Use The Force!

[Rockstar]

OK WHO THINKS THAT IN THE NEW GAME LIGHT SIDE NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED??

[StormHammer]

Originally posted by Rockstar

OK WHO THINKS THAT IN THE NEW GAME LIGHT SIDE NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED??

 

Please don't post in CAPS. It's considered to be SHOUTING. You can use bold or italics just as well for emphasis. Thanks.

 

As for the Force powers...I think both Light side and Dark side powers need to be properly balanced with each other. For every light side power there should be a Dark side counter, and vice versa. That's mostly how it is with JO, at the moment, but I would say some powers need to be tweaked a bit more. I wouldn't want to see one set of powers improved at the expense of those playing with another set of force powers, because that wouldn't be fair. My own view is that Force Drain is a little too powerful at the moment - in terms of how fast it can be used to drain a Light-siders Force pool, especially considering you need to have half your Force power to even engage Absorb. I'm sure some people will disagree with that view.

 

Basically...players will very rarely find common ground in these kind of matters, as the long drawn-out discussions over 'balance' in JO have already proven. I would say that I think the devs need to play-test JA to destruction when it comes to balancing issues.

[Rockstar]

sorry about the shouting lol

 

but ALL of the light side powers are COUNTERS!!!! what the hell is the point of being a char that can only make a power useful when the enemy hurts you?? atleast when your dark you can randomly shoot crap and have some whacky chance of hurting the enemy.

 

i think that the light jedi should have an ability that once they absorb enough dark energy that they should be able to execute a short ranged attack that attacks the enemy. i think that would be veeery cool, and would give some offense to the light side. but its not evil offense... its DEFENSIVE offense just like it should be..... lucas arts should seriously consider that

 

i also think that the sabre should beable to block force lightning

THAT would be ultra cool not unfair either. coz you could still ground and back attack foes with it

 

anyways..

could people plz post their ideas here of what they think would be cool powers or features of powers that would make a cool adition to JKA

[StormHammer]

The reason why the Light side is full of defensive powers is because you are using the Force for good and not evil. If you had too many aggressive type powers, then really speaking you should not be Light side, in my view. Force Push at least can be used as a short range attack, especially when pushing someone to their doom off a catwalk. Personally, I wouldn't want to see too many aggressive Force powers on the Light side.

 

As for posting about new Force powers, etc., there is already a thread discussing that. Please keep this one on topic.

[Prime]

Originally posted by Rockstar

but ALL of the light side powers are COUNTERS!!!! what the hell is the point of being a char that can only make a power useful when the enemy hurts you??

"The Force is used for knowledge and defense, never to attack." Of course the lightside powers are all counters. That is what they are supposed to be: defense!

 

Originally posted by Rockstar

atleast when your dark you can randomly shoot crap and have some whacky chance of hurting the enemy.

If this is what you like, then play with Dark Side powers. But don't try to apply this strategy to light sided powers, because that is not what they are for.

 

Originally posted by Rockstar

i think that the light jedi should have an ability that once they absorb enough dark energy that they should be able to execute a short ranged attack that attacks the enemy. i think that would be veeery cool...

It may be "kewl", but attacks of any sort are not what the light side is about. Again, "The Force is used for knowledge and defense, never to attack."

 

Originally posted by Rockstar

and would give some offense to the light side. but its not evil offense... its DEFENSIVE offense just like it should be.....

Not like it should be. The light side jedi does not need or want offensive powers. Offense with the Force is, by definition, evil.

 

Originally posted by Rockstar

lucas arts should seriously consider that

I don't think they should, and I doubt they will

[jesseg88]

Well, in JK, a light side guy could unleash a very bright light to blind people by using force blinding.

[StormHammer]

Originally posted by jesseg88

Well, in JK, a light side guy could unleash a very bright light to blind people by using force blinding.

 

So could the Dark siders, in SP at least. Remember Yun used Force Blind on Kyle.

 

Anyway, Force Blind did nothing but blind your opponent...it didn't strip them of health. So in a way, it was a defensive, semi-offensive power.

[Prime]

Keep in mind that Kyle is not totally a light sider. He has used both light and dark powers in the past. So I don't think he can be used as an example of a what powers a light side Jedi would use

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Prime:

 

Keep in mind that Kyle is not totally a light sider. He has used both light and dark powers in the past. So I don't think he can be used as an example of a what powers a light side Jedi would use

 

Nor can Luke, by the same rationale. Because in movie canon, it's not what powers you use that makes you light or dark, it's how you use them. Think MotS. That system was the most accurate in terms of canon... it was quite good fun, too. When I think of gameplay though, I don't mind too much. There's always one or two powers that end up being the most effective, so it doesn't matter which side contains them, or if there are sides at all.

[Rockstar]

ok ok about my idea how i think a light jedi should beable to place points a new move and when absorb is equiped you could "store up" dark energy and use it against the enemy. i know what the light side of the force is about, and i know that yoda said that the force should only ever be used in defense. but if one could absorb dark energy IN defense and send it back in the form on an enhansed force push (powerful enough to hurt the enemy on impact and ground them) then that would be cool and still light side ethicle

 

you say you want realism but in the movies do you see people using force lightning every 3 seconds in a battle, force powers are used very rarely, yet in mp mode there may be a micro stint where people are not using them? im not complaining. im just saying that if the force wasn't used so much it wouldn't be a problem, but it IS and the light powers.... well SUCK!! i knwo you can still win with them .. but ....... yeah.... u get the drift

[Spider AL]

im just saying that if the force wasn't used so much it wouldn't be a problem, but it IS and the light powers.... well SUCK!! i knwo you can still win with them .. but ....... yeah.... u get the drift

I get the drift, for one. Sorry, but the Light powers have been the same since JK1, and I really like them. I hope they don't change them much at all.

[Prime]

Originally posted by Spider AL

I get the drift, for one. Sorry, but the Light powers have been the same since JK1, and I really like them. I hope they don't change them much at all.

I agree. I also would prefer that they went back to handling the Force in a more MOTS style, because it is closer to the movies. Oops, I might be exposing myself as a fanboy

 

I like the Light Side powers, because I don't think they "suck" and because I think they are more effective than Dark Side powers (for me). I can counter just about anything a Dark Sider can throw at me, and since another Light Sider isn't going to throw anything at me, I'm well protected. The crappy thing about Dark Side powers is that you can be vulnerable to other Dark Siders, since you have little direct protection (although there are things you can do, obviously). It is just my preference to use the Light Side, because I find I last longer with them. In any case, Raven has made it so in reality you can counter anything anyone throws at you, regardless of what side of the Force you use.

 

Rockstar, why do you really want to change the Light Side powers? If you hate Light Side powers so much, and love offensive stuff, why not just use Dark Side powers? Then you can play the way you want. JO is great that way

[shock ~ unnamed]

I don't see much wrong with the powers, sure a little tweaking here and there but no major over haul is needed.

 

People tend to forget that what sucks in one game type, owns in others.

 

Light is great for gunning and CTF but useless in 1v1 full force dueling.

 

Drain is king in 1v1 FF dueling but a waste of time in CTF/guns.

 

Making everything “perfectly balanced” so everything is of equal use in every situation kind of defeats the purpose of even having different powers to begin with.

[Prime]

Originally posted by shock ~ unnamed

I don't see much wrong with the powers, sure a little tweaking here and there but no major over haul is needed.

I'm also pretty happy the way they are. I say leave them be.

 

Originally posted by shock ~ unnamed

Making everything ?perfectly balanced? so everything is of equal use in every situation kind of defeats the purpose of even having different powers to begin with.

They only way to make the Force "perfectly balanced" in every situation is to turn it off.

[Spider AL]

They only way to make the Force "perfectly balanced" in every situation is to turn it off.

Gameplay balance is a contradiction in terms. Fun gameplay is made up of many levels of imbalance.

[babywax]

Not if you look at the entire picture, you're just looking at small isolated parts. Look at the whole thing and then you can tell if it is balanced.

[Solbe M'ko]

Balance can be acheived without making each side exactly the same. Balance, by definition, is two forces working oppositely, neither one being stronger (don't quote me on that). If Dark and Light have different, but equal powers, there is no problem. Some of the forces work better for certain situations, so the trick is to shift the gameplay to fit your choice. For example, if you keep losing in a duel to a guy using drain, mind trick him and give him a DFA from behind, even if he uses seeing, he is still at a disadvantage, because his force is being channeled to seeing instead of drain. As long as all the force powers have an equal amount of value (damage, force drain, protection, etc.) and the player's character has equal (or selectable) values (health, armor, force power, etc.), the game is balanced, without having every force power be an exact replica of the other one.

 

In saber only duels, some situations call for red stance, others for blue. Good players can use any one effectivly, while bad players use one move over and over, then call it's counter-move cheap. If a guy lunges, I hit him on the butt with a yellow, if he DFAs, I lunge. In this way, the stances are balanced, but each one is better for a certain situation.

 

So there.

[Brett]

Only if the dark side is improved as well.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by babywax:

 

you look at the entire picture, you're just looking at small isolated parts. Look at the whole thing and then you can tell if it is balanced.

No offence, but this seems to be nonsense to me. Please elaborate, babywax.

 

Anyway, balance is a myth. In every multiplayer game ever made, there are less powerful weapons, and more powerful weapons. Less powerful abilities, and more powerful abilities. There are some weapons that never get used, and some weapons that always get used. That's not balanced, but it's not undesirable. Weapons of different power levels promote flow to a multiplayer match, area control for instance.

 

Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:

 

If Dark and Light have different, but equal powers, there is no problem.

Sure, that works in theory... try making it a reality though. Much too difficult to be done intentionally.

 

Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:

 

In saber only duels, some situations call for red stance, others for blue. Good players can use any one effectivly, while bad players use one move over and over, then call it's counter-move cheap. If a guy lunges, I hit him on the butt with a yellow, if he DFAs, I lunge. In this way, the stances are balanced, but each one is better for a certain situation.

Not true. If they were all equally useful in an equal number of situations, they'd be balanced. They're patently not. One stance is most useful, the other stances are less useful. They require special circumstances to be useful. The same goes for guns, and force powers.

[Solbe M'ko]

Look at CS. At first, you buy the MP5, because it's cheap and does more damage than the pistol, which is free. Later you buy the M16, because it's "the best". Hardly anyone buys shotguns, but the guy who is "good" with shotguns, can own everybody else. That game IS balanced very well, it just depends on the types of players.

 

As long as no particular gun is statistically better than another one, the game will be balanced. Just because players favor a certain weapon, doesn't mean that the others are not as good. The play style is a big factor on the methods you use. Campers use sniper rifles and gunners use repeaters.

 

And yes, certain techniques do require special circumstances, Al. That's the whole point of having more than one weapon; the good players know when to use a certain gun, and their prey do not.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:

 

Look at CS. At first, you buy the MP5, because it's cheap and does more damage than the pistol, which is free. Later you buy the M16, because it's "the best". Hardly anyone buys shotguns, but the guy who is "good" with shotguns, can own everybody else. That game IS balanced very well, it just depends on the types of players.

There's a fundamental flaw in your reasoning, Solbe, you assert that shotguns match rifles in balance because a person of exceptional skill can use that shotgun to win. Well of course they will! Because people of exceptional skill do exceptional things; things that other people can't do. They win using bad weapons DESPITE the drawbacks inherent in the use of those weapons, not because those weapons match all the others for usefulness.

 

CS is NOT balanced, and I will explain why: Two players of equal skill fight. One has a shotgun, the other a colt. Or an AK. Or a scout. The man who is not using the shotgun is guaranteed to win at almost any range. Furthermore have you ever seen a serious match demo, a tournament demo, in which the dual berrettas were used regularly to great success? What about the TMP? or the UMP? How about the Sig 550? Those weapons are rubbish. People use them to kill other people once in a blue moon, such kills are so exceptional that it's a badge of honour to have accomplished them! Call that balance?

 

Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:

 

And yes, certain techniques do require special circumstances, Al. That's the whole point of having more than one weapon; the good players know when to use a certain gun, and their prey do not.

That is the point, my friend. If you use a flechette in 9 out of 10 situations and the disruptor in the tenth, because it's the only weapon to use, that means the two are NOT equally useful, and therefore are not balanced. IF the game was TRULY balanced, with EVERY weapon doing equal damage for equal ammo costs with exactly equal trajectories of fire, there would BE no game. It's that simple, balance is a myth.

 

You stated above that your definition of balance was two equal forces working against each other. Can you truly sit there and say to me that two CS players of equal skill, one with a SIG-550, or a scout, the other with an awp, would be evenly matched? Of course the weapons in CS aren't "balanced".

 

How about gameplay. Perhaps CS is popular because it's GAMEPLAY is so balanced. Let's examine it:

 

One team wins the first round by the BAREST of margins, their last surviving member kills the last surviving member of the opposing team with a lucky shot. He has one point of health left. The next round, his team starts with enough money to buy a fully automatic rifle each. Is that balanced gameplay? In tournament games, people strive beyond all reason to win the pistol round, because that one round can define the course of the rest of the game. Is that balance? Of course it isn't, it's just the way the game is, and it's a richer game for the imbalances.

 

Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:

 

As long as no particular gun is statistically better than another one, the game will be balanced.

So what you're saying here is, no multiplayer game ever made has ever been balanced? That's what you're saying, frankly. Quake: Rocket Launcher. Quake 3: Railgun. UT: Shock combo. UT2k3: Biogun, shield gun combo. CS: Awp. JK: Conky. JO: Golan/Heavy Rep.

 

There is always one gun that is MOST useful for the MOST people in the MOST situations. And that's what provides flow to the game. Ammo hunts and timing. Area control. Shield timing.

 

People throw the word "balance" around as if it's the panacea for all gaming woes. The truth is, not only is it a figment, a myth, but it also means different things to different people. You obviously have your own... unique definition of "balance", and other people have theirs. Few versions match, so all should be discarded with the realisation that "balance" has become an insubstantial buzz-word used to rationalise a gut-feeling about whether one enjoys a game or not. You can't quantify "fun", and it's futile to try.

[Solbe M'ko]

You're not listening.

 

If a guy is good with a shotgun and his opponent is good with a rifle, either one can win, there is no need for one of them to be a "better" player overall. And if there was a god-like player who found that dual berettas fit his play style, he very well could win tourneys with them; they are not worse, they are just specialized to certain situations. In DOD for example, a grenadier can make just as many kills with his rifle as with the bayonet, it just depends on which he like to use.

 

If every gun did the same damage (which you keep bringing up for some reason) the game would be less balanced because certain play types would be excluded. If the only gun was an Uzi, then people who prefer to snipe would be left out, and so on. If all of the guns have different but equal parameters, no such problem arises. If the sniper rifle has range and damage, it also has long reloads and cost lots of ammo. If the MG can spit out thousands of rounds a minute, it has shorter range and ammo problems, etc.

 

Your idea that a lucky kill at the end of CS match disrupts balance is just wrong. I've been on the team that loses the opening "pistols round" and still come out on top in the end. If one team has all AKs and the other has all pistols, the pistols hide behind boxes and pick up the AKs. Now the momentum has shifted greatly...

 

Scout vs. AWP? The better sniper would win. Either one would need a headshot right off, because if they didn't get one, the other guy could win in one shot as they reloaded.

 

I played Quake 2 about a month ago online (against people who have played only Quake 2 since its release. Many of them used Railguns and Rockets, but others used Uzis and still could win. When the rocketeer fires, the uzi moves, and while the rocketeer reloads, the Uzi gets 5 headsots in a row. Balance.

 

There should be one gun that works best in most situations, but it can't work in all situations. If say, the "best" gun is the MG, a sniper can still own the map, a knifer can still own the map. I play DOD and usually use the "newb cannon" people say it's cheap. Look at the actual stats and it's just a good all around gun that works well in most situations. that doesn't mean I have a better chance of winning than the sniper in the window...

 

Sure we all have different definitions of balance, but as long as the game is technically and statistically balanced, it's all BS.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:

 

You're not listening.

You're right. I'm reading.

 

Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:

 

If a guy is good with a shotgun and his opponent is good with a rifle, either one can win, there is no need for one of them to be a "better" player overall.

Oh don't be silly, of course the shotgunner would have to be better to make more kills. The rifleman can kill at any range, the shotgunner only at close range. It's the same as a knife vs. a glock. Sure, the knife man may win, POSSIBLY, but only if he closes the distance. That means he has more work to do, thus he's at a disadvantage, thus the knife is inferior to the glock. Thus the sabre is inferior to guns. Thus the impact-hammer is inferior to the guns in UT. Thus no game is balanced, and thank goodness for that.

 

Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:

 

And if there was a god-like player who found that dual berettas fit his play style, he very well could win tourneys with them; they are not worse, they are just specialized to certain situations.

He'd have to be pretty godlike to consistently prevail with dual berettas, and his play-style would have to be particularly strange. They ARE worse than say... a USP or a deagle. Less reliable, wider spread, inaccurate and HUGE reload time. They're rubbish! You'd have to be an enormous muppet to use the berettas! And you think they're balanced when compared to other guns?

 

Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:

 

If every gun did the same damage (which you keep bringing up for some reason) the game would be less balanced because certain play types would be excluded. If the only gun was an Uzi, then people who prefer to snipe would be left out, and so on.

Nonsense, the game would be PERFECTLY balanced, it just wouldn't be any fun. You yourself defined balance as equal forces opposing each other. The only way to obtain that, is to have one weapon for everyone. Thus, "balance" is undesirable and unattainable.

 

Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:

 

If all of the guns have different but equal parameters, no such problem arises. If the sniper rifle has range and damage, it also has long reloads and cost lots of ammo. If the MG can spit out thousands of rounds a minute, it has shorter range and ammo problems, etc.

Oh, it's the "inherent disadvantages" argument. Won't wash I'm afraid. Players learn to compensate for any disadvantages that accompany a powerful weapon. You might say that since the AWP has such a low rate of fire, it should be no more or less effective than the... say, the SIG commando. Wrong. People compensate through different patterns of movement, and use of cover.

 

Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:

 

Your idea that a lucky kill at the end of CS match disrupts balance is just wrong. I've been on the team that loses the opening "pistols round" and still come out on top in the end.

Lol, of course it's possible to come out on top. But is the playing field BALANCED? No. Are you at a disadvantage? Yes. Either skill or luck causes one to win when one is at a disadvantage like that, that doesn't mean for one MOMENT that the two equally skilled teams- one team armed with pistols and one team armed with fully automatic rifles- have an equal chance of winning. Of COURSE the team with rifles will win more often. One would have to be deranged to bet otherwise.

 

Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:

 

Scout vs. AWP? The better sniper would win. Either one would need a headshot right off, because if they didn't get one, the other guy could win in one shot as they reloaded.

No offence, but that's just laughable. First, you still can't get by without putting the word "better" in your description of one of the hypothetical players. The whole point of that analogy was that the two players are of EXACTLY EQUAL SKILL. And I made that clear.

 

Secondly, the Awp not only has higher penetration than the scout (so cover is less useful), but one torso shot will dispatch the opponent in question. The scout takes two torso shots. So the Awper can afford to be MUCH less accurate, and even if the scouter hits him square in the chest, he could afford to miss once. THAT's an advantage. THAT's what tips the balance in close games. THAT's why CS is totally imbalanced in almost every respect, and that's why it's such a good game.

 

Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:

 

There should be one gun that works best in most situations, but it can't work in all situations.

There is NO gun that works better than ALL other guns, in ALL situations. You're just describing every gun in every multiplayer game ever.

 

Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:

 

Sure we all have different definitions of balance, but as long as the game is technically and statistically balanced, it's all BS.

You want statistics? Check This out. And This. Now tell me all those weapons are equally useful.

 

Frankly as far as I can tell, your definition of "balance" is sometimes so flimsy that it could apply to any contemporary multiplayer game, and sometimes so unattainable that nobody will ever make a game that satisfies its requirements. Changeable. That's a microcosm of the whole gamut of definitions that everyone flings around. Nobody has a definitive idea of what "gameplay balance" means, and oftentimes they don't even know what their OWN idea of "balance" is.

[The Count]

Originally posted by Spider AL

You're right. I'm reading.

 

Oh don't be silly, of course the shotgunner would have to be better to make more kills. The rifleman can kill at any range, the shotgunner only at close range. It's the same as a knife vs. a glock. Sure, the knife man may win, POSSIBLY, but only if he closes the distance. That means he has more work to do, thus he's at a disadvantage, thus the knife is inferior to the glock. Thus the sabre is inferior to guns. Thus the impact-hammer is inferior to the guns in UT. Thus no game is balanced, and thank goodness for that.

 

He'd have to be pretty godlike to consistently prevail with dual berettas, and his play-style would have to be particularly strange. They ARE worse than say... a USP or a deagle. Less reliable, wider spread, inaccurate and HUGE reload time. They're rubbish! You'd have to be an enormous muppet to use the berettas! And you think they're balanced when compared to other guns?

 

Nonsense, the game would be PERFECTLY balanced, it just wouldn't be any fun. You yourself defined balance as equal forces opposing each other. The only way to obtain that, is to have one weapon for everyone. Thus, "balance" is undesirable and unattainable.

 

Oh, it's the "inherent disadvantages" argument. Won't wash I'm afraid. Players learn to compensate for any disadvantages that accompany a powerful weapon. You might say that since the AWP has such a low rate of fire, it should be no more or less effective than the... say, the SIG commando. Wrong. People compensate through different patterns of movement, and use of cover.

 

Lol, of course it's possible to come out on top. But is the playing field BALANCED? No. Are you at a disadvantage? Yes. Either skill or luck causes one to win when one is at a disadvantage like that, that doesn't mean for one MOMENT that the two equally skilled teams- one team armed with pistols and one team armed with fully automatic rifles- have an equal chance of winning. Of COURSE the team with rifles will win more often. One would have to be deranged to bet otherwise.

 

No offence, but that's just laughable. First, you still can't get by without putting the word "better" in your description of one of the hypothetical players. The whole point of that analogy was that the two players are of EXACTLY EQUAL SKILL. And I made that clear.

 

Secondly, the Awp not only has higher penetration than the scout (so cover is less useful), but one torso shot will dispatch the opponent in question. The scout takes two torso shots. So the Awper can afford to be MUCH less accurate, and even if the scouter hits him square in the chest, he could afford to miss once. THAT's an advantage. THAT's what tips the balance in close games. THAT's why CS is totally imbalanced in almost every respect, and that's why it's such a good game.

 

There is NO gun that works better than ALL other guns, in ALL situations. You're just describing every gun in every multiplayer game ever.

 

You want statistics? Check This out. And This. Now tell me all those weapons are equally useful.

 

Frankly as far as I can tell, your definition of "balance" is sometimes so flimsy that it could apply to any contemporary multiplayer game, and sometimes so unattainable that nobody will ever make a game that satisfies its requirements. Changeable. That's a microcosm of the whole gamut of definitions that everyone flings around. Nobody has a definitive idea of what "gameplay balance" means, and oftentimes they don't even know what their OWN idea of "balance" is.

 

My aren't you passionate and consice?

[Solbe M'ko]

Knife vs. Glock- Knifer hides behind box and takes out glock from behind. Glock would have to watch his back the whole time because the knifer would be more cautious. You can win with anything. The glocker would have to worry about reloading and wouldn't kill as quickly at close range, so the odds are pretty much even, anyway, if both players are of equal skill with their respective weapons.

 

AWP's damage has been reduced recently, so I'm still right.

 

If an AWPer engaged a Commando in an open area with no cover (in a big cube map) the odds would be exactly equal. The maps are made so that certain places favor certain players. Snipers have camping spots, gunners have wide open areas.

 

Okay, if the players were of exactly equal skill and luck was not a factor, both the AWP and the Scout would die at the same time, because they would both fire simultaneously and get head shots.

 

You gave me a bunch of stats for some server. that just shows who uses which guns the most, not the actual parameters for the guns. Plus, those stats most likely include all of the shots fired at teammates during the buying round by idiots, so the results are both inaccurate and useless.

 

Finally, what tips the balance in close games is skill. No two players are exactly the same.