Solo4114 Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 I'd still think that, for gameplay and realism balancing, if you did three hits on arms/legs and two hits on body/head with ANY stance, you'd be in good shape. If you simply have sabre abilities determined on a per-stance basis and have THAT determine how well you attack and defend in each stance, then people could choose to specialize or be a jack of all trades, but master of none. Then it'd simply be a question of who's got the better Offense/Defense ratio at a given moment, which would depend on your ability in that stance, and which stance was being used against it (and maybe which move -- certain moves could have higher attack ratings, other moves could have lower ones, but be better for parrying and counter-attacking). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 Well, to be more realistic, it makes more sense to have your basic saber skills and your stance skills seperate to a degree. It's not really possible to be a god at one stance and totally fall over your saber in another. Your overall skills improve with the more you practice with the saber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solo4114 Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 Right, but that's why I say give everyone access to all stances in a basic sense (unless you pick the "specialty" stances), but have people be able to specialize in them and develop proficiency in that school of fighting. I think we should think less of the stances as just stances, and more like, say, kung fu styles. So, for example, you could be really good at blue stance/praying mantis style, and only so-so at yellow stance/drunken monkey boxing, and halfway decent at red stance/southern shaolin. We can figure that your sifu taught you all three, but you chose to focus on some more than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aoshi Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 well... the actual point of me posting this here was to promote a 1-2 hit kill system. then the saber would be useful in ALL gametypes not only duel. as of right now the saber is only useful in ctf and ffa as a shield. upper level ff duelists hardly even swing the saber and the only place the saber is actually used as a weapon is in nf duels and that's only because they absolutely have to. if the saber did say a 1 hit kill then gunners and saberists would be equalized, flag returners in ctf could mindtrick and kill the carrier easily if he's standing still, saber only ctf wouldnt be so goddamn boring waiting 30 minutes for the friggin flag to return, and full force dueling would be more about using the saber then draining and grip-kicking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 I agree but I personally think the saber damage should be based on velocity and the amount of impact instead of something like touch->die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aoshi Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 velocity really has nothing to do with a sword's ability to kill other than it connecting(provided the blade is extremely sharp and the surface area/density of contact point is sufficiently low that is to say you're trying to stab someone and not cut them). as long as the blade is sharp enough casually moving the saber towards someone will kill them and if lightsabers are sharp enough to cut through metal doors then they're sharp enough to run through a human with little velocity behind the impact. now of course if we were talking about real life swords then velocity would have to be considered because then the swords would never be that sharp. however if i wanted to create a fantasy sword that was say 1 titanium atom thick at the edges then it would easily displace the skin and would pierce a human body with no resistance. therefore if such a thing as a sword made of energy existed, because energy has no mass, no surface area, and no weight theoretically it would displace any type of matter and thus cut through anything with no effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 Uh, if that is true, Dooku would have cut clean thru Obi-Wan when he lightly touched him with blade. Velocity does matter, just in a different way than from normal blades. It's a massless blade (or at least close to that) and "burns" thru basically anything, but it still has resistance then it hits something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 If JK2 had movie realism: There would be no first person viewpoint. There would only be three saber duels per game. Nobody who died would come back, except as a ghost. Main characters never die until the very end. All Jedi wear desert robes or leather or black tunics. Players would spend most of their time walking around and talking or flying in their ships. During battles the camera would cut away at the worst possible times to switch to some other battle. On the upside... lots of hands would get cut off. ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 hehe. That's a bit far, that's like saying that CS is unrealistic cause there's no negoseations before the fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted March 30, 2003 Author Share Posted March 30, 2003 Yeah. Can't help but think your missing the point... The idea is to make it movie-realistic where appropiate, but obviously don't take it over the top - to the point where your just staging an online play! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 Oh, I know. I was just giving him crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted March 31, 2003 Author Share Posted March 31, 2003 Sorry Razor, didn' t make myself clear... I was replying to Kurgan - not you I totally agree. A game like CS is a good example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 Lol. I just think that Star Wars game realism is an oxymoron. Sure, I like it to "feel" like the movies, but I also like it to be fun and balanced, and if I have to choose between the former and the latter, I'll take the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted March 31, 2003 Author Share Posted March 31, 2003 I'm interested as to why you think this is such a hard concept to achieve? Why is it only 'movie-realism' OR fun & balanced - one or the other - full stop?! As far as I'm concerned, all it takes is some careful thought and planning to achieve both. The actual coding nessesary, for a lot of these things, is actually fairly trivial. I am truly perplexed as to why a lot of people see this as some kind of 'mission impossible'? Of course, if you take it too far - you obviously get some of the ridiculous stuff you mentioned earlier. But of course, the trick is not to take it too far - only as far as you can while retaining good, balanced and fun gameplay, like you say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.