<GuNs>

[SettingShadow]

I don't find it that hard to kill a Jedi in close combat with the Blaster, not even with the Bryar, sure I die sometimes, but mostly I win. When the Jedi runs towards me, swinging his saber, I just go backwards, firing while he swings, since that's when he's vulnerable. I also don't find it that hard to kill a gunner with the saber, it's all about the player. Now, I don't like the flechette, just because I don't think it belongs in a SW game, but I don't care if anyone use it all the time.

[StormHammer]

Originally posted by Solbe M'ko

I don't play FFA, but I know for a fact that if a gunneris mowing down jedi, the jedi should switch over to guns to balance the range issue. if a jedi get close to a gunner, he should switch to his saber. it's about play style, not game balance.

 

I totally agree...which is why I mentioned about different weapons for each situation you find yourself in. Of course it's down to play style...and that where the problem has been all along. Saberists just want to run around with their saber and force powers in FFA and get multi-kills no matter what.

 

If a saberist is telling me I should switch to a saber in close combat...then the same rule applies to them - switch to a ranged weapon if I'm firing at you from a distance, and stop complaining you're getting killed by flechette's and the secondary fire of the Repeater. When I'm shooting at other gunners, I use whatever weapon is to hand - but when I face a saberist, I'm practically forced to use the flechette and heavy repeater secondary because the saber blocks almost all blaster fire. I envy those who can use bryar secondary to score kills...I'm not that accurate (especially with a laggy connection).

 

Unfortunately, the guns were balanced to favour the play-style of saberists in JO, IMHO. I would hate to see the same thing happen in JA. If people want to see the saber's damage increased...then I say reduce the ability to block blaster fire to compensate.

 

If you want to saber fight in FFA, challenge someone, or get in close and then ignite your saber. Or try to pull the weapon from the gunner's hand. That's what I try and do.

 

Anyway, this issue has been discussed to death in JO's context, and I have no doubt we're going to see the same arguments about gun balance against saberists in relation to JA.

 

That's why I wish Raven would just come up with some more MP game modes for each camp, and still have FFA as what it was meant to be... Free For All, instead of nerfed for some.

[Prime]

Originally posted by Emon

What some people don't understand is that, although in the movies a Jedi may be unstoppable against any weapon, this is a video game, and it needs balance. Therefor a Jedi should have no overall advantage over a gunner.

The funny thing is, even in AOTC we see some jedi getting beaten by blasters. The majority of Jedi were killed in the Geonosis battle against gun toting droids, and we see a Jedi getting shot by Jango.

 

So the concept of guns being effective against sabers is good for gameplay reasons, and is also backed up by what is shown in the movies.

[SeanTB123]

So the concept of guns being effective against sabers is good for gameplay reasons, and is also backed up by what is shown in the movies.

 

For gameplay, yes. But as far as the movie goes, you have to remember they were outnumbered over 10 droids for every 1 Jedi. If you are being shot at from multiple angles, of course you can't block them all. As for Jango getting that one Jedi, well that Jedi was going after Dooku, and wasn't even paying attention to Jango. In JK2 if a saberist has his back to you, you can easily dispatch him with Bryar Pistol or E-11. So the movies don't really support or hurt your argument.

[SettingShadow]

Originally posted by SeanTB123

As for Jango getting that one Jedi, well that Jedi was going after Dooku, and wasn't even paying attention to Jango.

 

Also, Jango shot from a very close range, and very fast, wich made it very difficult for him to deflect those blast shots fast enough.

[Kengo]

I always thought this was a really great item about SW guns http://www.jediknightii.net/column002.shtml

 

Originally posted by JDKnite188

Sabers were very weak. In SP one or two slashes could kill an opponent. In MP it took many, many more. It was a hackfest that usually couldn't be won by the saberist if it was guns vs. sabers.

 

Couldn't agree more. I thought they got it about right in SP, but in MP, the later patches anyway, it was rediculous. I hate to be predictable but ProMod (see the sig) got it about perfect. In that I saw gunners (many using jetpacks) with blaster rifles mow down Jedi, or destroy them with a sniper rifle in their droves (actually, that was mostly Nutricious). At the same time Jedi crept up behind guys with mind trick then swiped them in the back. It added an interesting dynamic, Jedi had to use stealth to get close often, but when they did that was it. Gunners obviously had the long range advantage, great mix.

 

Balancing the saber, force powers and the gun in MP will be areal tough challenge, especially with (hopefully) new guns and force powers to think of.

 

StormHammer

That's why I wish Raven would just come up with some more MP game modes for each camp, and still have FFA as what it was meant to be... Free For All, instead of nerfed for some.

 

Yeh, great point. A guns only mode or two might be interesting, as well as saber only.

 

In SP terms I'd like to see some more specialised weapons like we saw in games like Deus Ex, where in certain situations they would be really useful, like Gas Grenades, this would mean they were useful even with the saber. I suppose Nar Shaddaa was an example of how the situation made you use something other than the saber (mainly the sniper rifle) even though you had just got the saber. Have to say I really hated that level though, spending hours picking off snipers then running out and realising too late you missed one...

 

One thing as an editor I'd really like to see is the ability to easily edit guns, not just the model but fire rate, ammo (both these can be done with JO it turns out) damage, accuracy and area of effect. That would allow for more varied SP campaigns, especially for people who want to do guns only levels.

[Spider AL]

I've pointed this out many times, and feel compelled by an unknown force to do so again...

 

In JO, it didn't take a whole bunch of hits to kill another player. It did NOT take a special move to kill another player. With sabre damage scale at 1, one could use a single red stance strike, and that would kill a player outright if one kept the sabre in the opponent throughout the swing. Gunners were even easier to kill at close range, because they couldn't block the strike.

 

The one true reason why guns will always be superior to a sabre in a deathmatch situation is that a gunner only has to keep his distance. A sabreist has to close the distance. That means that the gunner has an automatic advantage, since he only has to maintain a gap between himself and his opponent at any given time.

 

Remember, the problem with the sabre wasn't that it didn't damage people enough. (Though I for one wish it were even more damaging, and hope it will be so in JA.) I say this because (a rough estimate) 95% of people shot by me while wielding sabres never even got a single hit on me. Distance is the advantage that a gun posesses over a sword, and that's why guns and other projectile launchers are the primary weapons of all armed forces today. Otherwise, we'd all still be waving swords at each other.

[Prime]

Originally posted by SeanTB123

For gameplay, yes. But as far as the movie goes, you have to remember they were outnumbered over 10 droids for every 1 Jedi. If you are being shot at from multiple angles, of course you can't block them all. As for Jango getting that one Jedi, well that Jedi was going after Dooku, and wasn't even paying attention to Jango. In JK2 if a saberist has his back to you, you can easily dispatch him with Bryar Pistol or E-11. So the movies don't really support or hurt your argument.

Of course. I realize this was the case. All I was commenting on was that "in the movies a Jedi may be unstoppable against any weapon". I just feel that the movies show this is not necessarily the case.

 

As for Jango, if a Jedi and a saber is really uber-powerful, then shouldn't the Jedi have sensed that an attack was going to come from Jango, and responded accordingly? I guess I'm just responding to the many general comments around here that the saber should be able to deflect any and all attacks in the game. I feel this would not be an accurate representation (not considering gameplay issues).

 

Originally posted by

Also, Jango shot from a very close range, and very fast, wich made it very difficult for him to deflect those blast shots fast enough.

And this proves my point that the statement "in the movies a Jedi may be unstoppable against any weapon" is incorrect.

 

 

As for Spider Al's comments, I feel he is spot on. I usually find that the most effective weapon against saberists is backpeddling and using the alt fire on the grenade gun (can't remember the name). The saber isn't going to do crap against that. And it is so easy to keep your distance from the saber, especially if the distance was appreciable to begin with.

[JDKnite188]

Kengo, that link was great for a glimpse of all those weapons. Raven can't get away with making Q3 weapons and putting them into a Star Wars FPS.

 

From personal experience I remember running at people with my lightsaber wielded to saw down gunners and steal the flag in CTF. Occasionally I got a kill, but I could only protect myself with quick strafes, somersaults, and force powers. The saber was inadequate. I would have to slash once, dodge fire for a little bit, and then take another slash due to the weak saber. For success this time-taking process was built on the hope that I could stay alive for a long amount of time in the situation. That usually didn't happen.

 

 

/me likes. This is what I want to see in JA. This is authentic Star Wars weaponry.

[Kurgan]

A lot of people are saying that saber-dominance is ok in SP but in multiplayer the focus should be on guns. Why? The game is called "Jedi Knight". A Jedi is not inclined to use guns, plain and simple. The fact that guns are present, should be considered a blessing.

 

But Jedi can and do use guns. Read Tales of the Jedi, watch ESB. And the games have focused on Kyle Katarn, a Jedi living in the Post-ROTJ environment where Jedi are few and far between and can't be too swept up in traditional honorable warrior codes. They need all the help they can get.

 

Why would Kyle, an ace gun slinger and weapons expert drop everything in favor of a lightsaber, a weapon he had only passing familiarity with (from his fencing days at the Imperial Academy)? He used it because it is the weapon of a Jedi, but clearly it was not this Jedi's only weapon.

 

Since you're a student of Kyle's, I would expect his influence to be with you, meaning that you wouldn't be afraid to use a blaster or other device when the situation called for it.

 

Besides, a gun is far more deadly in the hands of a force user. Imagine if Jango Fett had force skills? Think of how much more deadly he would be...

 

I think the game will allow you to use the playing style you desire. However, I predict that ignoring all other weapons in favor of the saber may be foolhardy. If not so in single player, then definately in multiplayer...

 

As for the concussion rifle that everyone wants back. This would completely ruin multiplayer (sabering). Do you remember what the conc rifle did? It made sabers in a gunning game obsolete - completely.

 

Not necessarily. Do the Flak Cannon and Heavy Repeater make sabering in a guns game obsolete? In JK2 we still have a thing called the "lightsaber challenge" after all. And besides, a lightsaber can't be pulled away.

 

You could pull the conc rifle, but I know first hand from my experiences in JK1, everyone in the game got really irritated when you would continuosly pull weapons left and right.

 

N00bs did that. Real players used Absorb to counter pull. ; )

But seriously, the saber still had uses, just against the Conc it wasn't very effective. Still, why should the lightsaber be all powerful? I don't see why it should...

 

And I'm not too selfish as to not allow people their fun.

 

If people can only have fun if the saber is all powerful, they can play saber-only games and knock themselves out. I am happy with having the lightsaber as just one more (very cool looking) weapon in a well rounded Jedi Master's arsenal.

 

If conc rifles are brought back in JA, the focus of lightsabers in multiplayer will be completely removed.

 

See above.

 

I do suport the idea of a seperate gaming mode, where sabers aren't even available.

 

That's reasonable, considering the Force makes the gameplay unique from most FPS games anyway.

 

However, the game isn't broken. There is a saber's only game mode, a sabers vs. guns mode, and an everything goes mode where saber challenges are an option.

 

People are really asking for a "more balanced" class based mod of guns vs. sabers I think. That is something I think we shall see.

 

Since the Jedi Knight games still include guns, there will always be people who prefer the guns, seeing as how the Dark Forces/Jedi Knight series is the only StarWars FPS to my knowledge.

 

Until Republic Commando, which will not have sabers. However I don't know if its going to have online multiplayer or not....

 

 

It would be fair to have a gaming mode that completely disallows lightsabers for that particular server. I'm not aware if JK2 currently has such a feature enabled. This would keep the gunners happy, and the saberists happy, as they would each have their respecting game play modes to participate in.

 

Yeah, but we wouldn't take away the "everything goes" FFA mode, because that's another thing that's unique to the series. Force + Guns + Explosives + Sabers in multiplayer.

 

I would also be in favor of an optional class-based mode. Gunners vs Jedi. I know there are mods which enables this, the most popular of which is Artifex's Promod I believe. But an (optional) class system built into the game would be nice.

 

There is, it's called Jedi Vs. Merc. Of course most would agree its a pretty bare bones system and not entirely balanced (it's an "unsupported bonus" feature after all). Hopefully JA will give us something more developed.

 

As for offense, I see no possible way to defend against a saber using a gun. I have no problem killing an opponent with my saber if he has a gun, as his only defense against the saber is distance. But distance isn't a device of the gun, it is from the player. You can easily kill anyone with the saber as long as you can get close enough to hit them.

 

There were ways to kill saberists with guns up close and far away. Far away was safer, considering the range of the saber. But all in all it was pretty good. The mistake some people made, was assuming that the saber HAS to be the ultimate weapon, against anything. It's not, and isn't meant to be. If, for example there was a gun that was good against everything so that you could use it exclusively, it would get labelled "cheap" and "lame" and people would demand it be removed from the game. Yet people demand this special honor be given to the saber just because it's the Jedi's weapon. What about game balance??

[Kurgan]

To sum up, I think the problem with sabers (as of 1.04) is not that they aren't powerful or balanced, it's just that for all intents and purposes getting kills with them is SLOWER than other means.

 

This translates to using the saber less in games where getting a high score is what you want (ie: a FFA). Which is why the pure honor saberists look all honorable but end up losing to those who use every available weapon and power.

 

As is, the saber is a *great* defensive weapon, when used properly and in a few situations can get good surprise kills. Other than that, its over-optimized for dueling, something that people are only happy with if it takes a looooong looooong time.

 

Frankly, I was happy with the Bushido Blade 2 style duels... a good fight between skilled combatants can last a long time, but an expert (or somebody really lucky) can kill their enemy in one quick clean blow.

 

 

Of course there's always lag, the great ruiner of all games....

[Kengo]

Originally posted by Kurgan

But Jedi can and do use guns. Read Tales of the Jedi, watch ESB. And the games have focused on Kyle Katarn, a Jedi living in the Post-ROTJ environment where Jedi are few and far between and can't be too swept up in traditional honorable warrior codes. They need all the help they can get.

 

Aside from that, who ever said you had to be a Jedi in JO multiplayer anyway? Seems a lot more interesting with varied player types to me. I'm useless with a saber, but a decent shot, I should be allowed to exercise my gunner rights

 

ProMod incorperated a lot of extra depth into MP in my opinion by having people specialise as saberists or gunners or become hyrbrids with some lower skills in both areas. It made things like team play and a balanced team make up come into it a lot more. A full gunners vs saberists mode in Mp, properly implemented, could also prove a lot of fun.

 

Great post, rather long read

[Kengo]

Speaking of guns, aside from saber / gun balance, some of the guns could do witha tweak to make them more useful. I mean, the bowcaster is pretty pointless, and the EMP gun just isn't much fun to use (although good in SP).

[JDKnite188]

The bowcaster is practically a shotgun. It isn't very fast, but it can pack a punch. For some reason I don't remember seeing it in MP. Maybe I am forgetting it right now.

[Luc Solar]

Yeah - I remember some mod tweaking the bowcaster. What was that mod called... PROMOD!!!!!!!!!1 ? Yes, I believe it was PROOOOMOOOODD that made the bowcaster bolts faster thus making it an useful weapon. I hope some of the ideas that were implemented in Promod will be seen in JA. Promod, like..umm...PROMOD..yeah!

[Kengo]

Originally posted by Luc Solar

Yeah - I remember some mod tweaking the bowcaster. What was that mod called... PROMOD!!!!!!!!!1 ? Yes, I believe it was PROOOOMOOOODD that made the bowcaster bolts faster thus making it an useful weapon. I hope some of the ideas that were implemented in Promod will be seen in JA. Promod, like..umm...PROMOD..yeah!

 

I'm sorry, did you mention PROMOD? I could swear you said "PROMOD". Was it just my imagination? *Cough*Promod*Cough*

 

Yeh, I suppose it was kind of like a shotgun. It negates shields doesnt it, the bowcaster - I guess this makes it handy too (it was in MP btw). Still thing the flechette was super overpowered, the primary fire was like a shotgun, the secondary fire was like a minefiled gun. Can you imagine a powerful shotgun with a multiple grenage launcher on the top? I'd have prefered it if the secondary had been like a double blast ala Half Life.

[SeanTB123]

But Jedi can and do use guns. Read Tales of the Jedi, watch ESB. And the games have focused on Kyle Katarn, a Jedi living in the Post-ROTJ environment where Jedi are few and far between and can't be too swept up in traditional honorable warrior codes. They need all the help they can get.

 

I am in favor of guns being in the game, I was just commenting on the fact that people adamantly say that guns should be dominant. No, they shouldn't they should be balanced, and I'm more than sure that we agree on that.

 

 

Not necessarily. Do the Flak Cannon and Heavy Repeater make sabering in a guns game obsolete? In JK2 we still have a thing called the "lightsaber challenge" after all. And besides, a lightsaber can't be pulled away.

 

Flak Cannons and Heavy Repeaters were worlds different than the conc rifle. Unless you were at full health, a ground zero explosion from a conc rifle would kill you. A saberist at least stands a chance against any single weapon in J0. There was no possible way you could beat a conc rifle in an FFA (using the saber) with the exception of using destruction (what about the lightsiders?) or high level pull. On top of that, pull can be absorbed. In my time in JK1, I had never seen a saberist ever come close to beating a conc rifle user. In my opinion, the conc rifle was uber. the downsides such as self inflicted damage, and slow firerate were shadowed by its massive power. most the of guns matches I had ever seen, were always a race to the concussion rifle.

 

If people can only have fun if the saber is all powerful, they can play saber-only games and knock themselves out. I am happy with having the lightsaber as just one more (very cool looking) weapon in a well rounded Jedi Master's arsenal.

 

when I said I wanted to allow people their fun, I meant, I was nice enough to not go pull crazy and pull every single gun from my opposition. That's not being a newb, thats being a punk. (let the records show, I usually played on force level 4, where absorb and destruction weren't available, so I was fully able to pull whenever I so chose).

 

I personally like the contribution of someone who made a post before (and my apologies for not not crediting you, whoever you are). He mentioned how all the guns in counterstrike, I think it was, were all balanced in the sense that no matter what weapon you weilded, your wins would still be based on skill; and that this should be the foundation for JK as well. This is the way it should be in my opinion. I'm not asking for the saber to be more powerful (a saber weilding newbie should not be able to beat a average skilled gunner), but I do think if you are adept at using a weapon, you should be able to beat anyone who is less adept at using whatever weapon they are using. You don't have to be an expert flak cannon/repeater user to beat an expert saber user. A saber user is at a current disadvantage against a gunner. Like I said, I don't want the saber to be more powerful than any gun, I just want it to be equal.

 

I'm not adamant about this; I'm overall fine with J0's general gameplay. The things I mention are my suggestions and wishes.

 

(And Kudos if you read this entire post. )

[Spider AL]

I am in favor of guns being in the game, I was just commenting on the fact that people adamantly say that guns should be dominant. No, they shouldn't they should be balanced, and I'm more than sure that we agree on that.

 

"Balance." There's a strange gaming term, meaning different things depending on whom you speak with. Personally I couldn't care less about balance. Balance is a purely imaginary concern, never attainable. No game has had an arsenal in which all weapons were equally useful. Conversely, no game ever made has a weapon that's ideal or even usable in every situation, JK and JO included. There are times when the Tenloss is a more powerful tool than a flechette, and there were times when a thermal detonator was more desirable than a concussion rifle. Nor does any weapon favour those without skill. The flechette has its blind spot. The concussion rifle had its weaknesses. People of little skill can spam all they like with whatever weapon they like, they'll still lose to a player with superior skill. Let me put it this way: if a spammer defeats me, it is not the spammer's fault.

 

Unless all weapons have the same damage, the same ammo limit, the same R.O.F and the same trajectory of projectile, there will always be one weapon which is most useful in most situations. That weapon will be the weapon people run for, it'll be the weapon most people use most of the time, and therefore it'll be the weapon that's spammed the most. Therefore it'll be the weapon that people whine about the most. Heck, maybe it'll be two weapons. Or even three. That's still not "balanced" in the conventional sense of the word. Is that then an undesirable situation? I think not.

 

Not only is balance unattainable, it's undesirable. Why not just stand still, if all weapons are similar enough to be balanced? Why bother running for any other weapons? So hooray for imbalances, they provide impetus and flow to a game.

 

As for whether the sabre should equal the guns in potency, of course it shouldn't. For a melee, close-range weapon to even come close to equalling the ranged weapons in usefulness and power, it'd not only have to be stupidly powerful, with instant one-hit kills, but the guns would also have to be nerfed, because even a one-hit-kill glowstick wouldn't equal a gun's power. All a gunner has to do is KEEP his distance. A swordsman has to close that distance. More work for him to do, therefore inherent disadvantage to him. That's just the way things are.

 

And I don't want to see a game in which one has to give up force powers in order to wield a gun. That's both a departure from the series to date and hence undesirable, and a kick in the teeth for the fans of a good Jedi vs. Jedi gun battle. Hence doubly undesirable.

 

I personally like the contribution of someone who made a post before (and my apologies for not not crediting you, whoever you are). He mentioned how all the guns in counterstrike, I think it was, were all balanced in the sense that no matter what weapon you weilded, your wins would still be based on skill; and that this should be the foundation for JK as well.

I doubt any serious CS player would agree that all the weapons in CS require equal skill to wield. All you have to do is mention the acronym "awp" and compare to "scout" to disprove that notion. There are many weapons in CS that are quite simply ineffective, therefore kills made with those weapons would require more skill. Conversely there are weapons which are easier than most to wield effectively, therefore they require proportionately LESS skill to use to kill other players.

 

No, I don't believe in "balance," whatever that means to each of us.

[Prime]

Originally posted by Spider AL

..."balance," whatever that means to each of us.

"Balance" means being able to pick a weapon of choice and owning everyone else with it. If the player is unable to use said weapon to defeat his enemies regularly, then the game is "unbalanced".

[SeanTB123]

Originally posted by Prime

"Balance" means being able to pick a weapon of choice and owning everyone else with it. If the player is unable to use said weapon to defeat his enemies regularly, then the game is "unbalanced".

 

That is not what I was implying at all. Let me repeat, I am currently a fan of the way the game play is set up in JO. My posts do make it seem like I am an avid saberist, and I will admit, I frequently spend my time in JO in sabers only servers. I do visit gun servers occasionally, because I believe that you might as well enjoy all the features included with JO. I do score noticeably higher on sabers only servers when compared to guns and sabers servers. I also use guns much more than I do the saber when in these servers, so I am not against guns. I am for whatever works. When I run out of ammunition, I do have to revert back to the lightsaber if I do get into a dogfight; and in such situations I find myself dead because of the flak or the repeater. I am completely fine with this. I have never once uttered a complaint about being killed by what others call “lame” methods. (this even includes the hated spammed-choke-kick.)

 

The lightsaber maintains a damage-dealing strength that no other weapon bears. Because of this, if someone is caught unaware by a Jedi wielding a lightsaber right next to them, in all respects they should be dead.

 

The point I am essentially trying to make, is that if you are good enough, you should be able to use any weapon to beat any other person. Why did they Jedi choose the lightsaber as their single weapon when compared to ranged weaponry? Because they could. They were so skilled with a melee weapon, they could take on those who had a default advantage over them. In short, I don’t want to see the lightsaber degraded in use (which I’m sure it won’t with the new emphasis on sabers in JA). The lightsaber isn’t just a sword, and the person wielding one isn’t supposed to be an ordinary being. In JO, if you were exceptionally good with the lightsaber and the Force, you stood a great chance against any weapon a gunner may use. I probably shouldn’t have said the guns and the sabers should be equal, because a saber is supposed to be the hardest to use and master. If you are a newbie, and using a saber to chase after a gunner, you deserve to die. In that case, even if you are an expert saberist you should die if you're chasing after a person weilding a ranged weapon. All in all, I think JO hit it pretty close to the mark.

 

So what am I trying to get at in this post? If you find out let me know. I think I had a point when I sat down to write this... . Please don't hurt me...

[Spider AL]

The point I am essentially trying to make, is that if you are good enough, you should be able to use any weapon to beat any other person. Why did they Jedi choose the lightsaber as their single weapon when compared to ranged weaponry? Because they could. They were so skilled with a melee weapon, they could take on those who had a default advantage over them.

Actually it seems fairly obvious, judging by the primary canon alone, that Jedi chose to use Lightsabres because they were Jedi and could use whatever they liked to kill people with because they have Jedi reflexes and force skills. A Jedi could conceivably use a small pat of butter to great effect against a non-force-adept opponent.

 

You see, Jedi spent a lot of years doing nothing but beating up on normal people. There weren't any Sith around to challenge them, they just ran around mind-tricking criminals and deflecting the blaster-bolts of common gangsters. The reason Lightsabres appear so powerful in the Star Wars films is because only powerful people use them. Force adepts. Jedi. Sith.

 

But in the DF/JK series, ALL players are Force adepts. Therefore, a large and powerful gun used by a Jedi will be more powerful than a laser-sword used by a Jedi. it stands to reason, and logically and aesthetically, guns should be dominant in the game.

 

The lightsaber isn’t just a sword

Yeah it is. It's a very very sharp sword with a blade made out of some indeterminate plasma energy, but it's just a sword nonetheless. It's not powered by the Force, it's just a tool, and all people can wield it, though few can wield it as well as a Jedi. What most people forget is that that applies to guns too. A Jedi with a gun and a lightsabre, and a choice between them, will naturally defeat a Jedi with only a lightsabre.

 

Please don't hurt me...

Hurt you? Why would anyone do a thing like that? Kill quickly and cleanly, that's what I say. Minimise the pain.

[SeanTB123]

Originally posted by Spider AL

But in the DF/JK series, ALL players are Force adepts. Therefore, a large and powerful gun used by a Jedi will be more powerful than a laser-sword used by a Jedi. it stands to reason, and logically and aesthetically, guns should be dominant in the game.

 

I fully understand where you are coming from, though Jedi were using the lightsaber as the weapon of choice, even in spite of the fact that there was Force-fueled competition. The Sith chose the lightsaber as their weapon of choice as well. By your logic, no Jedi or Sith would ever use the lightsaber, when more "effective" weapons were available. Even the Sith, who weren't understood to be particular fair fighters utilized lightsabers when poweful guns were readily available. There is a piece of something that we don't know about; that is what makes me reluctant to completely agree with you.

[munik]

Originally posted by Spider AL

And I don't want to see a game in which one has to give up force powers in order to wield a gun.

In JO, if you wield a gun you lose maneuverability. I'm pretty sure you can't switch to third person while using a gun, but if you can you still can't roll, wall run, or kick I believe. While you aren't losing force abilities by using a gun, you are losing something. For me, roll is an indispensible technique used for evading attacks, especially splash damage. Or just to bug out of a fight. I dislike the lack of roll while using a gun, but I accept that it is the trade off for being able to use a ranged weapon.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by munik:

 

In JO, if you wield a gun you lose maneuverability. I'm pretty sure you can't switch to third person while using a gun, but if you can you still can't roll, wall run, or kick I believe.

Precisely. And would you believe that there are people who firmly insist that gunners should have no force powers whatsoever, in addition to all those disadvantages? It's quite sickening.

 

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

 

I fully understand where you are coming from, though Jedi were using the lightsaber as the weapon of choice, even in spite of the fact that there was Force-fueled competition.

Not strictly true... Remember, the Sith were out of the picture for an awfully long time. Long enough for firearms to evolve to a superior level of effectiveness than they were at initially, for instance. This is of course not taking into account the frankly silly Sith Wars graphic novels and other moneymaking exercises. Anyway, many years later, the Sith come back into the picture, and straight away they facilitate the wiping out of the Jedi. Not enough time for the Jedi to adapt to using newer, more effective weapons to counter the threat of a group with the same powers as them. Remember, a thousand years of tradition makes it hard to use a different tactic or weapon. Ask all the dead Samurai. They could indeed have used guns... But they were whiners, and ran at firing squads waving their silly swords and screaming "LAMERS!!!!11".

 

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

 

By your logic, no Jedi or Sith would ever use the lightsaber, when more "effective" weapons were available.

This is precisely my logic. And before the prequels (*spit*) were released, there was nothing to suggest that Sith, whose only concern is victory, would not use every powerful weapon at their disposal to eradicate their enemies when necessary. I find it far more believable that a Sith would ignite his lightsabre and then shoot his foe using a concealed energy weapon, than I find the idea of a Sith having a "fair" lightsabre duel with a similarly armed opponent.

 

Still, as I remarked before, there is such a thing as tradition. And Sith, on the whole, will always tend to be more powerful warriors than Jedi. After all, a Jedi practices peace, and a Sith practices conflict. So why not use a laser sword, if you know you're so much better than your foe?

 

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

 

Even the Sith, who weren't understood to be particular fair fighters utilized lightsabers when poweful guns were readily available.

Remember, the only weapon-using Sith in the original trilogy was Vader. Vader was never trying to kill Luke when he fought him, so why would he use a gun? As for Obi-Wan's demise, Vader was his old pupil, eager to prove his superiority in the ancient arts.

 

As for the prequels, they're secondary canon at best.

[babywax]

There are a few things I think would "balance" (heh, don't you say 'define balance!') the game.

One, would be varying speed, I'm not saying make a saber user run 50% faster than a gun user. Just a small bonus, 5 or 10 percent would be enough. A gun user with a good gun would have plenty of time to kill him. This would make Jedi focus more on closing the gap and avoiding the enemies bullets. When someone picks up guns, they should run slower. There should be options not to pick up guns etc etc... You get the idea.

Second, in Jedi Outcast multiplayer, I found there was a significant lack of stealth involved. There were not conveniant hiding places, no crannies, not even a nook in most cases. Most of the maps were in the day. Almost every map had one place where everyone would fight.

If you were in a saber only FFA game fighting on FFA_Bespin it would almost always turn DFA into the center courtyard fight.

Now, I hate to take my examples from other movies, but look at Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, there is a whole lot of chasing involved, but when they fight, it is mostly a small secluded fight, with the exception of a few scenes. I recall one where two people are fighting at night, and one goes through a window. The other is standing there waiting for her. She tries to run away, but is forced to draw her sword and fight. They fight etc etc...

 

Someone earlier stated that a red stance swing would kill an opponent in one shot... Not true, if the opponent had full life. Even if you kept it inside them for the whole time you would only get them to 29-33 HP. To me, this is ridiculous. Red swings are extremely slow, and if you keep the sword in the opponent for the entire swing (which they pretty much have to be standing still to do) it should kill them in one shot. Blue stance however, should take about 5-8 shots. Yellow should be a nice balance. People want long drawn out duels, well they should focus on blocking, not getting the first shot in.

Gunners seem to want saber to not even stand a chance against guns, yet at the same time they say to the saber advocates that they should not want saber to be all powerful a-la the movies.

It should be easier to close the space with saber, but it should still give gunners plenty of time to shoot them. A skilled gunner should kill a skilled jedi at range. A SUPER skilled jedi should be able to push the projectiles back. A SUPER skilled gunner would know exactly when you shoot to catch the jedi off gaurd. A jedi VS gunner at medium range, well, the distance would be closed very fast by the jedi, but it is much harder to push things back at closer range.

At close range? Heck yeah saber should KILL guns, real life isn't a game, star wars isn't real life.

 

P.S.

Who the hell thought of a LASER-CROSSBOW???

Where is the logic in that?