh I see. It wasn't the fanboys' fault, it was Raven's fault for listening to them? What rubbish.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

1.02 was flawed and needed fixing. Take the blocking, for example. The way blocking in 1.02 was implemented, it really was just a jousting match of who swung first, since you knew there'd never be any chance of your swing NOT connected. That's why a lot of folks asked for blocking similar to SP's method.

You missed out three important words there: "In my opinion". Just because you thought the sabre combat was flawed because it didn't have SP blocking, doesn't make it so.

 

It was people like you who caused 1.03, people who didn't care whether they ruined things for other people, people who wanted their view of "improvements" inflicted on others before the game even had a chance to mature and develop, and it was a huge, a HUGE surprise (not) when these "improvements" resulted in catastrophic and irrevocable damage to the community. The nerfing of guns. The nerfing of drain and heal, all these things were specifically requested by the fanboys. Well done them.

 

No, it's not Raven's implimentation that was at fault. The fanboys asked for "SP STYLEE MROE BLOCKINGG SABARS" and they got random auto-blocking. Big surprise, nobody could have predicted that.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

A lot of people wanted the DFA fixed from 1.02 because it had no drawbacks to it, the same way that the backstab in 1.03 did. All you'd do was get into a group, spam the move, and watch your score climb. No challenge there, no real interest there.

Yes, the fact that one could turn during a DFA was the only problem with 1.02, and it was indeed a bug. If this bug had been fixed in 1.03 and nothing else changed, all would have been right with the world, and 1.02 could have been left to develop, and succeed or fail, on its own merits.

 

Instead, Raven listened to what at the time was the most vocal portion of the community, and produced a monstrosity. The fanboys once again.

 

See the recurring theme here?

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

The way I define balance is that weapons have an advantage and a disadvantage to their use. The RL in Quake has advantages. It's incredibly powerful and can be used effectively at medium and long ranges. In close, though, it has its disadvantages. If you misfire the thing, or if you try to kill someone right next to you, you'll seriously damage yourself in the process. That's balance.

Don't be foolish, if a weapon is as powerful as the Rocket launcher was in Quake 1, players compensate for any "disadvantages" (or as I like to call them, "realities") associated with that weapon faster than you can scream "WALLHACKZZZ!!!11". The RL in Quake had nothing to DO with balance. It wasn't on the same PLANET as balance. And by your tenuous rationale, the Flechette in JO was balanced because people blew themselves up if they spammed in confined spaces. It was still the weapon intelligent players used 80% of the time.

 

You can manufacture disadvantages for any weapon, from the AWP to the Redeemer, it makes no earthly difference to anything. Innate POWER is all that's important. There will always be a most powerful weapon in each game, in each arena. Winners will always use that weapon. Whiners will always whine about balance when they do.

 

The only "balance" that's ever possible, OR DESIRABLE, is the balance between teams. Giving both CTF bases the same weapons, giving both sides of the Force counters to each other. 1.03 ruined that balance. The fanboys ruined that balance.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

Same with the ASMD. Great at long range sniping duties, reasonably powerful with the secondary fire, but the primary fire sucked in short range unless you were really accurate with it. That's balance. I don't think it's a terribly difficult concept to grasp.

It's obviously difficult enough to grasp that you've failed to grasp it. You can sit there and call the ASMD balanced when the power of its shock-combo was the cause of some of the biggest upheavals of discontent among the UT player populous? Amazing.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

Overall, in terms of force powers, I thought they were pretty balanced in the later patches. Dark side wasn't all powerful, and light side had no real offensive powers.

I'm getting the impression that you only played on sabres servers. Only someone who never ever played guns could call the sides "balanced in the later patches".

 

The Light side was powerful before 1.03. After 1.03? One-horse race. Also a one-force-power-race. Only one power was worth having on either side, Absorb for the lightsiders, Rage for the darksiders. Rage gave a gunner kills, but it left them without a gun a lot, as they were vulnerable to pull. Absorb gave lightsiders a shield that let them keep their gun, and so they shot hundreds of people... but they didn't have the speed of a Rager. All other side-specific powers were useless post-patch.

 

And anyone who can sit here and claim without a shadow of a doubt that "Drain is great" post-patch, is obviously in need of restraint and medication. Drain IS great, if you want to GET KILLED. Who do you PLAY? the TELETUBBIES?

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

Now, as for competitive gamers, I was quite serious in what I said. There's nothing wrong with playing to win. There's nothign wrong with using particular tactics on a server, provided that server has rules that permit it. And I don't blame you for using a single move over and over, if you're on a competitive server and it's a no-holds-barred match.

Sorry to burst your martyr bubble, but spammers lose. No truly skilled player gets defeated by a spammer. Spammers are lame, yes, and annoying, yes, but dangerous to anyone with skill? Nope.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

Al, you put 1.02 up on a pedestal and say that it could've been a great game. I disagree.

You're welcome to your opinion, and we all know how much store I set by it.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

But see, there's this great thing called the "Marketplace of Ideas." It's the basic concept that if we keep discussing things, eventually, we'll get to a good result.

A result like 1.03? What a fabulous basic concept that is. Let's all continue to mash our gums on a subject we obviously know nothing about, and maybe someday we'll get the satisfaction of having a Jedi-based game we can all RPG in.

 

shock ~ unnamed: Your post was an eloquent indictment of the fanboyitis that has been a canker on the heart of JO since it's conception.

[ryudom]

uh i skiped a bunch of posts so this could have been said:

 

Solo, you can't compare blocking in SP and MP. in SP your fighting against AI, and the saber combat was totaly differant. infact i hated SP saber combat, it felt very sloppy and it luck based heh. MP sabering is alot better imo...

[Solo4114]

What mod was that? I'd DEFINITELY play a TFC style JO mod if they had one.

 

Shock, you're right that I'm basically equating lamers = spammers = 1337 players. Under the current style of gameplay, there are ways to beat the spammed attacks. There were ways to beat the spammed attacks in 1.03 too (I found kicking with absorb on to work pretty well, then finishing off with a throw), and you could SORT of beat a spammed DFA in 1.02 (but you'd better wait until the move is finished, since you could still rotate after finishing the move, and the sabre would damage you even if it was in the ground). The problem I have with people like that is that it's boring to play with them or against them. I mean, in the end, they're one-trick-ponies, which I find to be rather dull to play against. Yeah, it's possible to beat them. That's not my issue so much (although a lot of the spammed moves were the most effective and usually were one-hit-kill moves with no real downside to their use). It's more that, while it's beatable, it ends up being boring to play the game at all. THAT's where Raven failed.

 

Sure you can counter various attacks, but why bother? I mean, if the whole game comes down to trying to stop one attack, it'll just be a big yawn-fest for me. Especially once you develop a decent way to counter the attack. And while it's true that you could counter the spammed attacks in all of the versions, that sure didn't stop people from doing nothing BUT those attacks, since they weren't balanced properly (remember: balance = powerful move with corresponding disadvantage).

 

If the sabre had been a one-hit kill weapon regardless of what stance you used, regardless of what swing you made, the game would've been infinitely better. Or at least make it, say, a three hit kill weapon for ALL moves and stances.

 

Actually, in terms of game balance, I think a lot of the console fighting games provide an excellent example of how things are well balanced. Take any of the major titles from any particular time period, from Street Fighter 2 up to the Dead or Alive series, and you'll find well balanced gameplay. There's usually some big heavy dude who, if he hits you with the right combo, can beat you with only three hits. The downside is he's slower than a snail, and leaves himself open to attack (consider this Mr. Red Stance, if you will). Likewise, there's usually some fast little bastard who can jump and flip and throw about 20 punches in the time it takes Mr. Red Stance to throw three. The little guy's attacks aren't that powerful, but they move quickly and he's able to get out of the big guy's range quickly. That's balance.

 

An even better example are the Bushido Blade games from PS1. I can remember playing Bushido Blade 2, and finding it to be a real joy to duel with other people. You usually had three different stances in that game as well, the weapons were absolutely lethal (two hits and you're dead, or one clean hit and you're dead). The stance you used didn't really matter in terms of how lethal the attack was, it only changed what angle your attack came from or what combination you could do. This made the game much more strategic and less about "Oh, I'll just do this one combo over and over." Plus, each stance had its weaknesses, so no stance ever dominated.

 

ArtifeX's ProMod had these aspects, and you can see that Raven TRIED to include this style into their gameplay, but ultimately failed in most of their patches. 1.04 was probably about the most balanced of the patches, in that (at least from what I can remember), the uber-moves now had drawbacks to their use, but they also made sabre fighting essentially pointless, since it took FOREVER to kill someone. Which, of course, would lead to stupid rules like, "Ok, no using heal or drain in this match, alright?"

 

Anyway, I still think that the DF series of games has potential and can go somewhere, if the devs take into account what went wrong with JO. God only knows if or when they'll release a sequel or expansion, though.

[DeTRiTiC-iQ]

Originally posted by shock ~ unnamed

1-Spam by “definition” is the same thing over and over correct?

 

In my book spam is the same thing over and over without thinking or considering alternatives. A good player doesn't spam because as soon as that attack becomes unsuitable they switch to something different. Whereas a spammer will keep shooting despite being completely ineffective.

[Solo4114]

Exactly. A spammer is basically like I said, a one-trick-pony. The spammer doesn't know how to adapt tactics to a changing situation, and doesn't bother to try anything new. They just repeat a single move again and again without bothering to take the time to learn more moves. Unfortunately, the way the game was designed, it tended to lend itself to spamming moves because there often was no reason NOT to spam moves, since they had little by way of disadvantages, and for every player that could counter the moves, there were 50 people happy to get into basically a rugby scrum trying to spam the move first, which usually meant 49 dead people after the first guy did the move.

It didn't mean much in duels, since you could take your time and wear the bastard down, but in FFA, it led to spammers with high scores.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

It's more that, while it's beatable, it ends up being boring to play the game at all. THAT's where Raven failed.

Ugh, that's such a small-minded thing to say, blaming Raven for the fact that lamers exist. I'll try one more time to shatter your delusion on this subject, this time using the medium of rhyme: lamers will always find a way to lame, no matter the moves, no matter the game.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

It didn't mean much in duels, since you could take your time and wear the bastard down, but in FFA, it led to spammers with high scores.

You DO only play Sabres, don't you. There is no way you could be referring to guns and force FFA, DFA spammers lose in guns FFA, flechette spammers lose in guns FFA.

 

Small historical factoid of some interest: Sabres-only FFA has been the most pointless and stupid game mode the world has ever seen since the days of Dark Forces II. Even people of immense sabre skill never claimed that the FFA victories they'd won amounted to anything, because a mish-mash of people waving sticks around is NEVER close to being a matter of skill, no matter WHAT moves are implemented. That's not Raven's fault, it's just the way things are. If you want sabres with skill, duel or TDM. It's that simple.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

Which, of course, would lead to stupid rules like, "Ok, no using heal or drain in this match, alright?"

Once again you have everything backwards: The fanboys wanted heal and drain removed from the word go. From the moment the game hit the streets. From 1.02. Why? Because fanboys don't want to play a game, they want to play "let's pretend."

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

Anyway, I still think that the DF series of games has potential and can go somewhere, if the devs take into account what went wrong with JO.

Listening to the self-serving suggestions of foolish, ill-informed fanboys was what went wrong with JO. Once game developers learn to block out their eternal whinage, THEN the industry will be back on track.

[shock ~ unnamed]

Originally posted by DeTRiTiC-iQ

In my book spam is the same thing over and over without thinking or considering alternatives. A good player doesn't spam because as soon as that attack becomes unsuitable they switch to something different. Whereas a spammer will keep shooting despite being completely ineffective.

That is pretty much exactly what I define it as too.

The thing is some people want to lump those types of people in with those who simply use the most effective tools at their disposal.

 

Take me for example.

I have done almost nothing but FF dueling since 1.03 and I have swung a saber all of maybe 4 times in the last 6 months.

 

I’ve been called a kick/whore/lamer/spammer since day one because I simply don’t even bother using the saber at all.

Light saber swinging will get you killed against an experienced FF dueler pure and simple.

They are too slow, too random and too big of a risk so I simply do not use them.

 

This is why I defend “spammers/noobs/lamers”.

If people got made because all they did was DFA in 1.02 or back stab in 1.03 are they as dumb as people are trying to make them out to be?

Sure they just fired those moves off at any chance they got w/o thought but they at least realized that what they were doing was far more effective than the guy running around trying to look cool by doing 3 hit multi-stance saber combos on a crowd of people.

[Solo4114]

Shock,

 

I think your experience only serves to illustrate the problems with sabre combat. You're right that swinging a sabre around, especially when people were able to spam one move over and over with no fear of much retaliation, is pretty damn dangerous. That's an area where Raven failed, I think. The sabre combat should've been much more involved, less random, and more lethal than it ended up being. You're right that the reason why people did the one move kills was because they could. You could still beat them, but the one move was the most effective way to kill. Again, I don't fault people who play competitively and use what tools they're given. I fault the people who'll do those moves over and over, regardless of effectiveness because they want the kill that requires the least amount of keystrokes, though. 1.04, for it's faults with random sabre blocking, at least made it so that the one-hit kill moves had a downside, and I think 1.04 really illustrated the flaws with the REST of the game, when you took away the ability to spam one move without fear of retaliation. Because you could no longer do the one-hit move with impunity, you were left with all the rest of the sabre stances and swings, and they proved to be pretty ineffective.

 

The fact that in an FF duel situation, you've not ignited your sabre more than four times in 6 months shows REAL problems with the way that sabre combat was implemented in the game. That's why I think all hits should be one to two hit kills, and it should've been more of a question of when to use a particular stance/move/combo in order to either defend yourself or break an enemy's defenses.

 

I guess what I'd like to see in terms of sabre combat is a sabre that's truly lethal, takes skill to use, and requires you to sacrifice other abilities in order to use. Now, in a sabre-only duel situation, the sacrifice of abilities isn't as much of an issue, since you wouldn't have people using shields, guns, bacta, etc. But the sabre should at least involve skill and not randomize blocking, etc. If ArtifeX's sabre mod had been the default from the start of the game, I think that sabre combat would've been much more interesting. That said, it still would've gotten old with only the DM style of play offered by the game. And had the sabre been truly lethal, I think you'd have seen more use of it in CTF games as well. Then again, I didn't play a whole lot of CTF (the maps never really did much for me), so I might be wrong on that one.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by shock ~ unnamed:

 

This is why I defend “spammers/noobs/lamers”.

Spammers and lamers have a lot in common. Newbies on the other hand are just new to the game, and I don't think they deserve to be lumped in with the crap-tastic spamfesters.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

I think 1.04 really illustrated the flaws with the REST of the game, when you took away the ability to spam one move without fear of retaliation. Because you could no longer do the one-hit move with impunity, you were left with all the rest of the sabre stances and swings, and they proved to be pretty ineffective.

Once again you either forget or wilfully blind yourself to the fact that the sabre was made ineffective by 1.03, which was the fault of the fanboys, not the game design.

 

And for hopefully the last time, you'll never stop spammers spamming, and they'll always achieve a certain amount of success from it, too. Like campers, in fact. Because there will always be a move that's either powerful or quick to do, and there will always be lamers waiting to repeat it over and over and over again. "Balance" won't stop that. Tweaking won't stop it, and nerfing certainly won't stop that. But the lamers will never win the big games, and that's also the way of things.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

I guess what I'd like to see in terms of sabre combat is a sabre that's truly lethal, takes skill to use, and requires you to sacrifice other abilities in order to use.

Sacrifice... other..? They always wheel this one out in the end. It's never enough that the sabre should be powerful, is it? You have to plot and scheme to nerf and degrade the experience of gunners on the side. How quaint.

[Mr. Mofo]

Bah, turn your back to this so called "balance". Give yourself to the dark side of cheap moves!

 

Is using a move over and over really all that cheap? Sounds like people are complaining just because they lost. Moves me as much as "you only won cause you used force powers" or "you only won cause you had your saber ON" or "I've got a bad connection, so stand still and do nothing". I think someone who uses these "balanced" powers will be bitched at just as much as some guy pumping out grenades from the flechette gun, simply cause they're winning. People need some excuse for their own inadequacey.

[Solo4114]

Actually, it's not so much about winning or losing, it's about how much fun the game was to play when everyone only ever does "cheap" moves, or when everyone only uses one move in particular, cheap or not. I want balance to give me variety and fun. I mean, technically, the game is balanced in the sense that everyone can do the uber moves with relative ease. The problem is, if you have this uber move to use, and there's no downside to using it, why bother using anything else? Why not just pull/push the guy down, spin 180 degrees, and use the backstab to kill him? It makes perfect sense if you want to kill the guy. It also makes the game all about using one move or combo over and over. To me, that's boring.

 

When it came to dueling (as opposed to FFA games), force on or off, I was pretty good. I don't claim to be a master, since I didn't really play often enough to get to that level, but I was usually able to defend myself against people using these moves. One on one, the moves weren't all that tough to handle. But, because of the spammers and lamers, opponents would keep trying it since it was the easiest, quickest way to getting a kill. It just made the game intensely boring.

 

The sabre's weakness with other swings led to people using the strongest move possible, even if it looked ridiculous, made the game less fun to play, etc., simply because the move was a guaranteed kill if you hit and because there was no real downside to doing it. The worst thing that would happen might be that you'd miss and have to try it again.

 

Al, as for your tirade on fanboys, I get your point, I disagree with it, and we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this. It's not willful blindness, just a difference of opinion. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. I'm done with this particular debate on whether fanboys broke the game or whether the game had other flaws in it in addition to the way Raven patched it.

 

On a similar note, we disagree about what kind of game we want to play. You seem to want to play a quake style game where you have access to all weapons, powers, abilities, etc. I want to play a more limited game where you can be a master of one ability, but not be able to use another, including things like guns. You like a free-for-all style (not necessarily FFA, mind you, just the ability to use whatever whenever), and I want a more class-based system similar to TFC, RTCW, BF1942, etc. Difference of opinion. Now, before you throw out the argument that "You're trying to force people to play a particular way," consider the following.

 

1.) I have no problem leaving the FFA/TDM/Duel/DM style of play in a game. I think it's a good idea, if it broaden's the game's appeal. I do, however, want to have the option to ALSO play the class based style. I'd like to have the style of gameplay that I prefer implemented. I don't particularly care if they throw out the styles I don't like, but I'm not advocating that they do so. So I'm not really trying to force anyone into anything here, I'd just like to be able to play the game the way I want to play it. If others want to play it differently, that's fine, just give me the option to play it the way I like. Given an "either or" situation, I'd pick my style of play over the DM style. I don't really see that as forcing my opinion on someone else, I just see it as voicing my opinion. If you want to voice a different opinion, knock yourself out. That's what the forums are here for.

 

2.) If voicing one's own opinion is equivalent to "forcing" your style of play on someone else, you're just as guilty. If saying that "the game should work this way, not that way" is forcing your opinion, then you're doing the exact same thing by claiming that the game should be played the way it was with 1.02, with no classes, no objectives, no blocking, etc.

 

There is actually a very easy solution to your problems if you view 1.02 as the Holy Grail of JO gameplay. Play 1.02. Reinstall your game, don't install any patches, and play to your heart's content. I'm sure you can find other likeminded individuals to play with on a server, or you can host your own. No one forced you to patch, and given the public outcry about 1.03 and 1.04, I'm sure there's plenty of folks who'd be happy to play your style. You also won't be forcing anyone to play that way, you'll just be exercising your option NOT to play the patched version.

 

Anyway, to sum things up, I don't think game companies should necessarily make their games "either/or" situations, where you can either play a DM style with full access to all weapons/equipment/powers or play a class-based system where you give up abilities to get other abilities. Ideally, the game should, out of the box, function with minimal bugs, offer a wide variety of gameplay styles, and cater to both sides of the debate in question. That's what I'd like to see most.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

Actually, it's not so much about winning or losing, it's about how much fun the game was to play when everyone only ever does "cheap" moves, or when everyone only uses one move in particular, cheap or not. I want balance to give me variety and fun.

Once again you phrase your ideas as if "balance" is some sort of deity. Apart from your earlier comments about weapons "having disadvantages as well as advantages" which all weapons have in every game anyway, you don't even appear to know what you think "balance" means.

 

Secondly, fun. Now, fun is a subjective thing. The people you're complaining about, the lamers, the spammers, they're having fun while spamming you. Yes, they're craptastic. Yes, we agree on that point. But they're still having fun. They don't spam weapons or moves purely to annoy you personally, at least I hope not. So here's the juice: if you want "fun" do what ALL dedicated players have done since the days of DF2, find some people you like who play the same way as you and then, PLAY THEM. A public server is a place for practice, not for fun. It's a place for familiarizing yourself with the game, and for training against a wide range of opponents to increase your understanding of the game's mechanics.

 

This is the same in ALL games. Pub servers are pretty much ALWAYS full of lamers, spammers, unpleasant people, people who practice more than you, the whole kit and kaboodle. If you're looking for "fun", you're looking in the wrong place when you play strangers. Play your friends and online acquaintances for "fun". It's not the game's fault if you don't have fun on public servers. It's not Raven's fault. It's not even the spammers' fault. It's just the way things are, and always have been.

 

This was one of the most important points, in fact, during JO's genesis. There were a lot of SW fanboys running around who believed that their idea of fun should be forced onto other players. They didn't find RPG servers when they wanted to RPG, they went onto public FFA servers and demanded RPGing. They didn't look for duel servers when they wanted to duel, they went onto guns servers, took over the proverbial landing pad and kickvoted anyone who wanted to play guns, off.

 

They whined to Raven en masse, and Raven produced 1.03 to cater to what they saw as "the community". But they were only catering to foolish fanboys, and since fanboys know nothing about what makes a good game, their suggestions ruined JO for us all.

 

Because they never got the idea, you see. They never realized that even though games are supposed to be fun, fun isn't guaranteed at all times for all people. Fun takes as much effort to accumulate as skill does. Come to think of it, they never realized that one had to expend energy; make an effort to attain skill, either.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

I mean, technically, the game is balanced in the sense that everyone can do the uber moves with relative ease. The problem is, if you have this uber move to use, and there's no downside to using it, why bother using anything else? Why not just pull/push the guy down, spin 180 degrees, and use the backstab to kill him? It makes perfect sense if you want to kill the guy. It also makes the game all about using one move or combo over and over. To me, that's boring.

 

1.03 was indeed boring, like that. If 1.03 had merely been a DFA bugfix, it would have made a brilliant game. Sadly, the fanboys were abroad that even.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

Al, as for your tirade on fanboys, I get your point, I disagree with it, and we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this

And I'm glad to see you're keeping an open mind.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

It's not willful blindness, just a difference of opinion. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. I'm done with this particular debate on whether fanboys broke the game or whether the game had other flaws in it in addition to the way Raven patched it.

I'm not interested in your dubious "opinions" on this subject, Solo, and this was never a debate. It's not a subjective issue. It's factual. 1.03 ruined any chance the game had to succeed, and the fanboys precipitated 1.03. It's that simple, and anyone who was alive during the period that led up to 1.03 (and is not a fanboy) would be aware of this.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

On a similar note, we disagree about what kind of game we want to play. You seem to want to play a quake style game where you have access to all weapons, powers, abilities, etc. I want to play a more limited game where you can be a master of one ability, but not be able to use another, including things like guns.

Yes, the way I like to play is the way the Jedi Knight series has been played since its creation. What you want is tantamount to demanding that UT be transformed into TFC. Now, I have no problem with people who want a class-based game mode. That's what mods are for.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

If voicing one's own opinion is equivalent to "forcing" your style of play on someone else, you're just as guilty. If saying that "the game should work this way, not that way" is forcing your opinion, then you're doing the exact same thing by claiming that the game should be played the way it was with 1.02, with no classes, no objectives, no blocking, etc.

Once again you miss the obvious with aplomb:

 

You want to change something. That means you're proactive. I've been playing these games since the year dot, and have enjoyed their unique flavour. I merely wish to continue to enjoy that flavour. Now review your nonse... er... post, and rethink. And yes, I'm aware that you're magnanimous enough to say things like 'I wouldn't mind if they left DM in my wondrous class-based RPG friendly ideal JK game' but frankly that's Patronese, a language I don't speak.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

There is actually a very easy solution to your problems if you view 1.02 as the Holy Grail of JO gameplay. Play 1.02.

I'd be doing just that, if there was a healthy community associated with it. You see, when one reaches a certain level, one is more concerned with what the world associated with a game will be like, than what the game itself will be like. For example, if the JO 1.04 community was strong, I'd still happily be playing 1.04. I hope this clarifies things for you.

[James Brophy]

THis GAME IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO MORE 32 PLAYER SERVERS!!!

HARDLY ANYONE PLAYS IT!!!!!!!!!!!

I used to play this game 5 hours aday then my fav server was taken down. Ever since this game has been dying. Its sad beacuse i like JK2 but im leaving it now beacuse it is DEAD!

[Prime]

Originally posted by Solo4114

Actually, it's not so much about winning or losing, it's about how much fun the game was...

 

This is what is most important to me too, because I play this game because it is a Star Wars game, and I like the thought of spending some time in that universe. Perhaps that makes me a Fanboy. However, I certainly realize that there are people who play this game for competative reasons, and its attention to Star Wars detail is not of the slightest concern. This is a perfectly valid reason for playing the game as well.

 

 

Originally posted by Solo4114

1.) I have no problem leaving the FFA/TDM/Duel/DM style of play in a game. I think it's a good idea, if it broaden's the game's appeal. I do, however, want to have the option to ALSO play the class based style. I'd like to have the style of gameplay that I prefer implemented. I don't particularly care if they throw out the styles I don't like, but I'm not advocating that they do so. So I'm not really trying to force anyone into anything here, I'd just like to be able to play the game the way I want to play it. If others want to play it differently, that's fine, just give me the option to play it the way I like.

 

I think this is the key. Try to provide as many options as possible for players. Just being able to provide an option for classes would be great, as long as people could also play the way they do now.

 

Perhaps this could be take one step further. Suppose you wanted to set up a server. First, there would be an option for whether you wanted class restrictions or not. If no, then everyone can use everything without restriction. If yes, maybe then you could define your own classes up to a certain maximum number. If I wanted to have a jedi vs gunners server, I could specify that jedi had access to all force powers but only the saber. Then I could define the gunner as having access to all weapons but no force powers. Later, if I wanted to add a hybrid, I could define a class that had access to the saber and some of the guns, and maybe only push and pull for force powers. So when you defined a class, you could set what weapons they had access to, what force powers they could use. This would be independant of the game type. Then people could have servers with all the classes they wanted, or no classes at all. I just think the players should be able to set up the game the way they want. Anyway, that's just a thought off the top of my head.

[Solo4114]

Prime,

 

Not a bad idea, but the one thing that you might want to do with that system is to limit the number of configurations available. This way you avoid the problem that has happened with the mod community in the game as it is: too many variants of gameplay. You do need a set of core rules for different gameplay types. DM is, well, DM. It's pretty straightforward, and I think that class based DM would be goofy. The reason why classes work in the games in which they're used is that the classes complement each other and are designed to be used in team play. Medics can heal, but are weak on attack; attack classes are powerful, but can't heal themselves and can't take out vehicles or resupply the team; support classes can take out vehicles, or resupply, but don't have the ability to hit hard like attack classes. You get the idea. Unless you're playing TDM, using classes in that sense would be goofy, unless you're talking about a division between gunners/saber users/hybrids. For DM servers, that kind of simple division might work (IE: ArtifeX's mod), but you'd have to make sure that the gunners' ability to use ranged weapons and such was balanced against the force users' abilities in short range and mobility.

 

The objective-based gameplay that I'd hope for, on the other hand, could have certain core classes broken down along the gunner/jedi division (IE: medic gunner -- can distribute bacta tanks and has long range abilities; medic jedi -- can use heal and team heal, and some other force powers; engineer -- can use the turrets and seeker drones, as well as explosives; no real equivalent here for jedi, but maybe have a class that's focused on defense -- IE: can use team energize or protect to act as a blocker of sorts. I dunno). This could get pretty complicated, but it could be done.

 

You'd just offer people the option to play with whatever mode they want. Now, in terms of universal changes, I'd still advocate that sabres be one or two hit kill weapons, regardless of the move. Certain moves break through defenses easier, certain moves defend at a higher level, but once you connect with the enemy, one or two hits and they're dead. THAT could be something that ALL game modes could have. It would drastically improve CTF games because you could still kill and keep moving, instead of getting into long drawn out duels.

 

I do think it's possible to design a game that effectively implements what the vast majority of the community wants, even if the community is divided on how they want to play the game. You do need to give the community options, and you need to not limit the way people play, but there are certain changes that I think everyone (or at least most people, regardless of whether they play "competitive" or "just for fun") could agree to.

 

I haven't played with the guns enough lately to remember what if anything needed fixing there, but from what I can remember, aside from ammo consumption rates, they were relatively balanced, if somewhat boring in design (rehashes of other guns from FPS games). I may have to reinstall the game, patch it up, and test some stuff out.

 

It is a shame that this game died the way it did. To date, I've yet to see a Star Wars FPS (that you can play MP) that REALLY does justice to the SW universe. Even JK1's MP never really did it for me.

[Prime]

Originally posted by Solo4114

Prime,

 

Not a bad idea, but the one thing that you might want to do with that system is to limit the number of configurations available. This way you avoid the problem that has happened with the mod community in the game as it is: too many variants of gameplay. You do need a set of core rules for different gameplay types. DM is, well, DM. It's pretty straightforward, and I think that class based DM would be goofy. The reason why classes work in the games in which they're used is that the classes complement each other and are designed to be used in team play. Medics can heal, but are weak on attack; attack classes are powerful, but can't heal themselves and can't take out vehicles or resupply the team; support classes can take out vehicles, or resupply, but don't have the ability to hit hard like attack classes. You get the idea. Unless you're playing TDM, using classes in that sense would be goofy, unless you're talking about a division between gunners/saber users/hybrids. For DM servers, that kind of simple division might work (IE: ArtifeX's mod), but you'd have to make sure that the gunners' ability to use ranged weapons and such was balanced against the force users' abilities in short range and mobility.

 

You are probably right. I didn't put much thought into it, and I'm sure there would be many problems with the system. I was just wondering if there was a way to seperate somewhat the class system from the game types. But for sure this would not work for all game types.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114

You'd just offer people the option to play with whatever mode they want. Now, in terms of universal changes, I'd still advocate that sabres be one or two hit kill weapons, regardless of the move. Certain moves break through defenses easier, certain moves defend at a higher level, but once you connect with the enemy, one or two hits and they're dead. THAT could be something that ALL game modes could have. It would drastically improve CTF games because you could still kill and keep moving, instead of getting into long drawn out duels.

 

I agree with you completely on making the saber more deadly. I always thought that a hit in heavy swing should be a one hit kill, yellow two hits, and blue three hits, or whatever. This could also be dependant on where you actually hit. For example, a hit to the head would be instant death.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

I do think it's possible to design a game that effectively implements what the vast majority of the community wants, even if the community is divided on how they want to play the game. You do need to give the community options, and you need to not limit the way people play, but there are certain changes that I think everyone (or at least most people, regardless of whether they play "competitive" or "just for fun") could agree to.

Yuh think?

 

Seems to me that the JO community could never agree on the colour of faeces. Basically, the number of people, like myself, who try to understand the nature and tactics behind every game mode, are in the minority. This is because of the huge number of variables the game contains. Will a server be FF? NF? Guns? Sabres? JvM? What Force level? CTF? FFA? Duel? Jedi Master? Ghoul2 or not?

 

So servers that played the game people wanted were rare, and people became insular and blind to the other styles, just as they did before, in the days of DF2 on the zone.

 

This problem intensified when a big wodge of mods that very slightly changed gameplay appeared. A promod server popped up here, a jediplus or whatever popped up there, it became harder and harder to find a vanilla server. Soon of course, the patching killed the game outright.

 

The more variables you add to a game, the more fragmented the community will become, and the easier it'll be to knock it down. I don't think making the game into something for everyone is a good idea, or even a sane idea. You can't please all the people all the time, or even most of them. The type of manic increase in possible variables you're talking about would be just about the worst thing for the longevity of a game I can think of. No two servers would be alike, if there was a variable to cater to everyone. There'd be no standard for serious play, which gives a game a core community to build around, and since servers close regularly people would become used to one set of variables and leave the community straight away when their skills didn't translate to another server.

 

I'll say it again, it's up to individual people to find fun for themselves, it's not the duty of the game to provide it. The game provides an arena to have contests in, it doesn't necessarily provide fun. If you look for fun on public servers, you're probably not going to find it. It's that simple.

[Mr. Mofo]

No matter WHAT people say, what's happened to JK2 is WAY better than what happened to Tribes. I buy the game, can't play any MP until I get the patch, get it, and what the hell everyone has infinite flight, infinite ammo, all the guns and all the guns are basically chaingun/rocketlauncher combos. Guuu!! Now I go to play more JK2, which is not dead by any means IMHO, where I shall hunt wabbits.

[Spider AL]

Can there be degrees of dead... er... deadness? Deadosity? Mofo thinks so.

 

He's right though, Tribes players had a rough time of it.

[Solo4114]

Prime,

 

I don't even mean that the stances should have differences in lethality. Heavy stance, medium stance, light stance, doesn't matter. I would, however, base it on locational damage. A head shot gets an instant kill. Anywhere else, and it takes two hits. If you hit with a special move (IE: blue lung, yellow/red DFA, backstab in any stance) it's an instant kill, but at least these moves are not much more lethal than the other normal moves you have. The main difference that I'd have between the stances is the tradeoff of defense vs. offense. Blue lets you fend off attacks easier, but it can't break through defenses. Yellow is less powerful on D, but more powerful on O, and Red is great for bashing through attacks, but sucks on D. I'd either leave the speeds of the stances the same, or speed all of 'em up a little bit, but have the heavier stances open themselves up more to being blocked and countered, as well as leaving defenses open. IE: if you try to do a red swing or combo, and it hits, it'll bash through most defenses, but while doing the swing, you're swinging wide and leaving yourself open to attack. But I'd still have the player swing faster with Red stance than they do currently. (Otherwise, red would be worthless, since you could just dodge the swing or stab the guy mid-swing.)

 

Blocking would be determined on more of a rock-paper-scissors method, whereby blue can block all blue and yellow attacks and maybe one or two red swings, yellow can block all blue attacks and SOME yellow attacks (maybe one or two swings), and red can block up to three blue swings, but yellow and red swings break through easily. Your ability to block attacks would also be tied to your sabre defense force power. The higher the power, the more likely you are to intercept an attack. You'd have access to all stances from the start of the game, but your sabre offense attack would allow you to chain more attacks together. So, as your offense power increases, you can do, say, up to five blue swings in a row, four yellow swings, and three red swings as combos. Something like that anyway. Your defense could also be tied to the arc in which you defend. The lower the defense, the tighter the arc is in front of you (no back defense). You could also maybe allow people to get higher levels of offense or defense (IE: level four or five) if they sacrifice the opposing force power. So, if you pick only level one offense, you'd have access to up to level four or five defense. The higher levels could let you perform defensive maneuvers that most folks can't (IE: defend an attack from behind, intercept an attack on another person). Same for offense. At higher levels, you could give people access to dual-bladed sabre styles, or dual wielding of sabres. The offsetting factor would be that you wouldn't be able to defend as well, even in terms of basic defense.

 

Would that I could code and do animations, or I'd be able to make a kickass mod.

 

As far as Tribes 2 goes, I never played that one. I played a bit of the original and it was pretty cool. I tried the T2 demo, and it seemed ok, but then again, I was only playing against bots really. It looked like a game with real potential, though. I especially liked the ability to laze targets for other people to shoot. (or have them laze targets for me)

[Spider AL]

I have to say Solo, that most of your ideas are just overly contrived nonsenses. More variables does not make a game more complex, merely more fiddly, and your constant ranting about sacrificing some abilities to feed others is just going to annoy people who want to use everything the game offers. In other respects you're just juggling existing JO concepts around a bit, and calling it new. It's this sort of limited thinking that led to five-million unremarkable sabre-combat tweaking mods that merely helped to separate the community into umpteen paranoid camps.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114:

 

Would that I could code and do animations, or I'd be able to make a kickass mod.

And if wishes were fishes we'd all cast our nets. Everyone and their uncle had some sort of opinion on what would make the game "BETTAR!!11" and so few people were willing to spend the time to participate in the community in any sort of constructive way at all, instead they spent their time mashing their gums pointlessly. Fiddling while JO burned. Sad...

[Prime]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Yuh think?

 

Seems to me that the JO community could never agree on the colour of faeces...

 

The more variables you add to a game, the more fragmented the community will become, and the easier it'll be to knock it down. I don't think making the game into something for everyone is a good idea, or even a sane idea. You can't please all the people all the time, or even most of them. The type of manic increase in possible variables you're talking about would be just about the worst thing for the longevity of a game I can think of. No two servers would be alike, if there was a variable to cater to everyone. There'd be no standard for serious play, which gives a game a core community to build around, and since servers close regularly people would become used to one set of variables and leave the community straight away when their skills didn't translate to another server.

 

I'll say it again, it's up to individual people to find fun for themselves, it's not the duty of the game to provide it. The game provides an arena to have contests in, it doesn't necessarily provide fun. If you look for fun on public servers, you're probably not going to find it. It's that simple.

 

I think in retrospect you are right Al. I was merely throwing out an idea off the top of my head. But I agree on the server fragmentation problem 100%. I tend to want to play on vanilla 1.04 servers, because I do not like playing when everyone is running around with double sabers kissing everyone else. 1.04 servers are now fewer and fewer in number.

 

Originally posted by Solo4114

I don't even mean that the stances should have differences in lethality. Heavy stance, medium stance, light stance, doesn't matter. I would, however, base it on locational damage. A head shot gets an instant kill. Anywhere else, and it takes two hits. If you hit with a special move (IE: blue lung, yellow/red DFA, backstab in any stance) it's an instant kill, but at least these moves are not much more lethal than the other normal moves you have. The main difference that I'd have between the stances is the tradeoff of defense vs. offense. Blue lets you fend off attacks easier, but it can't break through defenses. Yellow is less powerful on D, but more powerful on O, and Red is great for bashing through attacks, but sucks on D. I'd either leave the speeds of the stances the same, or speed all of 'em up a little bit, but have the heavier stances open themselves up more to being blocked and countered, as well as leaving defenses open. IE: if you try to do a red swing or combo, and it hits, it'll bash through most defenses, but while doing the swing, you're swinging wide and leaving yourself open to attack. But I'd still have the player swing faster with Red stance than they do currently. (Otherwise, red would be worthless, since you could just dodge the swing or stab the guy mid-swing.)

 

Apart from wanting the swings to be faster and location damage (which is a good idea, I think), from what I can tell your are wanting the saber combat to be as it is currently. I think the way damage is done now is proportionally correct. Heavy stance should and does do more damage than light stance. Heavy should be more powerful because it takes so many more force points to aquire it. This trade-off must give you an advantage, and it does.

 

As for special moves, I think it would be better to leave it the way it is now. The special moves do do more damage than their respective stances already. blue uppercut is quite damaging, much more so than a normal blue hit (at least double, isn't it?). Same for yellow special. And red DFA is the most deadly move in the game! Again this is how it should be, because I spent so many points to get Red stance, and thus the DFA attack. Why wouldn't I save my 14 or whatever number of points if I could instantly kill with blue uppercut? Then everyone would spam blue uppercut because no one would need to invest in red or yellow.

 

As for offence vs defence, some of what you are asking for is essentially describing how it is now. "IE: if you try to do a red swing or combo, and it hits, it'll bash through most defenses, but while doing the swing, you're swinging wide and leaving yourself open to attack." I believe this is currently the case. I think you are kind of contradicting yourself. You want blue to "let you fend off attacks easier", but you also want red to bash through most defences. It can't really be both.

 

I think that is the case of dueling (this is what we are talking about, right?), where we differ is that I believe that red should be the most powerful, because it takes more points to aquire it than blue. I need to be rewarded for this investment. But the beauty is now is that each stance is useful. Red should be able to pound through blue defence, and it does. It should also be better at blocking heavy attacks, and it is. Tapping me with light stance shouldn't break through my strong stance. But when I attack in red, I am leaving myself open to attack more than in blue. But blue can strike much more quickly than red, which can be an advantage as well in certain situations (not to mention better at blocking blaster fire). And yellow is a nice combination of the two.

 

IMO, the tradeoffs between saber stances is good the way it is now. A good dueler uses each to the utmost effectiveness.

[Spider AL]

I tend to want to play on vanilla 1.04 servers, because I do not like playing when everyone is running around with double sabers kissing everyone else. 1.04 servers are now fewer and fewer in number.

 

This is the sad truth of the matter. As I mentioned earlier, I'd still be playing 1.04 happily, if there was a healthy community associated with it. Back in the waning days of JK1, there were still prize-tournaments on offer, with actual prizes mind you. Such things are a bit thinner on the ground for JO. It's doubly saddening because as a competitive game JO was so much more well-rounded than its predecessor.