lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Reasons why the Lightsaber Needs to be Made Respectable
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 08-04-2001, 05:47 AM   #41
OnlyOneCanoli
Paranoid Bandroid
 
OnlyOneCanoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Fl, USA
Posts: 1,734
Post

I agree with many of the points stated above. Kurgan's first point is extremely important to me-they need to work out a system where a 56k user can actually use a lightsaber. As a 56ker, I used pretty much zero skill in Jedi Knight when using a saber. Turn on force speeed, run like hell, double swing, jump away, do it again, and again, and again. Needless to say, it was not fun at all.

I support the auto block feature returning in Jedi Knight. Using a small amount of force energy to deflect laser shots back at the gun user is an excellent idea. And while I don't think you should be able block non-energy weapons (such as rails and thermals), there should be a reasonable counter for it other than dodging it. Perhaps a force power allowing you to redirect rail shots back toward the user is feasible.

Saber attacks need to be one shot kills. Period. Lightsabers are lightsabers. And deflecting lasers with a lightsaber should be as damaging if not more damaging than a normal shot.

And the saber system needs to be refined. Big time. If this is the same system as JK with spiffy graphics, this game will not be on my hard drive for a very long time. Same thing goes with other weapons. Like Krayt said, there are simply too many games to compete with for Jedi Knight 2 to be more like JK1.5.

Another thing that has come to my mind is Corran Horn's ability to absorb damage. I'm not talking about Absorb eliminating Destruction, but rather a system of absorbing laser fire with your body to either increase force power or life. Of course, the force mana for such a power would have to be severely lowered to cancel out the awesome effects of such a force power.
OnlyOneCanoli is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2001, 08:40 AM   #42
Celestial
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

interesting.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2001, 12:14 PM   #43
ed_silvergun
 
ed_silvergun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Blighty
Posts: 608
Arrow

Okay, you asked for it... *activating force long-post*

Quote:
Originally posted by -WD- ToRMeNt:
<STRONG>It doesnt really matter what JK2 is like, since you will still have the two camps; casual and hardcore. Hardcores will always play to win, and causuals will acuse hardcores of cheating and complain if they don't "play like it is in the movies."</STRONG>
I'd argue with that definition of "casual" and "hardcore" players. Surely a "hardcore" player is one who will play the game with the weapon they want to use even if they know they might lose. A "hardcore" saberist will play with the saber all the time because it is their choice, and won't just whip out the biggest gun around to score points.

Quote:
<STRONG>There are many reasons why the saber shouldn't be respected.</STRONG>
Have you ever watched Star Wars? How many times do you see someone armed with a gun defeat a Jedi? Not very often...

Quote:
Originally posted by Tap[RR]:
<STRONG>If you like running around using guns, fine! Just as long as the saber has a CHANCE against these heavy weapons.</STRONG>
Right on. Though I'd have to say that it should have more than just a chance. As I stated before, how often do you see someone armed purely with guns defeat someone wielding a lightsaber in the Star Wars movies?

Quote:
Originally posted by Syndrix:
<STRONG>Ed, I hear you, It would be unfair to take the saber from a below average weapon to a god-like stick of... ToRMeNt perhaps? But it has to do a fair amount, a saber to the chest is basically going to take most of your health. The only reason Luke survived is because Darth took lukes hand off and didnt get a better hit.</STRONG>
As I said, a saber to the chest should take all or most of your health. But we have seen in the movies (primary Star Wars source-material) that it is indeed possible to survive a saber hit to other parts of the body (eg. hand or arm). The location specific damage in JKO should therefore reflect this. Saber hits to the hand or arm should not kill outright. But of course it will hurt. A lot. The specific amount of damage done by these sorts of hits is up to Raven, of course.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wilhuf:
<STRONG>It's definitely true that JK's network code is responsible for some of the lightsaber problems. I was going to add 'improve network code' to the bulleted list™, but as that is already a given with q3 tech, I didn't include it.</STRONG>
Well, on the subject of Q3 tech, we should remember that the Q3 engine is renowned for the fact that it is easily modifiable. There are many simple mods for Q3 that do things such as speed up rockets, increase splash damage and reduce gravity. That kind of thing. Therefore, we can assume that if people really want to create a "guns only" mod, or something of the sort, in which gun damage/area effect/rate of fire, etc. is greatly increased, they will be able to do just that.

Quote:
Originally posted by -WD- ToRMeNt:
<STRONG>You just really arn't getting it. I mean why did the english win so many wars in mideval times? Because they shredded thier enemies with longbows before they got close. It's simple logic that works in real life and games.</STRONG>
Yeah, but this isn't the Medieval times. The English weren't facing Jedi knights with sabers that could block their weapons. If you wish, imagine a Medieval English army facing a similarly-sized force of saber-wielding Jedi. Hmmm... I wonder who would win...

Quote:
<STRONG>Even if heavy weapons can be deflected, I will still laugh if some one tries to saber me. It's simple to just fire at a wall or the ground infront/behind or to the side of them (skilled players always to that anyway). Thus, you don't block it with saber and you still take a nice bite of the splash damage pie. I backpeddle (keeping you out of sab range) then kill you with splash damage.</STRONG>
The fact that you laugh when someone tries to saber you highlights just how badly imbalanced JK was. I didn't see the stormtroopers laughing in the Star Wars movies when Luke sabered them up. I didn't see that AT-AT laughing in The Empire Strikes Back when Luke used his grapple to pull himself underneath it and then hacked up its insides. Neither did I see any battle droids chuckling smugly to themselves as two vastly outnumbered Jedi sabered their way through hundreds of their ranks.

Put simply: if you can laugh at a saber-wielding Jedi running at you swinging his or her blade, there's something very wrong.

Quote:
<STRONG>Think about this though, how often did you see 2 (or more) jedi/darkjedi of the abosolute highest rank going at it in a toe to toe fight? If you want it to be like in the movies, then just play force 1-5 (roughly). If you want to take it to the edge, then play force 8.</STRONG>
Exactly. Take TPM. Obi-Wan wasn't that powerful (not compared to Vader or the Emperor, for example). Yet he could still slaughter hundreds of battle droids. Even the droidekas couldn't destroy the Jedi. Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon only retreated because they knew it was a stand-off and they didn't have time to waste.

In RotJ, Luke is not exactly immensely powerful, but he still manages to overcome many, many of Jabba's cronies on the skiff and sail-barge.

Bottom line? Even not immensely powerful Jedi are more than a match for their gun-wielding opponents. Even shielded destroyer droids can only manage at best a stand-off with Jedi.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wilhuf:
<STRONG>Good point Deathbolt. Assuming that weapons that issue splash damage will be included in Jedi Outcast (a fair assumption), saber blocking isn't going to help against splash.</STRONG>
Anothern good point. As Wilhuf stated earlier, this topic isn't about making the saber the "uber-weapon" of JKO. Just about balance. There's still plenty of things that gunners can do against saberists, like exploit splash damage to their advantage.

Hopefully, having a more powerful saber will actually encourage gunners to think more tactically and give them some new challenges. After all, this game must be pretty boring if you "hardcore" players have mastered everything and can just "laugh" at us poor saberists, right?

Quote:
Originally posted by -WD- ToRMeNt:
<STRONG>What I was tying to tell you is that when one combatant has a long range weapon and the other doesn't, it should be clear to you who has the advantage.</STRONG>
Not if the combatant without the long-ranged weapon can block his enemy's fire and indeed throw his saber at the enemy. Then skill becomes involved. It is now up to the gunner to judge the speed and trajectory of the saber which has been thrown at him, dodge it, and shoot back at the Jedi before the saber returns to his hands. Now that's skill. I'm sure you "hardcore" players can handle that, right?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kurgan:
<STRONG>Perhaps making the saber able to block all weapons is a good idea, maybe it isn't. I don't know. It's a toss up between making the saber too powerful and making it too weak.</STRONG>
Yeah, of course gunners need to have a good chance against even the most powerful Jedi, or the game will become boring. The saber won't block splash damage, or weapons aimed (for example) at its wielder's back. The game now becomes about aiming skill and stealth (ie. getting into the optimum firing position to get a clear shot at an unprotected area of a Jedi's body) rather than just who has the biggest baddest firearm.

Quote:
<STRONG>Another game that had some nice options was Unreal Tournament. It you configure the air control, game speed, and the style of play (hardcore, classic, turbo). That could be incorporated into this game.. thereby adjusting the weapon damage, movement speed, air control, etc to the server's liking.</STRONG>
This goes back to what I was saying about different mods to change stuff like gravity, rate of fire, etc. End-users should be able to either mod the engine to change stuff like this, or even better have "mutators" like UT to give them more options.

Quote:
Originally posted by OnlyOneCanoli:
<STRONG>Saber attacks need to be one shot kills. Period. Lightsabers are lightsabers. And deflecting lasers with a lightsaber should be as damaging if not more damaging than a normal shot.</STRONG>
I disagree. We've seen Luke survive a saber hit in the films because Vader hit his hand. The location-specific damage in JKO should reeflect this. It is simply not the case that sabers kill with one hit every time. Sure, hits to the head or torso should equal instant death, but hits to limbs should just cause an appropriate amount of damage and an appropriate area-specific effect. For instance, a hit to the leg might slow you down, a hit to the arm might decrease your weapon accuracy, etc. Stuff like that.

<HR>

That's about it, folks. Sorry about the length of this post, but I feel the topic is important enough to merit it.

Edit: attributed a quote to the wrong person.

[ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: ed_silvergun ]


Galactic Plumberman - For All Your Liquid Needs
ed_silvergun is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2001, 01:33 PM   #44
GonkH8er
192.168.0.1337
 
GonkH8er's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,927
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LFN Staff Member 
Post

apart from taking up 5 1/2 pages of my screen, that post has a lot of truth in it

i agree with pretty much all of that


GonkH8er-
Ian@lfnetwork.com
JediKnight.net JediKnightII.net
GonkH8er is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2001, 02:00 PM   #45
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

Ok here is a minor update to the Bulleted List™

Suggested Improvements:
  • Faster Saber Attack Rate
  • Location Based Saber Damage (and damage which could affect target movement)
  • Increased Saber Damage
  • Ability to block heavy weapons fire (using the Force)
  • Toned Down Speed and Jump (in decreased magnitude and/or increased Force cost)
  • Effective ranged saber attack (improved Saber throw)
  • Better lightsaber animations
  • More lightsaber attack moves/combinations
  • Customizable gameplay settings (e.g., gravity, overall speed)

I'm not 100% persuaded that lightsaber attacks should impede target movement. The ability to slow down or immobilize your target could raise serious balance questions (kind of how grip did in JK). Although it would certainly cast fear into the hearts of enemy gunners.

Would be interesting, for instance if a lightsaber hit to the leg could reduce the the target's ability to Force Jump. The injured target could still jump, but not as high. Having an injured leg, the target would have to heal up before being able to jump as high. Thoughts?


Wilhuf

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill, 1941.
Wilhuf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2001, 02:18 PM   #46
ed_silvergun
 
ed_silvergun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Blighty
Posts: 608
Arrow

Yeah, there are problems with limb-hits impeding movement in terms of balance. Personally, I think Raven should give it a shot, and if it doesn't work out, ditch it. There's no harm in trying.

Interestingly enough, Id experimented with different player speeds in Q3 during its development. Originally, the plan was to vary player speed, jump capability, etc. according to the size of the player skin. Larger players would move slower than smaller players, but would have more hit-points. This was eventually ditched when they realized it made it practically impossible to balance gameplay.

So yeah, there are certainly issues to be addressed in terms of exactly what location-specific damage does, but I think it's an area which should be explored by the developers before any decision is made.


Galactic Plumberman - For All Your Liquid Needs
ed_silvergun is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2001, 04:54 PM   #47
OnlyOneCanoli
Paranoid Bandroid
 
OnlyOneCanoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Fl, USA
Posts: 1,734
Post

Quote:
I disagree. We've seen Luke survive a saber hit in the films because Vader hit his hand. The location-specific damage in JKO should reeflect this. It is simply not the case that sabers kill with one hit every time. Sure, hits to the head or torso should equal instant death, but hits to limbs should just cause an appropriate amount of damage and an appropriate area-specific effect. For instance, a hit to the leg might slow you down, a hit to the arm might decrease your weapon accuracy, etc. Stuff like that.
My idea has been somewhat tainted due to my use of the saber in 56k in JK. It is extremely hard to get more than one saber shot in during a sabers duel. Chances are that if one shot doesn't kill your enemy, you're probably dead meat. Especially if they have broadband.

And anyway, was Luke in any position to fight when he had his hand cut off by the saber (even if he hadn't lost his saber)? No. Anybody who gets a body part chopped off by a lightsaber will not be able to fight. Survive the wound, yes... but is it at all realistic to survive the wound in a combat situation? I don't think it is.
OnlyOneCanoli is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2001, 05:02 PM   #48
MadPoster
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: NeverWhen
Posts: 489
Post

Depends on wheter or not your enemy decides to finsih you off- in a MP game- might as well say your dead.


Needing a new sig idea to get rid of:
MadPoster is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2001, 05:22 PM   #49
Syndrix
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 212
Post

Posted by OnlyOneCanoli

Quote:
My idea has been somewhat tainted due to my use of the saber in 56k in JK. It is extremely hard to get more than one saber shot in during a sabers duel. Chances are that if one shot doesn't kill your enemy, you're probably dead meat. Especially if they have broadband.
I agree with you OnlyOneCanoli, it is very difficult to win with a saber if you are on a narrow band connection. But the thing that has to be taken into account is you have to make the balance under perfect conditions (or as close as on comes). As if it were being played over a LAN. Because if they start making the saber more powerful on the basis of 56k modems and you can only get one hit in then it starts throwing the balance of it off for those who have broadband and as I said over LAN. In this situation the more you try to get balance the less you actually get!

As we move forward we have to look down the line and think that in 2 years time many more people will have broadband. For people who dont have a good connections that interfer with their playing, perhaps they should stick with lag free bots.

[ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: Syndrix ]


Genius is limited, unfortunately stupidity is not thus so.
Syndrix is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2001, 06:45 PM   #50
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by Wilhuf:
<STRONG>Would be interesting, for instance if a lightsaber hit to the leg could reduce the the target's ability to Force Jump. The injured target could still jump, but not as high. Having an injured leg, the target would have to heal up before being able to jump as high. Thoughts?</STRONG>
I would say no to this exact idea on accounts of the realism over fun factor in this particular instance. In this case realism means remaining truer to the force, which is in turn something that would bring me joy. Throughout the EU we see examples of people like Luke Skywalker being able to survive life-threatening situations and injuries by use of the force that would have easily killed your average man. That being said, when a Jedi (or other force sensitive, as you had mentioned possibly limiting the target's ability to force jump, meaning he/she can use the force) is hurt, they should have a number of options at their disposal. In the case of an injured/missing leg, which is being dicussed here as an example, a few things:

If it is lopped off, you shouldn't be able to get it back, at least not in that current spawn's lifetime. In this instance we have ESB to draw from as others have mentioned: Luke loses his hand after Vader slices it off with his saber. Even if he would have been a full-fledged Jedi it still would not have mattered because Luke's hand was lost down the Cloud City shaft; as far as I've seen, Jedi do not have the ability to regenerate a part of their body entirely on their own, although I have not read all the EU there is to read, so correct me if I'm wrong. JK2 should not be like Rune in that if you lose a limb it can simply grow back with enough healing. Therefore I do not think Force Heal in JK2 should enable Jedi to gain back entire limbs. Even if you hit Force Heal while you are holding your missing limb, or something to that extent, it should not reattach itself.

Jedi have the ability to concentrate and block out pain that would bring a normal man to his knees, weaping like a lost child. Instead of at this point limiting how high the Jedi might jump I would simply make Force Jump more costly. This higher force requirement to jump as high as you did before would reflect the inherent extra concentration and effort that the Jedi must make to block out the pain and perform as good jumping on one leg as he did two.

You want respect for Jedi Saberists against Forceless gunners? Enabling the Jedi to perform one-legged feats for a limited time that the gun user would never even dream of is a good way to start.

One might also toggle a new Force Power called concentration, but when push comes to shove, I wouldn't support this idea. Force powers are a precious commodity these days and I wouldn't want to waste one on Jedi Concentration, unless it really could enhance some other powers, but maybe not even then. Again, I say make the make an ability like concentration inherent to the force as reflected in the cost of a power like Force Jump, instead of just reducing or limiting its ability.

Another important thing to note is that I can't see this working well with an ability like Force Speed. Even with all the Jedi concentration and extra effort in the world it is still going to be hard to sprint away on one leg! This is perfectly suited for Force Jump, however, and perhaps other powers as well.

There is another side to this issue entirely: if we don't end up having lost limbs at all in multiplayer then we can still have movement impaired via locational damage. The biggest difference would be that we would lose the excellent visual indicator of such damage that missings limbs and other parts provide.

In Rune, everyone loved it when you cut off the fighting arm of the enemy. You sure as heck knew that you could attack 'em then. And admit it, in big FPS battles, or especially in large 3rd person sword-type engagements, sometimes the action moves so fast that you can't tell who is hitting who or much else that is going on.

In my ideal undeveloped-as-of-yet JK2 Saber battle, after a big clash you notice someone pull off to the side... without a saber arm. You're mine now boy! In a chaotic fight or face-paced saber fight, missing limbs will show damage best IMO. JK2 would not be better off with a less extreme indicator of damage dealt. There could be other ways but which one is really so helpful and realistic at the same time as a missing limb? Blood-soaked limbs (still attached) for location damage? I doubt that will make it into the game: as has been mentioned and should be apparent, blood as never been a big LEC SW FPS tradition. Let it also be noted that severed limbs would not display blood, for it would be acceptable in my view if that wound was instantly cauterized by the heat of the lightsaber after it was severed (and yes, I am aware of the infamous Cantina scene). I suppose they could use other body markings instead to show damage without blood? If so would you really want them instead of missing limbs? I'd like to hear from others on this.

All in all, "what location-specific damage does" is indeed one of the main concerns facing Sabering in JK2. Visual damage can directly linked to the effectiveness of the saber in combat, which therefore can dramatically affect the balance of gameplay. Another facet of this is that it can change how it feels to play the game with the Saber. Perhaps a minor point, but there are psychological aspects of saber combat that affect the Saber Wielder and the would-be Gunner Sushi. The ability to lop off an arm so the gunner can't use that arm or must switch to the other arm to fire (perhaps at a cost in accuracy? I won't go there right now) is something to could and would be feared. Again, more respect and power to the JK2 Saberists.

I'm going to reverberate again my desire to see JK2 go dramatically beyond the Sabering seen in the original JK. The technology allows it, the canon SW universe allows it, the SW EU allows it, and I believe it can be done without making the game overly complicated. A few simple improvements here can go a long way, let's keep at it.

-edited for typos usually encountered after force long-post is used-

[ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2001, 06:51 PM   #51
CaptainRAVE
Jedi Rave
 
CaptainRAVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,272
Post

It can only be so realistic. Technology isnt a hold back anymore...but too realistic and it takes the fun out of the game play.

Also if that happens to the enemy then it should happen to you aswell which could become quite annoying.


The force will betray you to me.
CaptainRAVE is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2001, 11:44 PM   #52
DeathBoLT
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 598
Post

If you lose your leg, you should be unable to move.. well maybe crawl some where. None of this hopping around..

You lose your arm(s) and you drop your saber. If one arm remains, you can recover your saber(assuming your opponent hasn't pulled it off to somewhere out of reach) and still fight.. just have your blocking/swinging ability reduced.

Those with missing limbs should be at the mercy of their opponents unless they crawl off or still fight with one hand. Limbs shouldn't be replaced until respawn. A much useful tatic in CTF could be to liberate your opponent of a leg but spare him death, so that the enemy team loses one teammate 'cos the guy can't do anything legless and can't replace the leg until he dies and respawns.

If I recall correctly, in ESB during luke and vader's duel on the platform over the shaft that luke's hand falls into, luke struck vader on the shoulder. Vader squealed so it had to have penetrated the his armor.


#nar
irc.enterthegame
#nar.. THE channel for Jedi Knight 2 players
DeathBoLT is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-05-2001, 08:08 AM   #53
CaptainRAVE
Jedi Rave
 
CaptainRAVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,272
Post

Yea......but remember this is a game...bosses cant be killed in one hit . That just wouldnt be any fun


The force will betray you to me.
CaptainRAVE is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-05-2001, 12:16 PM   #54
Kurgan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

One thing it sounds like some of you are forgetting is that it's NOT:

Forceless gunners vs. Force using Saberists

it's:

Force using gunners vs. Force using Saberists

Where multiplayer is concerned (and without getting any "mp classes" issues), and anyway, all players would in theory have the option to switch off and use whatever they felt most comfortable with.

In the movies and other source material, we normally don't see a Jedi "with a gun." In theory they could be the greatest marksmen alive, and do cool tricks like make their rockets seek out their targets. ; )

But some interesting ideas, indeed.

The way I see it, if we're going to have a "realistic" type of thing where I have to limp around holding my severed leg, I want that as an OPTIONAL MODE. ; )

It would be fine for me if it was just "classic" damage (though pain skins are nice) and the deathblow would hack off a limb or something "cool."

Kurgan
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-05-2001, 02:29 PM   #55
Syndrix
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 212
Post

Posted by CaptianRAVE
Quote:
Yea......but remember this is a game...bosses cant be killed in one hit. That just wouldnt be any fun
This is what I would NOT like to see repeated. Although I have pretty much consigned myself to major enemies that have massive health, I would prefer a different kind of boss.

I would like a guy that was faster, smarter and could get very good hits in on you, with no more health than you and would die in 3 or so saber hits. The same as the player should, depending on location hit. Because he is AI he can instantly switch between the force powers he needs. Force pushing thermal detornators away? Deflecting laser fire with his saber. Dodging splash weapons, the only fast way to defeat him is with the saber.

This way we get an opponent who is difficult to defeat. We have to work each time we player the game to get the kill, instead of finding a gun tactic and using it over and over again. At the same time he has to be like a real player, if you do manage to get him with a gun (he cant avoid splash weapons every time) he should take damage like normal and not be impervious to them (as it was in JK, I think).

I doubt this will happen, but I can dream. And I do realise this is off topic.


Genius is limited, unfortunately stupidity is not thus so.
Syndrix is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-05-2001, 02:49 PM   #56
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Smile

Kurgan-

Assuming JK2 will be similar to JK it wouldn't be Forceless Gunners vs. Jedi Saberists, you are correct.

When I used Forceless Gunners earlier it was rather deliberate, I wanted to let another preference of mine out of the bag there but didn't want to get into it in detail.

Basically it comes down to this: there needs to be some way in JK2 that forceless gunners can compete against full-fledged Jedi. I'm sure there will be gunners who are up to the challenge and have the desire to face a Jedi just as other forceless humans and other species have throughout the SW movies.

MotS of course enabled forceless (I'm not counting defense as a force 'power') "personalities" like the soldier to face powerful Jedi in the same multiplayer game. Hopefully Raven can do a step better than this and work out a system that offers a wide range of settings that allow for similar things but without the restrictions of such personalities. As I stated, people should be allowed to have that 'My goodness I'm about to face a real Jedi' experience in multiplayer, which is perhaps most easily brought about by someone who doesn't have the Jedi's Force powers but does have guns, and can face him in the same game. Last but not least this is also a good back up plan in case Raven does not get (in our opinions) a good FF Guns vs FF Sabers (Jedi) balance worked out: what they possibly don't balance vs FF Guns might very well be rectified vs NF Guns. I'd rather it not come to this, however.

I don't think it was ever specified whether saber balance needed to be addressed vs FF or FF guns, just guns in general. However since gunners are at their deadliest when they can use the force, it makes sense that we should examine the balance where the greatest disparity is seen.

One man's Cup of Tea is another man's Itchy Straw Shirt, and for that reason I am by no means suggesting that FF Gunners not be allowed to play vs Jedi. Being able to jump dozens of feet in the air and blast away at my opponents below, for example, is what made JK fun and unique at times for me. I wouldn't want to deprive people of this opportunity. I just want better options.

What if these gunners use the force but also the saber as well? You could make arguments why this is perfectedly feasible in more of a roleplaying sense, but I bet could make just as many against it. This is why it would make sense to include another option besides what I've already mentioned, that enables only two kinds of characters, ones that can use only FF and guns and ones that can use only FF and the Saber. Getting more back to the topic at hand, I'll just say again that the saber needs to be balanced so it can still perform well in potential encounters like the ones listed above, at least on some very base level that doesn't factor player skill into the equation.

As far as I see it we now have another thing that factors into how feared and respected the saber should be: who you get to use it against, although I believe this isn't as big a factor as other things we have discussed are, because it was probably assumed by most that we were talking in relation to FF guns anyways. Still something to consider options-wise though.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-05-2001, 03:18 PM   #57
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

Yes, my comments about the relative weakness of the lightsaber are most relevant in a full force environment. Although I still feel the lightsaber is underpowered in the no force lightsabers v guns environment.

If I read your post correctly Krayt (I'm really not sure whether I am), are you suggesting that Jedi Outcast supports a 'Full Force Gunner personality' and a 'Full Force Saberist Personality?' If so, how would they differ? Also contrast them with a 'No Force Gunner Personality' and a 'No Force Saberist Personality?' What would this do to address imbalances?

Maybe what is needed is a sliding scale of lightsaber damage and speed that is directly related to the force level of the game at hand. E.g. the higher the force level permitted (again, we are assuming that Jedi Outcast will even support Force Levels to begin with), the greater the lightsaber damage and speed of attack.

Thus, no force games will have the lowest saber damage and speed, and highest force games will feature the highest saber damage and speed. Or is this adding unnecessary complexity to the game?

[ August 05, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]


Wilhuf

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill, 1941.
Wilhuf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-05-2001, 04:39 PM   #58
ed_silvergun
 
ed_silvergun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Blighty
Posts: 608
Thumbs down

Yeah, I think it's all staring to get too complicated. We've now moved from simply tweaking saber combat in terms of speed, blocking ability, etc. to talking about creating different player classes to appeal to gunners, saberists, force-users, non-force-users and even sliding scales of saber damage.

I think the best solution is often the simplest. I worry that people will simply be put off playing MP JK II if it is made too complex and daunting.

Still, I'm sure the "hardcore" will love it...


Galactic Plumberman - For All Your Liquid Needs
ed_silvergun is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-05-2001, 07:23 PM   #59
WD_ToRMeNt
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Kansas City MO
Posts: 705
Post

LMAO. broadband users having an advantage in nf sabs over 65gayers? OMG you guy haven't a clue do you? Oh ya, it it doesn't matter if you can block 100% of ranged attacks, an intellegant person would just shoot next to you and catch you with splash. Blocking or not, your are still going to have to close to within close range of a person armed with long range weapons, who can probably backpeddle the at the same speed you run forward. JK and Q3 are like that.
WD_ToRMeNt is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-05-2001, 09:26 PM   #60
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Wilhuf:
<STRONG>If I read your post correctly Krayt (I'm really not sure whether I am), are you suggesting that Jedi Outcast supports a 'Full Force Gunner personality' and a 'Full Force Saberist Personality?' If so, how would they differ? Also contrast them with a 'No Force Gunner Personality' and a 'No Force Saberist Personality?' What would this do to address imbalances?</STRONG>
If they are going to allow Dark and Lightside users alike to also use guns at FF like they have in the past, then yes I think those options should exist. And with the other option I mentioned: the ability for NF guns to play FF Jedi, it is simply another option like the one I just mentioned. One that allows people to play in certain styles more fitting for the Star Wars universe that I feel would be fun and are missing from JK MP. You could do that by making personalties like MotS, but what I would really hope would be a system that would let you characters within a certain range and type to enter the game. Idealy only slightly more complicated but oh so much more powerful for server admins.

To answer your question, these added options that I mentioned (NF Guns vs. FF Jedi) wouldn't address current saber imbalances, per say. They are more like extra things that Raven would have to address when balancing the saber and weapons if they were allowed in the game. They would have to take into account the powerfulness of the saber and force powers (combined) against gunners with no force, for example, as well as against gunners with full force.

What must suit one should also suit the other. If the saber and force powers were just powerful and deadly enough to compete with NF gunners (in terms of damage, speed, and range, and what not) then chances are FF guners would slaughter Jedi. And vice versa... there needs to point a middle ground for both.

So I think you understood me correctly when you suggested a sliding scale, because based on what I've said that makes sense to me. Although I'll skip commentary on that suggestion to cut back on the long windedness of this post.

Things we are discussing here in terms of saber balance are getting complicated, yes, but it isn't easy to pass new ideas by each other like this. I'm sure if we had to play current games that we've bought using an interface that was based off original design brainstorming it would be way too complicated for us! But if we were the actual developers, we would find a way to make it feasible and easy for the average user to use and understand.

Simple can be good but you've often got to go through the rough stuff to finally get to the simple answer.

[ August 05, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-05-2001, 11:57 PM   #61
Vagabond
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I've skimmed through all the posts in this thread, and have a few comments to make - I hope I hit all the important points.

To begin, when playing MotS, the lightsaber was in fact my preferred weapon of choice, although the concussion rifle & carbonite gun were tempting favorites as well. With the Force (Level 7+), a saberist can kill any gunner, anytime, anywhere. Without the force, then a saberist is toast against a gunner.

To the point of this thread, I do believe that the saber should be made more lethal in combat, especially with the location-specific damage.

Having said that, I disagree with the suggestion that the lightsaber should be able to fend of heavy weapon fire. This is inconsistent with the movies and with what I view as common sense. In TPM, both Qui-Gonn and Obi-Wan were unable to sustain their defense against the automatic blaster fire from the Destroyer Droids, which is understandable given that even Jedi are mortal. Further, the idea that a lightsaber could defend against explosive/splash damage doesn't seem reasonable to me. Maybe, if the warhead/projectile were intercepted with the lightsaber, but if the impact were adjacent to the Jedi, then splash-damage will be your companion. Granted, such weapons could easily be labeled Jedi Killers, but the balance could come in the availability of ammunition and/or the firing rate (slower firing rate).

Summary:
  • The lightsaber should be more powerful
  • The lightsaber should not defend against splash damage
  • Heavy Weapons should be balanced against lightsabers


Did I miss anything?
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-06-2001, 03:10 AM   #62
DeathBoLT
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 598
Post

Just to set the record straight about NF sabers in Jedi Knight.

torment, in nf sabs, broadband users CAN have a advantage over 56kers. It all depends on your playing style..

now of course if the 56ker is nothing but a mouse jerker, well thats different, especially if its good mouse jerkers like YO_SmAcK or Dangersun. I've got no respect for mouse jerkers tho - and from what I gather(I stopped playing NF sabers nearly a year ago) most of NF saberists do that now.

Don't let mouse jerking affect your opinion of true NF sabering skill, 'cos jerkin consists of you scootin your mouse all over tthe pad causing massive bursting. Real nf sabering is just as hard as FF sabers in its own respects except theres no mapping or timing and it happens over a smaller space.

[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: [eVe]DeathBoLT ]


#nar
irc.enterthegame
#nar.. THE channel for Jedi Knight 2 players
DeathBoLT is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-06-2001, 03:35 AM   #63
DeathBoLT
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 598
Post

Quote:
Oh ya, it it doesn't matter if you can block 100% of ranged attacks, an intellegant person would just shoot next to you and catch you with splash. Blocking or not, your are still going to have to close to within close range of a person armed with long range weapons, who can probably backpeddle the at the same speed you run forward. JK and Q3 are like that
If I were facing someone with a bowcastor in Jk2, I'd charge the bolt that you just fired at me thus intercepting it and of course using the force power(it was stated in gamespot/gamesmania-one of the two- that you could send it accurately for a fraction of your force) to send it right back at you. To hit me you would either:
a) fire close enough that I couldn't put enough distance between me and the shot and in that case, I'd charge the shot and block it.
b) put it far enough that I couldn't charge and intercept it in time and I would catch outter rings of splash damage. In that case I would run other way so that you would miss me entirely.

I simply wouldn't need to get close proximatey to you b/c you would be giving me a ranged weapon fire back at ya, via your shot + my block.

Quote:
In TPM, both Qui-Gonn and Obi-Wan were unable to sustain their defense against the automatic blaster fire from the Destroyer Droids,
vagabond, I don't think they retreated because they were out matched.. I think it was a matter of time since neither was going down anytime soon.. they said something about a stand off if I remember correctly meaning neither overpowered the either - the jedis just didnt have time to deal with the destroyer droids 'cos they had a planet to get down to.


***
once the bowcastor bolt has hit, you shouldn't be able to block the splash damage. explosive weapons like rail charges or thermal detonators shouldn't be blockable.. well I could accept the thermal detonator being batted away, but it'd be a stretch..

[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: [eVe]DeathBoLT ]


#nar
irc.enterthegame
#nar.. THE channel for Jedi Knight 2 players
DeathBoLT is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-06-2001, 12:45 PM   #64
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

Speaking of film canon, didn't Qui Gon and Obi also block some heavy blaster cannon fire from one of those flying infantry droids in The Phantom Menace?

Raven could (and I think is) going to allow us to use a ration of force to block incoming fire. This would reflect the limited reserve of Force Obi and Qui had to fight the droids.

Now, if Luke Skywalker's lightsaber can cut through the armor of an AT-AT (TESB), and can block blaster fire (ROTJ), there really is no consistency problem with blocking rail charges that are more delicate than AT-AT armor and which travel at slower speeds than blaster fire.

The lightsaber could slash through the primer, detonator cabling, processor, etc. without actually setting it off. Maybe there would be a certain percent chance that the detonator charge would go off, even if blocking, dishing out some splash damage to our Jedi, to add to the fun factor. The better one's allocation of Force to Force blocking, the less likely the rail charge would detonate on collision with the lightsaber.

The consistency problem is that the Star Wars films really don't have very many explosive projectile weapons. We don't see Jedis block explosives because noone is firing explosives at them.

I'm not sure I would recommend weakening the gun weapons set for Jedi Outcast. Actually I'd try to beef those up too (at least the Imperial Issue Blaster and bowcaster, but not the rail or concussion).

Although as I've said, if the overall game speed is reduced, it's almost inevitable that the round speed and splash damage and radius would have to be reduced for weapons like the concussion rifle. Again, assuming we even have that weapon available.

[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]


Wilhuf

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill, 1941.
Wilhuf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-06-2001, 01:23 PM   #65
Syndrix
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 212
Post

Postyed by Wilhuf
Quote:
This would reflect the limited reserve of Force Obi and Qui had to fight the droids.
Which droids were these Wilhuf?


Genius is limited, unfortunately stupidity is not thus so.
Syndrix is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-06-2001, 01:27 PM   #66
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

The infantry droids that were flying around a Naboo forest on those floating bike-like vehicles. They were firing some heavy cannons at Ben and Qui. Ben or Qui-Gon (I don't remember which) deflected a shot back at one of the bikes and destroyed it. I'm really hazy on what the droids are called...


Wilhuf

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill, 1941.
Wilhuf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-06-2001, 01:39 PM   #67
Syndrix
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 212
Post

But they didnt have limited reserves did they, I cant quite remember, but the only reason the were running was because the droid troop headed throught the forest was to large to fight. I think the only reason Raven would add "block laser take small amount of force" is balance. If indeed the saber is strengthened, it still needs some limitations other than dont make it a one hit wonder.

Quote:
Now, if Luke Skywalker's lightsaber can cut through the armor of an AT-AT (TESB)
I also see no problem with the lightsaber blocking railguns etc. as long as its done with care. But just to be pedantic for a second luke did cut a grate or fan on the bottom of the AT-AT. A better example is probably the blast doors scene in TPM.

[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: Syndrix ]


Genius is limited, unfortunately stupidity is not thus so.
Syndrix is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-06-2001, 02:59 PM   #68
ed_silvergun
 
ed_silvergun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Blighty
Posts: 608
Arrow

Don't worry, Syndrix, I like pedantry, mainly because I'm better at it than just about everyone else.

Anyway:

Quote:
Originally posted by -WD- ToRMeNt:
<STRONG>Blocking or not, your are still going to have to close to within close range of a person armed with long range weapons, who can probably backpeddle the at the same speed you run forward.</STRONG>
No, it's you who really doesn't get it. Stop stating the way it is in JK because the whole point of this thread is to address these problems. For example, this particular issue could be overcome by throwing the saber at the gunner. Now, instead of just worrying about shooting at the Jedi's feet, the gunner has to worry about dodging the incoming projectile too. This makes it harder for both players, meaning that extra skill has to be employed, and hence the game is more challenging, rewarding and fun.

To be honest, I would have thought that this is exactly the sort of thing that the "hardcore" would want. If it's so easy to fight saberists, then surely you guys would relish the challenge of having more powerful sabers. It'll be something new to do. It must have got dreadfully boring by now just grabbing the biggest gun on the map and aiming it at your opponents' feet...

Quote:
Originally posted by Vagabond:
<STRONG>the idea that a lightsaber could defend against explosive/splash damage doesn't seem reasonable to me</STRONG>
Well, in ESB, Vader blocks Han's blaster fire without even using a saber. He just absorbs it with his hand. If a Jedi or Sith possessed the power to simply block or absorb blaster fire, surely they could do the same with the energy released as a result of a rocket impact or a concussion blast?

Quote:
Originally posted by Wilhuf:
<STRONG>The consistency problem is that the Star Wars films really don't have very many explosive projectile weapons. We don't see Jedis block explosives because noone is firing explosives at them.</STRONG>
I think Wilhuf's hit the nail on the head here. The problem is, we're setting a precedent here. There's no "official" Star Wars canon which tells us how force-users would deal with projectile weapons. I can't think of a single instance in the films which would indicate how a Jedi could or could not block explosives, concussion blasts or anything like that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Syndrix:
I think the only reason Raven would add "block laser take small amount of force" is balance.
As far as I recall from the previews, blocking doesn't use force power, but directing the blast back at the sender does.

<HR>

Think that just about covers things, except to say (because I haven't had a chance to yet) congrats to Vagabond and his family!


Galactic Plumberman - For All Your Liquid Needs
ed_silvergun is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-06-2001, 03:45 PM   #69
Syndrix
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 212
Post

Thats correct ed, I typed that in a hurry and didnt really notice that until you mentioned it. I believe your right. Still my point was that Raven are going to do some things that while not breaking any clear rules slighly alters some ambiguous ones. Wilhuf was suggesting that the "deflect back, take some force" (got it right this time) was the reason Obi and Qui-gon were running in the forest.

I was saying that this was probably just a feature added for balance. After all they could just block the blasts( if we use JK2 rule, well supposed rules) because it takes no force. Then when they got close cut the droids down. Also in the blast door scene in TPM I refered to earlier we have a precedent. Obi and Qui-gon are deflecting the droids lasers, but the droids have shields and Qui-gon says they might as well leave because its a stand-off. Thats the only reason he give, nothing about weakening or they cant keep it up.

My point was that we should not assume that Raven did this because of the movies, it was most likely a gameplay decision/issue.


Genius is limited, unfortunately stupidity is not thus so.
Syndrix is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-06-2001, 03:58 PM   #70
Kettch
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
In TPM, both Qui-Gonn and Obi-Wan were unable to sustain their defense against the automatic blaster fire from the Destroyer Droids
When the two Jedi saw that the blaster shot, which they deflected were absorbed by the Destroyer Droids (or called Droideka), they had
  • 1. no time for being on the ship to finish the Droidekas, because reinforcemence were on the way to intercept them,
    2. they had to escape to Naboo and later in order to warn the Naboo people.

Of course they sustained their defense against the Droidekas, and the could do this the whole time, but the easily had no time.

Quote:
Further, the idea that a lightsaber could defend against explosive/splash damage doesn't seem reasonable to me.
Lightsabres can't defend against explosive/splash damage but Jedi can use the Force to deflect every projectile which are heading to a Jedi.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-06-2001, 08:48 PM   #71
Vagabond
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
ed,

Quote:
Well, in ESB , Vader blocks Han's blaster fire without even using a saber. He just absorbs it with his hand. If a Jedi or Sith possessed the power to simply block or absorb blaster fire, surely they could do the same with the energy released as a result of a rocket impact or a concussion blast?
Deflecting the energy of a few blaster bolts is one thing, but shielding oneself from area-of-effect damage intuitively seems a taller order to fill.

Further, from a gameplay perspective, once one starts down this path, the journey has begun toward making the Jedi nearly invicible. If a Jedi can defend against any and every type of weapon and/or damage, then they could never be hurt.

Using this line of thinking, Qui-Gonn would have never died because he would have simply absorbed the energy from Maul's lightsaber just like Vader did to Solo's blasts, just like it appears some are saying that a Jedi should be able to do with area-of-effect weapons.

For me, if a Jedi were able to defend against every type of attack, then the gameplay would tend to get boring rather quickly. That was one of the strengths of MotS - that a skilled player could use combinations of weapons, powers, and tactics to defeat any opponents, Jedi or otherwise.

P.S. Thanks for the well wishes, ed
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-06-2001, 09:02 PM   #72
wardz
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 926
Post

I agree with "pop"

There has to be a line drawn, Jedi should be very skilled and able to perform a multitude of tasks but they should not be so skilled that it becomes boring because they wont die.

I think we need to step away from the canon a bit. We all know in the films that the Jedi are the muts nuts but that is for film purposes, If we translate that directly into the game then we are going to have one very tedious game on our hands.

The key again is balance, I have faith in raven to meet this balance, if we are saying this now, this has probably been discussed in their offices months ago,


everything will be okay, I'm quite sure

wardz


Welcome to JKII.Net.

Please keep sig size to a minimum : )
wardz is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-06-2001, 09:33 PM   #73
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

We definitely don't want some kind of Über-Jedi, capable of absorbing splash damage. Plus, I would expect Jedis to draw on their Force reserve to be able to block heavy weapons fire, and they wouldn't be able to block indefinitely.

BTW, note that in Full Force MotS games, even Force Protection really isn't sufficient to balance out a saberist v a gunner duel, IMO.


Wilhuf

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill, 1941.
Wilhuf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-06-2001, 10:54 PM   #74
acdcfanbill
..the wonders I have seen
 
acdcfanbill's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Random Hell Wholes around the
Posts: 5,698
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
Post

umm, wilhuf, those were S.T.A.P.'s in Esp 1. they were something something ariel platforms.

acdcfanbill is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-06-2001, 11:41 PM   #75
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I agree that including something to block or heavily absorb slash damage would make the Jedi too Uber.

Quote:
Originally posted by ed_silvergun:
<STRONG>For example, this particular issue could be overcome by throwing the saber at the gunner.</STRONG>
Yes that is one factor. I would not however expect the saber to compete even remotely with projectile weapons in terms of hitting distance.

Other forces powers should be considered part of saber vs. guns balance if the only held weapon you are using against your gunner-ladden foe is the saber. There will be at least one ranged force power to get at your opponent, lightning. I would estimate however that this will only be able to hit from short to mid ranges.

Jedi currently do not have a long range power like destruction to help them combat against the hitting distance of guns. We'll see if Raven thinks it is necessary to include this for guns vs. saber balance.

All of the things mentioned in this post deal with the approach from long distances that a saberist must make to get to the gunner to land a saber blow. This is one part of balance that I can see, the other is saber effectiveness in closed ranged combat which I'm not discussing in this post.

It makes sense to me that a Jedi Saberist does not need many long ranged force powers to deal with gunners. The Jedi is not a Force Marine, she relies attacking and defending herself with the saber. She should rely primarily on evasive force powers like speed and jump to work her way to her target. 'Sneaky' force powers that conceal or trick should also be considered here as well. Then, when the saberist enteres midrange with a gunner, she could have confirmed powers like lightning available to her to increase her deadlyness as the gunner fails to keep her at bay.

Only one other thing: this assumes that a Jedi Saberist is not fighting a gunner in extermely cramped levels [but it applies imo to them almost as well, since it is dangerous for gunners to use their most damaging splash weapon fire (usually primary) in cramped areas].
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-07-2001, 02:30 AM   #76
Emperorsbauble
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2
Post

The topic of improving the lightsaber and making it a more formidable and repectable weapon is a great one that does need to be addressed.

In the first Jedi Knight game lightsabers were reduced to being a weaker alternative to the good reliable blaster. In single player you could not get through an entire level with just the lightsaber, the ultimate jedi's weapon. In Multiplayer, the lightsaber was restricted to being, at some times, a last resort, and was often the weaker alternative to most of the higher powered guns.

Lightsaber battles were not the elegant and awe-inspiring duels that were depicted so beautifully in the movies. The effectiveness, versatality, and elegance of the weapon established in the movies just did not cross over into JK. For these reasons it is of most importance that the lightsaber needs to be made more respectable, and made the elegant and superior jedi's weapon.

The points mentioned in this form are all very true and the suggestions of fixing this issue are good. A faster attack rate, would increase the damage potential of the weapon, but the single swing did have a pretty fast attack rate, and the double swing had a justifiable attack rate considering its damage. Location based damage is a great suggestion which would allow a greater realism and reward for accuracy, a sloppy hit, to the leg or arm, would resolve in less damage, and a accurate one, to the torso or head, would allow for greater damage, or even a one hit kill. However the lightsaber does need higher damage for the single swing. In comparison to the double swing, the single swing was rendered useless even thought it allowed for a quicker attack rate.

Force speed and force jump do not need to be toned down, but restricted. A person playing with guns should not even have the ability to utilize the force powers, in the movies, how many stormtroppers could use force jump or force speed, none. But a jedi should have great speed and jump potential. Perhaps a soldier character could have similar "powers", which would allow for faster speed and higher jumps, and maybe higher accuracy, but in comparison to a jedi, there powers would be a fraction of the jedi's. To balance the Jedi and the soldier types, a jedi could be restricted to force and saber only, allowing a soldeir to use all guns, but no saber, and little " force powers". That way, there would be no soldier that could run circles around a player while bombarding them with concussion rifle blasts.

But the jedi's powers, in general, could be toned down, in certain circumstances. A jedi should be able to block every single blaster bolt, as seen in the movies, but at reasonable expenditure of force. This would give a jedi the ability to block all blasts, but also giving a good soldier the ability to hit a jedi, by wearing them down, similar to the scene with obi-wan and qui-gon jinn and the droidekas, where the jedi were forced to run.

Another key problem, is lightsaber fighting in general. Because of the lightsabers hinderance, some addressed and suggested here, duels were reduced to what can be desrcibed as two trains colliding. Players would run at each other, and double swing (single swing was useless) trying to hit the opponent but also avoiding a hit by opponent. This ping pong type duel, where players continued to run at each other and swing, was in my opinion less than elegant. As depicted in the star wars movies, the lightsaber duels were upclose, dangerous, very elegant, and relied on finesse to beat the opponent. Few battles in JK could compare to any of those seen in the movies. In my opinion, this is a huge factor in making the lightsaber more respectable. The lightsaber needs to be the upclose and dangerous weapon. By making more combignations/moves available would help, but by improving the lightsabers blocking, so that two players could duel relatively close, would make it all the more elegant, and respectable. Or, perhaps, by making the player block him/her self, the player would be able to, by acquiring the skill, be able to block blaster bolts, and lightsabers or by making both recetible to force expenditure, players would have to wear down the opponent, in order to make a hit. In my opinion the most memorable battles are not the quick kills and the fast paced massacres, but the little longer, harder, and grueling matches between two people, where utilizing finesse, instead of brute strength and force, win.
Emperorsbauble is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-07-2001, 12:33 PM   #77
ed_silvergun
 
ed_silvergun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Blighty
Posts: 608
Arrow

Okay, it seems I should clarify. I was not suggesting that Raven should create some kind of über-Jedi. I was suggesting that, theoretically almost anything should be blockable, but of course, this would not work in a gaming environment. Jedi do need to be vulnerable, and do need to have wekanesses. This is essential if the game is to be fun.

Personally, I do think that Jedi should be able to block more powerful weapons, but that this should be implemented together with some sort of mana reserve for blocking. I think that blocking should take up some force power (even if it is not redirected at the sender). Blocking should be automatic, but even deflecting blaster bolts should take up a bit of mana. Maybe a Jedi could deflect about 500 shots from a trooper rifle before his mana ran out, but only about 10 shots from an AT-AT, because the blast is more powerful.

The reasoning behind this (and this is an approach I've only recently come to favour) is that it would make Jedi have to think more tactically when approaching a situation.

On the subject of absorbing blast damage, no, I don't think that Jedi should just be able to absorb rocket blasts. What I said was, "If a Jedi or Sith possessed the power to simply block or absorb blaster fire, surely they could do the same with the energy released as a result of a rocket impact or a concussion blast?". This was intended as a rhetorical question. Firstly, I realise that in terms of game balance giving Jedi this kind of power would be unfeasible, and secondly this is a power we only ever see Vader use. As he is one of - if not the - most powerful force user ever, it is logical to assume that this is a power only accessible to the most powerful of Jedi/Sith. It may even be a power used only by the Dark Side. We don't know.

Either way, I personally would not want to see this feature in Outcast. I only brought it up because it seemed like an interesting talking point.

Hope that clears things up a bit.


Galactic Plumberman - For All Your Liquid Needs
ed_silvergun is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-07-2001, 02:59 PM   #78
DeathBoLT
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 598
Post

Quote:
ed:
To be honest, I would have thought that this is exactly the sort of thing that the "hardcore" would want. If it's so easy to fight saberists, then surely you guys would relish the challenge of having more powerful sabers. It'll be something new to do. It must have got dreadfully boring by now just grabbing the biggest gun on the map and aiming it at your opponents' feet...
Well, actually, of most hardcore players in JK consist of the following types: Those whose systems are too lousy to play any other game and those who are too stuck in a rut to move to any other games. The people who belong to the latter type of JK players, Jedi Knight is the game that they're respected for and recognized in and they're too intimidated by the newer communities and the fact that they have a long while to go before they'll actually matter in the gaming scene. Its that sudden lack of fame that keeps them stuck to JK.

Quote:
vagabond:
Further, from a gameplay perspective, once one starts down this path, the journey has begun toward making the Jedi nearly invicible. If a Jedi can defend against any and every type of weapon and/or damage, then they could never be hurt.
The Jedi needs to be able to defend against every type of weapon. The potential to intercept every incoming shot should be there. If you're good enough, you ought to be able to block everything they send your way(heavy weapons or not), as long as you intercept it while its still in the air. What they should not be able to defend against is the damage. Once you fail to block it or escape it, you should recieve the appropriate damage for it. None of this splash damage defending Force Absorb crap..


Quote:
krayt tion
Jedi currently do not have a long range power like destruction to help them combat against the hitting distance of guns. We'll see if Raven thinks it is necessary to include this for guns vs. saber balance.

All of the things mentioned in this post deal with the approach from long distances that a saberist must make to get to the gunner to land a saber blow. This is one part of balance that I can see, the other is saber effectiveness in closed ranged combat which I'm not discussing in this post.
There won't be destruction, but as far as long range attacks, a Jedi does have one: Saberthrow. It'll be effective when sneaking up on someone, in single player, etc. but I'd never give up my saber to throw it for a second against a experienced gunner who knows I'm there. My defense and my offense would lie in the saber. My long range weapon would be the bolts that I send right back at them after they fired at me. My ammunition supply will be them. I won't even need to get near them if they keep popping off shots that I can successfully block. Against someone who is good at blocking, it will take a extremely innovative gunner to land shots that count.

However they approach it, the list of suggestions we made focuses on correcting this basic problem:
A gunner can easily dispatch a saberist of the same skill level in their own respective areas. Its wrong, and I'm glad to hear that the designers of Jedi Outcast have recognized this problem(see e3 footage of Jk2 with that one interviwer who couldn't remember the name of the game. )
I look foward to seeing how Raven handles making the saber a weapon feared as much as one would fear splash damage dealing weapons.

[ August 07, 2001: Message edited by: [eVe]DeathBoLT ]


#nar
irc.enterthegame
#nar.. THE channel for Jedi Knight 2 players
DeathBoLT is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-07-2001, 04:24 PM   #79
WD_ToRMeNt
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Kansas City MO
Posts: 705
Post

Ummm actually no. A few are like that, but I think it's more common amoung the Nfers and casual players. I myself have a high end mechine and I play Q3 (usualy get top 3 in MP games) more now because JK is more or less dead.
WD_ToRMeNt is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-07-2001, 10:09 PM   #80
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by [eVe]DeathBoLT:
<STRONG>There won't be destruction, but as far as long range attacks, a Jedi does have one: Saberthrow. It'll be effective when sneaking up on someone, in single player, etc. but I'd never give up my saber to throw it for a second against a experienced gunner who knows I'm there.</STRONG>
I did mention saber throw in my last post when responding to a quote from ed, just so you are aware. I agreed in that post that saber throw was going to be a helpful tool when dealing with gunners. Also mentioned was that I felt, and still feel, that the saber throw will probably only be helpful in midrange (not long range) situations, as that is all the distance I'm guessing it will have. People are bound to approach things differently and I for one would use the saber throw differently. I would trust letting the saber go as I approach (giving up any blocking ability I might have) because the second or two they must use to move out of the way of the saber I will be advancing rapidly with force speed and jumping through the air. It would be sweet if right before I landed, just about on top of the gunner, that the saber would return to my hand and I could slice right into them. This is entirely hypothetical so I can't say what will work for sure (but neither can anyone else).

I do not disagree with you that saber blocking should be important by saying this. On the contrary, as you will see below, I think I've come to realize that the Saberists best protection from gunners, especially at long/mid ranges, is blocking done right.

Deathbolt I found that one your responses seemed better suited to something ed said rather then what vagabond mentioned. The two seem matched for each other let me pair them out and tell you what I think:

Quote:
Originally posted by ed_silvergun:
<STRONG>I was suggesting that, theoretically almost anything should be blockable, but of course, this would not work in a gaming environment. Jedi do need to be vulnerable, and do need to have wekanesses.</STRONG>
Quote:
Originally posted by [eVe]DeathBoLT:
<STRONG>The potential to intercept every incoming shot should be there. If you're good enough, you ought to be able to block everything they send your way(heavy weapons or not), as long as you intercept it while its still in the air. What they should not be able to defend against is the damage. Once you fail to block it or escape it, you should recieve the appropriate damage for it. None of this splash damage defending Force Absorb crap..</STRONG>
I think ed was headed on the right track and Deadbolt was able to find what seems to be in my mind a very resonable solution to that train of thought.

I'm seeing perhaps a collective opinion being formed in regards to saber blocking, so with minor tweaks of my own, let me try it out:

Jedi should automatically block everything that threatens to hit their body, but only if they can bring the saber about to face the saber in front of them in a general area/angle in relation to the incoming blast. An obvious example, if you are running away and someone shoots at your back and you do not turn around, you should not be able to block this. This system is of course similar to the original jediknight but from what I'm hearing we would like the following refinements: the ability to direct the shot back at the opponent with a charge in force energy. How large of a deduction in your force pool has yet to be agreed on. The final important distinction to make here is that blocked weapon fire does not equal blocked damage. Blocked blaster fire equals blocked damage. Blocked splash fire equals damage taken from the splash. By this accord the only big issue remaining in saber blocking (and the part that I think people disagree the most on) is should splash fire be allowed to be redirected even after you have taken damage from it? I say no. This then becomes a weapon issue by which the designers must not allow splash weapons to become too damaging in multiplayer.

Well?

I would respond to other concepts mentioned but these posts don't seem to be getting any shorter these days, and I think further focus in these particular areas would be most helpful.

[ August 07, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]
  you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Game Discussion > Jedi Outcast > Reasons why the Lightsaber Needs to be Made Respectable

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:22 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.