<GuNs>

[munik]

Originally posted by babywax

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.

Nice idea. Maybe instead of altering the speed of one player, you could make those who use guns suffer an accuracy penalty if they are moving. I think that in reality, the difference in weight between a lightsaber and a gun doesn't really matter too much to speed. But it is much harder to shoot accurately if you are moving. So that would help a saber close the gap with a gunner. They could still run away, but they won't be as efficient.

Originally posted by babywax

P.S.

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

Where is the logic in that?

Lightsabers aren't too logical either. A sword that can cut in any direction, as well as stab, with absolutely no weight in the blade. How do you develop a technique for such a thing? It's not a thrusting sword, or piercer, it's not a crushing sword, the best I can think of is slashes, but it's unlike all swords that slash. I think a lightsaber would be more adept at killing the wielder, then killing his oppenent.

[SeanTB123]

Originally posted by Spider AL

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?

 

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

 

I don't recall anything in the movies nor anything in the EU fiction regarding the Sith dominating the Jedi completely as you put it. If you can make reference to something in particular, I will relent.

The Jedi were trained to prefer peace, but being able to keep peace essentially means being very skilled warriors. Based on your statement, that would mean, that the US, generally not a war-happy (let's leave the Bush jokes out of this) nation, would have a horrible military, when in fact the US has a relatively powerful and well-trained military. They don't run into battle holding their hands up waving the peace sign.

 

Regarding battle, the Jedi accesses the Force through serenity and concentration, a more stable and predictable method to Force-usage while the Dark side acccesses the Force through rage and emotion; more accessible, and requiring less training. But when Luke asked if the darkside was stronger, Yoda's answer was a defiant "no". On top of that, the Sith remained in hiding for roughly 1000 years (after the Jedi had beaten them up completely I might add) as one of the council members said. In that thousand years, you would think that the Sith would eventually come to the conclusion that,

 

"Hey, if we start becoming skilled with the gun, we can totally obliterate them". - This obviously never happened. They maintained the usage of the Lightsaber in spite of the fact that they had plenty of time of preperation.

 

Seeing as how the Starwars community can create ships that go faster that lightspeed, create swords which can cut through any substance, and interconnect hundreds if not thousands of planets and systems, I'd say the guns would be pretty advanced. If our modern day ranged weapons are considered effective, imagine how theirs are, even back in the Golden Age of the Sith. If at that time, sabers were more effective than blasters, even non-jedi would use lightsabers.

 

A for the comment about the prequals being barely canon. I sincerely hope you were being sarcastic, or joking. The fact that they are made and directed by George Lucas as a reversed continuation of the first 3 movies makes them absolutely canon. The movies are the ONLY THING in the StarWars universe than is canon.

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

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.

 

While I find eliminating Force powers when using guns as extreme, I do believe Force powers should be reduced while using a gun. This is based on the fact that Force powers will be reduced when using a lightstaff or a twin sabers. If those reduce force powers because they require 2 hands, it should hold true for guns that require 2 hands.

[munik]

Originally posted by SeanTB123

Seeing as how the Starwars community can create ships that go faster that lightspeed, create swords which can cut through any substance, and interconnect hundreds if not thousands of planets and systems, I'd say the guns would be pretty advanced. If our modern day ranged weapons are considered effective, imagine how theirs are, even back in the Golden Age of the Sith. If at that time, sabers were more effective than blasters, even non-jedi would use lightsabers.

Their guns are advanced, but how many times do we see a jedi use a saber in a fight? And in how many of these fights do you think a gun would be more advantageous? Lukes use of the saber at the sarlacc pit was necessary, as he had to use r2-d2 to smuggle it. But he probaly would have fared better with a gun. What about the battle of geonosis? Those jedi's sure could have used a gun or two, instead of running into a droid army with swords like a bunch of tards. But we usually see a saber in use during a melee fight, with few opponents. In that case it probaly is a superior weapon. How often do we see the incorrect of choice of a saber over a gun in the movies? Hardly ever, because showing jedi making poor choices and dying isn't what the star wars stuff is about. The exact opposite in fact.

 

But with the application of logic, we do know that in most cases if there is a choice between a ranged weapon, or a melee weapon, the ranged one is almost always favored. Even with lightsabers. The comment that everyone would use them isn't true either. I don't think just anyone can make a lightsaber, as it is a difficult skill, and using one is probaly a much more difficult skill. As I said in a previous post, a lightsaber would most likely kill the user, it's hard to fight with a sword that doesn't allow for any standard techniques used in a sword fight, or melee fight.

[SeanTB123]

I'm sorry, I just refuse to believe that these elite, intelligent warriors would refuse to use a blaster out of blatent stupidity.

[munik]

I agree with you. Did my post come off like I was disagreing? Maybe I should have re-worded it.

 

It's like the Musketeers, from France's history. They were very adept at using rapiers, they studied and trained with them to be very efficient sword wielders. They believed it was honorable to be able to defeat your opponent with a sword, even during a time when there were firearms. But they weren't stupid, I mean they were called Musketeers after all. They understood that a complete warrior was efficient at all forms of combat, armed, unarmed, ranged, whatever. They just prefered swordplay when it was prudent, as they saw honor in it, and being skillful in such a difficult art meant something to them.

[Prime]

Originally posted by SeanTB123

That is not what I was implying at all.

Note: = joke.

 

 

Originally posted by SeanTB123

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.

But being "good enough" means that you are better than the other person. And that is the way it is now. Someone with a bryar can take out someone with a rocket launcher. And someone can take out a gunner with a saber. This has to do with the skill of the player, not an inherent equality between the weapons.

 

Originally posted by SeanTB123

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.

And this is where the comparison between gameplay and movie "realism" breaks down. In the movies, the Jedi are more or less uber-beings with talents and abilites far beyond the opponents they face (for the most part). And so, like you say, their skill can make up for inherent liabilities in the lightsaber. In the MP game, however, everyone has these same abilites. This makes the Jedi a "normal" being in the game. Because everyone now has the abilities, they can no longer make up for the lightsaber deficiencies.

 

Apart from that, the Jedi in the movies are not out to smite their enemies. They are focused on more defensive goals and the preservasion of life. Because of this, the lightsaber is a good choice, certainly for its defensive capabilities alone. This goal, of course, is the exact opposite of the game, which is all about fragging everyone walking, and racking up kills as quickly as possible. This makes the lightsaber a less reasonable choice.

 

Originally posted by SeanTB123

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.

Again, the problem is that in JO a jedi is an ordinary being, by game standards. Everyone has force powers. Including gunners. So the big equalizer from the movies has been removed in the game world.

 

Originally posted by SeanTB123

The Jedi were trained to prefer peace, but being able to keep peace essentially means being very skilled warriors. Based on your statement, that would mean, that the US, generally not a war-happy (let's leave the Bush jokes out of this) nation, would have a horrible military, when in fact the US has a relatively powerful and well-trained military. They don't run into battle holding their hands up waving the peace sign.

An intersting example. And I will refrain from Bush jokes But allow me to take this example another way. For the sake of argument, the US tends to use the threat of force much more often than the actual application of that force. But the force is there if it is really necessary. This is quite similar to a Jedi. They have access to awesome abilities that can be brought to bare, but they ususally rely on the threat of those powers to subdue their enemies. If they Jedi really wanted to just mow down their adversaries with ease, they could just as easily choose a big gun and clean house. Similarly, if the US really wanted to destroy the world, they could merely spend all their military dollars on nukes, nukes, and more nukes. Wouldn't that be more effective if your only goal was the destruction of the other guy? But it is not the goal. So there are other issues taken into consideration when choosing a weapon like the lightsaber. In the game, though, destruction of the other guy is the only goal.

 

Originally posted by munik

Their guns are advanced, but how many times do we see a jedi use a saber in a fight? And in how many of these fights do you think a gun would be more advantageous? Lukes use of the saber at the sarlacc pit was necessary, as he had to use r2-d2 to smuggle it. But he probaly would have fared better with a gun. What about the battle of geonosis? Those jedi's sure could have used a gun or two, instead of running into a droid army with swords like a bunch of tards.

Actually, I find that for most of the combat situations that Jedi find themselves in the movies they are better off with a lightsaber. In the case of Luke at the Sarlacc pit, Obi-wan vs. battledroids, the Battle of Geonosis, and so on, they are all many vs. one cases. The Jedi are almost always at a disadvantage numbers wise. Because of this, defense is a primary concern, since it is very difficult to attack (and eliminate) multiple targets simultaneously. The lightsaber is an excellent defensive weapon against the guns we see in the Star Wars movies. A gun is quite useless against multiple enemies since you can only take out one at a time, which leaves you wide open.

 

So I bet the Jedi you mention were thanking their lucky stars that they have their trust lightsabers

[babywax]

Why would you race into an army with a gun, when you can have something that enables you to block all of their bullets, not only shielding you, but reflecting their bullets back into them?

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by babywax:

 

Someone earlier stated that a red stance swing would kill an opponent in one shot... Not true, if the opponent had full life.

Incorrect I'm afraid. This is a common misconception... A single red stance overhead strike can kill a player outright, if it remains in the opponent's body (hit box) throughout the duration of the swing, and includes some lateral motion. That's the trick. Try it with a friend, get them to stand still without a sabre drawn, and hit them through their head right down to one of their feet. You can in certain circumstances add extra power to a red stance strike by jumping during the strike, it seems to add some extra impetus. This isn't up for debate btw, I've done it myself many times on sabre damage scale 1, even in duels where the opponent had his sabre up to block my strike.

 

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

 

I don't recall anything in the movies nor anything in the EU fiction regarding the Sith dominating the Jedi completely as you put it. If you can make reference to something in particular, I will relent.

Firstly, what nonsense. I never said anything about Sith "completely dominating" anyone.

 

As for what I really said, which was that Sith will always tend to be more powerful warriors than Jedi, there's plenty of examples of the fact that Sith, who are dedicated to combat, will be a bit better at it. If we look at the original trilogy, Palpatine was more powerful than Vader, who eradicated the Jedi (presumably.) This makes him the single most powerful individual in the trilogy. He was a Sith.

 

If we take the prequels as an example, since they are EU at best, we will see that Maul, a mere apprentice, was able to take out Qui Gon quite easily, and he was an experienced Jedi Master. Notice at the end, when Obi-Wan kills him, it's because Maul stands completely still while Obi-Wan somersaults over him and chops him in half. This takes Obi-Wan several seconds to accomplish. What happened to Maul's lightning reflexes during this time? Most annoying.

 

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

 

The Jedi were trained to prefer peace, but being able to keep peace essentially means being very skilled warriors.

I'm afraid I consider that to be complete nonsense, no offence to you. In today's climate perhaps some people have been brainwashed into believing that peace can be attained through violence, but that doesn't make it true. The way of the Jedi is peace. The way of the Jedi is never to fight unless they are attacked, and to find non-violent ways out of as many situations as possible.

 

In the original trilogy, Luke doesn't win through combat. He realises that he can't defeat Palpatine, and he wins through non-violence. It's his non-violence that finally turns Vader back to the light side, because he can't stand by and allow his defenceless son to be eradicated by Palpatine. THAT is the true strength of the Light Side, and the final message of the Star Wars films.

 

Now the Sith on the other hand, they're warriors. They live to gain power, and being as hard as a coffin-nail comes in handy during such pursuits. Someone dedicated to combat would naturally surpass someone dedicated to peace, in skill.

 

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

 

In that thousand years, you would think that the Sith would eventually come to the conclusion that, "Hey, if we start becoming skilled with the gun, we can totally obliterate them". - This obviously never happened. They maintained the usage of the Lightsaber in spite of the fact that they had plenty of time of preperation.

Ha! No, they decided to use a MUCH more powerful weapon than a gun! Subterfuge and political intrigue. Palpatine brought the Sith back to dominance through his mind, and through the use of others as his weapons, both Jedi and Sith were his tools. The prequels are rubbish, by the way. I thought I'd just add that.

 

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

 

A for the comment about the prequals being barely canon. I sincerely hope you were being sarcastic, or joking. The fact that they are made and directed by George Lucas as a reversed continuation of the first 3 movies makes them absolutely canon. The movies are the ONLY THING in the StarWars universe than is canon.

Wahaha. Lucas is an overweight old washout, and the best film of the Original Trilogy (which is the ONLY primary canon), was neither screenwritten nor directed by George Lucas. That should tell you something at least. And if Lucas ever did have any talent that didn't come from plagiarising Japanese movies, he lost it well before making the prequels, which are AWFUL movies, and awfully directed. That makes them no better than EU.

 

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

 

While I find eliminating Force powers when using guns as extreme, I do believe Force powers should be reduced while using a gun. This is based on the fact that Force powers will be reduced when using a lightstaff or a twin sabers. If those reduce force powers because they require 2 hands, it should hold true for guns that require 2 hands.

Firstly, the idea that holding an object in one's hand would prevent one from using the purely mentally activated power of the Force, is laughable from a canonical standpoint. Secondly, that doesn't matter. The point is that Gunners should not be penalised. The JK series has had a long and illustrious history of fine gunning matches, with people of such marksmanship that they could rival the best Quake players. Gun and Force battles must be preserved. Anything else is an insult to those fans who have followed the entire DF series. And acrobatics should be added too.

 

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

 

I'm sorry, I just refuse to believe that these elite, intelligent warriors would refuse to use a blaster out of blatent stupidity.

My friend, honour and tradition are often forms of stupidity. I'm guilty of the former myself, and am quite aware of its limitations...

 

Originally posted by babywax:

 

Why would you race into an army with a gun, when you can have something that enables you to block all of their bullets, not only shielding you, but reflecting their bullets back into them?

Because you can only block so many people's bullets at once, which was why the Jedi were losing the big fight at the end of EpII.

 

If I were a Jedi, and I had to fight a battle in the Star Wars universe, I'd take a lightsabre AND a gun.

[Prime]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Incorrect I'm afraid. This is a common misconception... A single red stance overhead strike can kill a player outright, if it remains in the opponent's body (hit box) throughout the duration of the swing, and includes some lateral motion. That's the trick. Try it with a friend, get them to stand still without a sabre drawn, and hit them through their head right down to one of their feet. You can in certain circumstances add extra power to a red stance strike by jumping during the strike, it seems to add some extra impetus. This isn't up for debate btw, I've done it myself many times on sabre damage scale 1, even in duels where the opponent had his sabre up to block my strike.

This is true. Since the red stance can chop through the defense of blue stance, you can, in fact, kill someone in one swing, even if they have a lightsaber.

 

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

If we take the prequels as an example, since they are EU at best...

I disagree with you on this, Al, but I understand why you dislike the movies.

[Spider AL]

I disagree with you on this, Al, but I understand why you dislike the movies.

Weeeell, call me a purist. I find the prequels as offensive to mine senses as a bad EU novel, so I consider them the same.

 

As for DF - JO, I think they represent some of the best of the EU, though they're as far from canon as it's possible to get before you bump into the "Star Wars Christmas Special".

[Prime]

Originally posted by Spider AL

As for DF - JO, I think they represent some of the best of the EU, though they're as far from canon as it's possible to get before you bump into the "Star Wars Christmas Special".

It's too bad really. I agree that the Dark Forces series has brought us some of the better EU stories. I always felt that they captured the feel of the original trilogy quite well.

[Spider AL]

Yes, especially JK1. I think it was the size of the levels, and the grainy, dirty textures. Very good. I hope JA is more OT than prequel.

[Solo4114]

Not to reopen old wounds here, but I still think that "balance" in a sense can be achieved, at least in terms of the guns vs. guns issue.

 

To me, the notion of balance is that you have advantages and corresponding disadvantages to a particular weapon, and that not all weapons are useful for ALL situations (though some may be more useful than others). I don't think balance need mean that all weapons are equal in damage, equal in usefulness, equal in abilities, etc.

 

Let's look at a few games that I spent some time playing (and can therefore speak more authoritatively about): Quake 2, UT, and RTCW.

 

Wait a second. Q2 had balance???? Well, yes and no. Q2 had certain weapons that were DEFINITELY more useful than others, or were EXTREMELY powerful by comparison with others. But even in Q2, you had some level of "balance" with a number of the weapons. Ok, granted, the single-barrel shotgun and the blaster were pretty much relegated to "backup weapon" status. But the rest of the weapons, if memory serves, were pretty useful in different situations, and were reasonably well balanced. No single weapon ALWAYS owned in every situation. The double-barrel shotgun was an AWESOME close quarters weapon, and could (if memory serves) kill in one shot if it was well aimed and you were close enough, but it wasn't good for long range. The chaingun was also good, and while it had a smaller spread than the heavy shotgun, and couldn't kill in one shot, it could still chew through opponents well, but it had a spin-up time that could leave you vulnerable, and as stated, didn't kill as quickly as other weapons. The railgun was a devastating weapon, but you had to be REALLY accurate with it to use it well. The grenade launcher let you attack from a concealed position (IE: around the corner), but could be unpredictable. The rocket launcher was pretty much the uber-weapon, but still had an achilles heel (that being splash damage to yourself or friendlies). The BFG was, of course, aptly named, but ate up ammo like nobody's business. If memory serves, you only got 3 or 4 shots with max ammo. The hyperblaster was also good, but had some accuracy problems, and ate up ammo that you might want to save for the BFG. Could you dominate with any one weapon? Not strictly speaking. Some folks got really good with the railgun, others with the RL, etc., but you could still hold your own with any of the weapons, depending on the situation. It wasn't as if a rocket launcher would always ALWAYS beat a railgun, for example, or vice versa. Thus, there had to be a level of skill developed with each weapon if you wanted to use it more than others and if you wanted to push the envelope of situations in which it was useful.

 

The same was true of UT. You had a whole slew of weapons, many of which were quite inventive, but limited in use. Again, no SINGLE weapon would ALWAYS dominate. The redeemer, playing the role of the BFG style weapon, was limited in its usefulness, due to its ability to harm the wielder, and to the fact that it had limited ammunition. The Shock rifle was a great weapon, and could be heavily spammed, but also took skill to become accurate with, even in terms of the combo fire maneuver. The sniper rifle was devastating if you could get head shots, but wasn't as good for close combat. The minigun was great, but had no splash damage abilities. The plasma rifle (or whatever it was) was also good, but you could dodge its projectiles, and its lightning-bolt fire mode had a limited range to it. The eightball was also excellent, but could be dodged and had a slower rate of fire than other weapons. The flak cannon (one of my personal favorites) was EXTREMELY powerful, but you had to be able to judge trajectories pretty well in order to become really good with it on a consistent level. Even the bio-rifle, what I found to be the least useful of the weapons, had the ability to be devastating when placed in the right hands, but was useless for many long-range purposes. Once again, the weapons had different roles to play, different power levels, different ammo consumptions, but a player could hone their skills with the weapon and become quite talented with them, thereby expanding the number of uses.

 

Finally, there's RTCW, what I consider to be one of the best, most balanced games out there. You had the Panzerfaust, which only carried two rounds, but could basically turn an entire enemy team into a grease stain on the ground (though you moved REALLY slowly when wielding it). You had the Venom gun, which was also devastatingly powerful, although HIGHLY inaccurate and prone to overheating (and it too made you move slowly). You had the sniper rifle which was highly accurate, but had a slow rate of fire, and was pretty much useless in close range. You had the flamethrowers, which had limited range, but could REALLY mess an enemy up (though you moved a little slower, and could burn yourself up pretty easily if you weren't careful). Even the SMGs had their little pros and cons. The Thompson was the most powerful of the guns, but it had the slowest rate of fire and was the least accurate. The Sten had an insanely high rate of fire, and was also highly accurate, but would overheat VERY quickly. Finally, the MP40 was a nice balance between the other two weapons -- a jack of all trades, but a master of none. Again, we see that there are different roles for each of the weapons, and VERY different power levels for them, but that they were still balanced, at least by my definition.

 

"Balance" need not mean nerfing or overpowering a particular weapon. You don't even really need to heavily tweak ammo consumption, rates of fire, etc. Subtle changes alone can make a big difference. As far as a guns vs. guns situation goes, pretty much ALL forms of JO at any patch level you had pretty good balance. Sure the Golan and Flechette were excellent, but they didn't dominate all the time. A talented E-11 user could wreak havoc, just as a Merr-Sonn master could rise to the top of the scoreboard.

 

Where things got all f**kered up was when you threw the sabre into the mix. The sabre requires a whole other level of balancing. As Al has pointed out, if all you ever use is the sabre, at least as far as FFA goes, you're screwed. Plain and simple. You have to close distance, and even with the reduced backpedaling speed, you're gonn have a long time 'til you catch the other guy. You also have opponents who can use the force JUST AS WELL AS YOU CAN. Again, as has been pointed out, one of the big issues here is that, in the SW films and books, the jedi are badasses simply because they're jedi. They use lightsabres because it's the traditional weapon. But if jedi used all weapons available to them at all times, and fought each other on equal footing with those weapons, guess what it'd look like? That's right: FFA. Put simply, FFA is always going to be about using whatever tool is best for the situation, and no single tool can ever be useful in ALL situations. The lightsabre is a fantastic defensive weapon, and will protect you against most of the foes you'll meet. When running around in game, if I don't know what's coming next, you can bet I'll have my sabre out if only to protect my ass. That said, the sabre is worthless in long range combat, as it should be. It should still be the unquestioned master of close range combat (I still say ALL hits should equal kills, or at least halve your health -- as in Bushido Blade 2 -- also mentioned elsewhere), but Al's absolutely right. The sabre will NEVER be the equal of guns, IF the gun wielder has force powers.

 

The play style issue IS the crucial issue here. Just because you're weilding a sabre doesn't mean you're a jedi, not in FFA. You have to change your mindset. In FFA, EVERYONE is a jedi. It's not jedi vs. mercs, and it shouldn't be gunners vs. sabreists either. If you CAN survive as a sabreist and even make it to the top of the list in a full weapons FFA game, bully for you. You're definitely a much better player than I am, no question.

 

I guess, in a long-winded way (but then, what can you expect from me, given my track record), I'm saying that, from a strictly FFA point of view, JO is MOSTLY balanced already. No single weapon can ALWAYS do the job, but if you get good with the weapons you can expand the scope of their usefulness.

 

This also gets into the issue of "fanboys" or even hardcore fans (not necessarily the same thing). There's a contingent of players, and a fairly vocal one at that, that want all game modes to be identical to the movies. That's not possible. Never has been, never will be. If you have a straight-up FFA, where everyone has access to the force and all weapons, you're already getting away from the movies.

 

If it's movie realism you want, I think class-based game modes will be more your style. I tend to fall more into this camp. FFA, like most pure-DM style gaming, just doesn't have much appeal to me. Add to that that it is the least like the films of all the game modes and you have a fairly unsatisfying style of gameplay, for me at least. In a class-based game mode, I'd say that gunners SHOULD have no access to force powers, or at least highly restricted access. Jedi should move faster, but have no shields and be able to wield no guns. Lightsabres should be 100% lethal for any hit, though blocking could be reduced somewhat. Gunners should get access to all the tech toys (turrets, bacta, etc.), whereas jedi have access to none. Etc., etc., etc. Essentially, you try to stay truer to the films than FFA does. That said, FFA should NOT be eliminated by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Too many people like FFA to remove it, and a game like this without it as another of many game modes would suffer greatly in the market. I'm encouraged right now to hear that class-based gaming will finally come to the Star Wars universe, but I'm also hoping that it does not become the ONLY option available to people. We should still have duels, FFA, NF-FFA, Sabre-only FFA, CTF, class-based CTF, class-based team FFA, etc., etc. as options, and hopefully, no single weapon/sabre scheme will apply to all of the game modes. That'd just be a waste.

 

I still, however, do think that "balance" from the perspective I've described IS possible and IS desireable.

[Spider AL]

Not to reopen old wounds here, but I still think that "balance" in a sense can be achieved, at least in terms of the guns vs. guns issue.

Teehee, not to worry Solo.

 

To me, the notion of balance is that you have advantages and corresponding disadvantages to a particular weapon, and that not all weapons are useful for ALL situations (though some may be more useful than others). I don't think balance need mean that all weapons are equal in damage, equal in usefulness, equal in abilities, etc.

Absolutely, and this is the best, most workable definition of "balance" out there. In my opinion though, your criteria already apply to most, if not all, games that have ever been released. I can't think of a weapon that doesn't have disadvantages to its use. Nor can I think of a game that contained one all-powerful weapon.

 

Too many people like FFA to remove it, and a game like this without it as another of many game modes would suffer greatly in the market. I'm encouraged right now to hear that class-based gaming will finally come to the Star Wars universe, but I'm also hoping that it does not become the ONLY option available to people. We should still have duels, FFA, NF-FFA, Sabre-only FFA, CTF, class-based CTF, class-based team FFA, etc., etc. as options, and hopefully, no single weapon/sabre scheme will apply to all of the game modes. That'd just be a waste.

That is well put. I'd say that too many game modes could be detrimental to the online community however, but we'll see what occurs.

 

Good post, btw.

[Prime]

Originally posted by Solo4114

Too many people like FFA to remove it, and a game like this without it as another of many game modes would suffer greatly in the market. I'm encouraged right now to hear that class-based gaming will finally come to the Star Wars universe, but I'm also hoping that it does not become the ONLY option available to people. We should still have duels, FFA, NF-FFA, Sabre-only FFA, CTF, class-based CTF, class-based team FFA, etc., etc. as options...

I hope that there won't be a vast number of modes, as I fear that it will splinter the community into too many groups. This is sort of what we have already seen with all the JO mods floating around out there. If I want to play one specific gametype, I may have problems finding a server that has that gametype if there are too many options.

 

Currently, I often have a hard time finding a vanilla 1.04 server, because there are so many mods available. Variety is nice, but it has to be done with some discression

[SeanTB123]

Originally posted by Prime

Currently, I often have a hard time finding a vanilla 1.04 server, because there are so many mods available. Variety is nice, but it has to be done with some discression

 

Amen to that. I wouldn't doubt it if they removed at least Holocron from the gameplay for that reason. That seemed to be the least popular gaming mode.

[ryudom]

i skipped a bunch so its quite possible someone said this, but...

 

about jedi's using guns or whatnot, in the movies, there aren't ffa-ing, and they don't respawn. if there was a LMS gametype, with limited ammo, i'm sure that quit a few more people would choose saber. also in the movies, people don't have the option of having 10+ weapons and nearly unlimited ammo.

[Solo4114]

Well, I think that some of the modes could probably be dropped. I don't know how popular CTY is or Holocron, for that matter. They could probably be dropped, if they don't have much of a following anyway.

 

I think that CTF, FFA, Duel, and (assuming they put it in) the class-based objective mode should be the central gameplay styles. The variables can include Team, Force levels (Jedi Knight, Jedi Master, Padawan, etc.), and Guns/No Guns. Or you could have the game modes be CTF, FFA, Duel, and Objective, and have Classes/No Classes as another variable. Anyway, I'll probably stick with the class/objective gameplay, since that's my favorite style.

[Prime]

Originally posted by ryudom

i skipped a bunch so its quite possible someone said this, but...

 

about jedi's using guns or whatnot, in the movies, there aren't ffa-ing...

 

I did

 

Originally posted by Prime

Apart from that, the Jedi in the movies are not out to smite their enemies. They are focused on more defensive goals and the preservasion of life. Because of this, the lightsaber is a good choice, certainly for its defensive capabilities alone. This goal, of course, is the exact opposite of the game, which is all about fragging everyone walking, and racking up kills as quickly as possible. This makes the lightsaber a less reasonable choice.

 

But hey, great point!

[toms]

Originally posted by babywax

Why would you race into an army with a gun, when you can have something that enables you to block all of their bullets, not only shielding you, but reflecting their bullets back into them?

 

i think in that situation i would want one of those gungan shields... it is odd that the most stupid race in the qhole galaxy have invented the best defence against Jedi.

 

Personally i find it quite suprising that obiwan didn't borrow one of those and then fight with a lightsword & lightshield setup.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by toms:

 

Personally i find it quite suprising that obiwan didn't borrow one of those and then fight with a lightsword & lightshield setup.

I'm not sure they were "lightshields" per-se. I think they were more like those in Dune, fast-molecular/energy-transfer inhibitor shields. The battle droids walked slowly through the larger version, after all. I wonder if they'd block Lightsabres... Probably would. Good idea that, toms. It could be a fourth sabre style that could be modded later.

[Solo4114]

You do realize what this would require, don't you?

 

 

 

A BLOCK BUTTON!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!!!!

 

 

In all seriousness, though, I think this would be an awesome style to use. The secondary attack could be your block button, and, due to your reduced mobility from carrying the shield, you'd be limited to only the basic attacks (which might include combos where you strike with both the shield and the sabre -- IE: striking with the shield to knock an opponent off balance).

[lllKyNeSlll]

I definitely agree with the conc, the ammo usage should be better. JO tends to not have enough ammo many times. JA should return to more of a JK1 speed. I found JO a little too slow paced for me at first, and if i didn't start strafejumping i would have quit the game. So I think the movements should be a little faster, especially with speed. Also, conc might seem overly powerful, but many times ppl get negged because of conc usage so it has its downside even though it will be a dominating gun. JO requires map control but little shield or gun timing control. It would be nice to have more control over shields and guns. Some force powers should be able to be used and have force slowly regenerate back such as in jk1 (speed seeing). Also, to complement guns, i think the surge should be brought back. The extra regen thing and the all force thing just wasn't powerful enough. Many people think jo guns are too powerful. But I think they are actually too weak. So if the conc is returned the powerful gun aspect will be solved.

 

In terms of balance, Im advocating a less balacned game where someone has to control items.

[Spider AL]

People only diss the Conc because it's easy to get killed by it. They cuss the flechette for the same reasons, even though it's a relatively weak, difficult to use weapon.

 

The same people dislike anything that kills them, though. They run straight at you and complain when you shoot them, kick them, stab them, disintegrate them...

 

For anyone out there who dislikes getting killed, here's a tip: LATERAL MOTION. Here's another: PRACTICE.

 

Good ideas btw Solo, I can see that being a popular mod addition... mmm, sword/shield combat...

[babywax]

Is it just me or is the only really unique thing about star wars the swords???

It's the only reason I play JA.

Lateral motion does nothing against someone who is minimally skilled with a gun. Someone whom is minimally skilled with a gun has to be jumped at. Someone who is medium in skill will shoot you when you land, so you use lateral motion on them. Someone who is real good with guns is unbeatable. They use absorb, push, pull and overpowered guns. Do you want to know why flechette is considered overpowered by most people? Because it is. If you run at someone with a flechette who is skilled, he will double ball you, while you fly back he will calculate where you will land and double ball you again.

I don't complain when I'm killed, almost ever. The only real thing that pisses me off is dying to one of those "empowered" people, who kill in one blue shot with a double saber and have unlimited force power, but that's modded.