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 08-08-2001, 03:05 AM   #81
DeathBoLT
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 598
Post

Quote:
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:
yeah, i was actually going to include excerpts from both vagabonds and ed's posts, but i didn't to save space

Quote:
The final important distinction to make here is that blocked weapon fire does not equal blocked damage.
Good thinking. Heavy weapons fire sent back at you should be evadable, well because gunners are screwed otherwise.

Also, with blocked blaster fire.. for it to be a blocked damage, would the blaster bolt speed be faster than it takes a blasterbolt to hit a target in JK or same speed? Would blocking and sending it back force power be a thing where mana is spent as long as your holding the key down, or would mana only be spent if you deflect something? If it is the former, how would it be difficult to use if the person's reflexes aren't top knotch?


#nar
irc.enterthegame
#nar.. THE channel for Jedi Knight 2 players
DeathBoLT is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-08-2001, 03:10 AM   #82
DeathBoLT
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 598
Post

And if weapons like the conc or rail make their way into JK2, would force push be a better means of blocking? Rail charges seem like they should explode on impact if they come into pure energy.. and Concusion Rifle shots aren't actually energy but Compressed air so they really can't be deflected

Would it feasible to send dropped thermals at a person at a high velocity via force push? Sort of a Force Propelled Grenade?


#nar
irc.enterthegame
#nar.. THE channel for Jedi Knight 2 players
DeathBoLT is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-08-2001, 11:08 AM   #83
UberChild
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 83
Post

I agree with one of the above posts, gunners should have no or at least less force power than the jedis, i loved using the saber in the game, speed up to someone 2 slashes/ a small grip attack and a slash or whatever and they were dead, the problem was peple with conc rifles, running aaround with force powers, they would grip then shoot ya and you were helpless, or they would force run away then shoot ya, maybe they should implement movement of the saber like thay planned to for obi wan, b4 it became x-box crap, use the mouse as you would if you were holding the blade, maybe hold a mosue button and move mouse to the left, and blade moves to the left, if you dont press mouse button, the blade stays at default block like in the original game, but does not block everysingle shot (it blocked most of them), then you have the choice, block yourself, or not.. the skilled would get good at this and would be able to test themselves at blockin, it would also possibly work for fighting, you see the blade coming from your left, move to the left to block.. this would bring some skill into blocking and also fighting, only problem is it would make the game dammm hard, and i dont think they will want to scare away potential new players, who never even played jk, well its just an idea, but i definitly agree with the idea of less or no force power for gunners..


AMD 2600XP
512 mb RAM (400mhz)
G-force 3 ti 500
19'' monitor
80 GB + 30 GB drives
UberChild is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-08-2001, 12:57 PM   #84
Syndrix
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 212
Post

Posted by [eVe]DeathBoLT

Quote:
Would blocking and sending it back force power be a thing where mana is spent as long as your holding the key down, or would mana only be spent if you deflect something? If it is the former, how would it be difficult to use if the person's reflexes aren't top knotch?
I think it would have to be the latter of your suggestions DeathBoLT, if it were s long as you were holding down the key it would eat through mana too quick. It could be said that many would get the hang of pressing the key in time, but what about the others that dont play enough to get their reflexes (as you rightfully pointed out) to the point where they can use it. If it was your first suggestion it could (maybe) have the ability to unbalance the game.

Quote:
Would it feasible to send dropped thermals at a person at a high velocity via force push? Sort of a Force Propelled Grenade?
In one of the recent previews it rather quizzically mentioned that you could deflect thermal detornators. It didn't say by the lightsaber, so it could be argued, as a few already have, what the previewer was talking about was Force pushing detonators away, I hope so as it would be an interesting addition.

What are you talking about below Wilhuf? Hehehe (OK so above is what I meant)

[ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: Syndrix ]


Genius is limited, unfortunately stupidity is not thus so.
Syndrix is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-08-2001, 01:00 PM   #85
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

Using a separate power for blocking specific munitions would add unncessary complexity. It would be easier (and probably more fun) to use one power (Force Block) to block all ammo types.

Although push could work as well. Simply push the heavy weapons round out of the way, spoiling the attack. Would be fun to see the reaction of 'l33t_gamerX' gunner when his concussion round curves off target, exploding harmlessly against the wall or floor. And of course there would be nothing to stop 'l33t_gamerX' gunner from doing the same thing to defend himself against enemy incoming fire. It would certainly add some fun and interesting strategy to the game.

BTW I read on one of the recent Outcast previews that Force Saber throw would allow the saberist to actually steer the thrown lightsaber in mid-flight. That should help quite a bit in beefing up saber capability. Hit those moving targets with deadly precision.

Another option we don't seem to have mentioned is that Force Pull appears to be able to pull enemy targets close in for the kill. So, Saberists could use this ability in multiplayer (theoretically) to drag the enemy gunner close in, and slash them down.

Of course the Gunner will also have access to Force Pull, so this won't give any particular unfair advantage to the Saberist. Gunners could apply a similar attack.

If Force Pull actually disarms the opponent by yanking the weapon from their hand, I really hope there will be some kind of force absorb or defense. Otherwise, peoples weapons will be constantly pulled.

If there is such a thing in Jedi Outcast as 'Force Block' that allows the lightsaber to block all types of incoming fire (except for splash damage), then what is the benefit of force block to the gun? It's a balance consideration.

Does Raven really want to produce a Force power that is only of benefit to the lightsaber? It won't be much of a worry since everyone will have access to the lightsaber. But a basic 'fairness' question then is 'will the gun also get any special Force power?'

Also, BTW I dont see why a lightsaber couldn't be used to slash the containment field of a concussion round, thereby neutralizing it. Same goes for a rail charge. A saber could cut through the primer and processor, rendering the charge a dud without detonating it. In any case it's all (fun) details.

Time for an updated Bulleted List™

Suggested Improvements:
  • Faster Lightsaber Attack Rate
  • Location Based Lightsaber Damage (and damage which could affect target movement)
  • Increased Lightsaber Damage
  • Ability to block heavy weapons fire with Lightsaber(at cost of Force Block and/or Force Push)
  • Effective ranged lightsaber attack (faster, steerable Force lightsaber throw)
  • More lightsaber attack moves/combinations
  • Better lightsaber animations
  • Toned Down Speed and Jump (in decreased magnitude and duration and/or increased Force cost)
  • Force Pull to drag opponent within lightsaber killing range
  • Customizable gameplay settings (e.g., gravity, overall speed)

[ August 08, 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 08-08-2001, 04:44 PM   #86
DeathBoLT
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 598
Post

SkUnkY_OuNcE, if u want sabers only in a full force game, simply pull every gun in sight. eventually everyone will start using saber b/c they cant hold onto a gun for more than a few seconds.

Now if they have absorb, you can't pull there gun but at least you won't have to worry about being gripped; if they have grip and absorb, they're hacking


#nar
irc.enterthegame
#nar.. THE channel for Jedi Knight 2 players
DeathBoLT is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-08-2001, 05:06 PM   #87
Home_Sliced
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I think the saber should be able to block some heavy weapons fire, but not others.

For instance, repeating or high power blasters should be blocked as a normal blaster. Merely deflecting the bolt should use up minimal force power (about 1/100) (as opposed to none with a standard blaster). Deflecting back to enemies uses up the same as deflecting a reular blaster bolt at enemies (about 5/100). In this way, a continuous assault would eventually fatigue the Jedi, but they still have blocking power.

For a weapon like the rail detonator with explosive charges, the lightsaber should block the rail, but it will still explode. When you put energy (a lightsaber blade) near an explosive, it will go boom. [HOME_SLICED and JEDIKNIGHT2.NET IN NO WAY SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT] Go experiment with a lighter and firecrackers to see what I mean. [/NO SUPPPORT] By blocking the rail, the Jedi only takes splash damage (maybe about 1/2 damage of a direct hit). In this way, there is a benefit to having the saber, but once again a sustained attack will score a frag for the shooter.

For a weapon such as the concussion rifle, the lightsaber should not be able to block at all. The CR fires compressed+ionized air. You can't block air with a stick. [HOME_SLICED and JEDIKNIGHT2.NET IN NO WAY SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT] Go to your local airport and stand behind a jet as it takes off to experiment. [/NO SUPPORT] Maybe if you had a large sheet of plywood you could block the CR, but it would throw you back with some extreme forces.

[ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: Home_Sliced ]
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-08-2001, 05:47 PM   #88
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by [eVe]DeathBoLT:
<STRONG>Would blocking and sending it back force power be a thing where mana is spent as long as your holding the key down, or would mana only be spent if you deflect something?</STRONG>
Quote:
Originally posted by Syndrix:
<STRONG>I think it would have to be the latter of your suggestions DeathBoLT, if it were s long as you were holding down the key it would eat through mana too quick. It could be said that many would get the hang of pressing the key in time, but what about the others that dont play enough to get their reflexes (as you rightfully pointed out) to the point where they can use it. If it was your first suggestion it could (maybe) have the ability to unbalance the game.</STRONG>
The only thing I'm sure of is that block (force block if you will) should not be a key to constantly hold down. No gamer should have to hold down a key for long periods while trying to move around quickly at the same time- it is awkward and it takes up valuable finger resources.

This is why most single player FPSes provide an auto-run mode that can be toggled on or off in settings or with a stroke of a key; no one wants to hold down shift for most of the game (for games where slow, cautious movement was required they enabled a Walk key to be held down so you could still use auto-run, this is a much more efficient). I imagine no Jedi will want to hold force block down for much of their battle with a gunner. Imagine if you had to hold down Force Speed so long as you wanted to run super fast!

That's how it shouldn't work.

There are two ways to block we are talking about here, right? Just blocking - or - blocking and returning the shot to the shooter. At the risk of being repetitive, is this really what most of us agree on at this time? Blocking costs nothing and is automatic. Blocking and returning the shot to where the gunner is/was standing costs mana? Yes?

Two ways I can see Force Block being used with these circumstances in mind, here goes:

1) Like any other hotkey a Force Block button can be pressed, taking a pre-defined chunk of force and expiring after a certain time like many other powers in JK. While this power is not being used a Jedi can block automatically, but when Force Block is actually turned 'on' a Jedi can send it back where it came from, roughly.

2) We have one less hotkey to worry about. Jedi block automatically and automatically return the fire to sender. The autoblocking costs nothing but the return and the fire to the shooter automatically deducts a small amount of force from you mana pool. If you are OOM (out of mana) then you cannot return shots, just block them.

edit: Option 2 is very similar to what Home Slice has in mind, he posted while I was typing this message.

Okay... next issue:

Quote:
Originally posted by Wilhuf:
<STRONG>Also, BTW I dont see why a lightsaber couldn't be used to slash the containment field of a concussion round, thereby neutralizing it. Same goes for a rail charge. A saber could cut through the primer and processor, rendering the charge a dud without detonating it. In any case it's all (fun) details.</STRONG>
I'm in agreement with deathbolt on this, as you could probably tell from what I said in my earlier post. You can block (aka intercept before it hits your body) rails, but I really can't see them doing anything except blow up when they hit your saber. What you describe sounds like it would need to be done in lab with precision tools, not a massive lethal source of energy in less then a second. You can block conc blasts from reaching your body as well, but the lightsaber (the impact zone, cause and center of the splash damage) is very close to your body and you will still get hit by the splash!

edit: Also in agreement with Home Sliced, he posted while I was typing, yada yada yada.

Finally:

Quote:
Originally posted by Wilhuf:
<STRONG>Does Raven really want to produce a Force power that is only of benefit to the lightsaber? It won't be much of a worry since everyone will have access to the lightsaber. But a basic 'fairness' question then is 'will the gun also get any special Force power?'</STRONG>
In a word, yes.
This is why I've been pushing for a more Star Wars-like option in JK2 that lets Jedi (Sabers + Force) play only against Gunners (Guns and No Force) just like we've seen in the movies. Sure, let FF Gunners play against FF Saberists as well. Just give us the option to do either/or. This is also why I mentioned that if Raven did put in a much needed FF Sabers vs NF Guns only mode, that they must make sure the force powers work for well with both against both NF and FF gunners that a Jedi could play against. If we can do it, so can they. Also, balance as far as I've seen is not usually about being equal, or making the same the same kind of thing happen a different way on both sides. Two extremes can exist on opposite ends to give balance. The Yin Yang is a beautiful ancient concept. So sure, Raven can make something gunner only, it can work out. Shouldn't have to be too complex either.

[ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-08-2001, 06:11 PM   #89
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

Now yer gettin' metaphysical on me, K-Ti.

Are you saying that the gun should or should not get some kind of additional force enhancement? Or that it isn't really necessary since the gun's Yang is already more than sufficient to counter the Saber's force enhanced Ying?

It's true that blocking would probably be more fun if it took place automatically. Fewer controls = more fun. The Force simply draws down as blocking takes place.

Of course the savvy gunner could take advantage of this. He attacks a Jedi with a Repeater softening up his force, which is automatically spent on blocking. Now the blocking Jedi has no force juice left for healing or other actions.

If there is going to be some kind of Force cost involved in Force Blocking, it may be preferable to at least allow the gamer to decide when to expend that Force. This of course is done by making force blocking a key toggle. Imagine the same scenario, but without automatic drawdown of Force: instead of automatically running out of force while blocking, the Jedi chooses not to enable force blocking, takes a few hits from the repeater, and uses his force for healing. This gives the gamer the feeling that he/she has a little bit more control over the game.

So, which is better? Automatic drawdown of force for blocking with return to sender? Or should the gamer have more control over blocking, and learn the skill of using force blocking (and of course an additional key command)?

Or how about a compromise? Blocking could be like 'always run' in Jedi Knight. Just hit a 'always force block' checkbox and you will always autoblock at some level of force cost. If you uncheck the 'always force block' option, you will have to hit a key to activate it, and hit it again to switch it off.

Also, if blocking is going to cost force power, it really should be able to block heavy weapons. In the original Jedi Knight, autoblocking didn't cost any force power, but couldn't block heavy weapons.

If we are to actually add in a force cost to saber blocking in Jedi Outcast, it only seems fitting that the saber blocking should at least be made more effective than in the original JK.

BTW extreme levels of energy applied in short periods of time tends to destroy complex and delicate circuitry, such as detonators and fuses. Just because the explosives in a device are exposed to a lightsaber doesn't mean they will necessarily detonate. Likewise, if the ionized casing of a concussion round is ruptured it could completely neutralize the proper process for releasing the explosion

[ August 08, 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 08-08-2001, 06:16 PM   #90
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

What is it with people posting while I'm typing and editing today? Just finished editing my message. Let me get back to you, seeing as they might actually be catching on to the fact that I've spent the last 30 minutes typing which isn't even a major function of my job.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-08-2001, 06:30 PM   #91
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

Oh and to add to the stream of postings, one question we should talk about is, if there will be such a thing as Force Block that allows us to deflect incoming gunfire, how will it work against enemy lightsabers?

[ August 08, 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 08-08-2001, 07:18 PM   #92
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Now yer gettin' metaphysical on me, K-Ti.

Well yes I was, but extremes on both ends do have practical implications outside of philosohpy...

Are you saying that the gun should or should not get some kind of additional force enhancement? Or that it isn't really necessary since the gun's Yang is already more than sufficient to counter the Saber's force enhanced Ying?

Perhaps the wielder of the gun could have an enhancement instead of the gun inself. That might be better because any damage enhancement (you didn't specify what type of enhancement but damage is a possible major way to enhance the gun) could be brought back to hurt him even more. For the wielder, additional armor for example that could protect them from their own blocked fire could be added. Things you see bounty-hunter types and not Jedi wear. I'm sure we could think of others.

However, since our concern is obviously to make the Saber more respected, we could just not add anything to the gun wielder since, as of JK, the gun's Yang is sufficient as it is. In this instance it seems to me too close to call- I would take it to a play test if I were developing the game. Oh well. Any other ideas?

So, which is better? Automatic drawdown of force for blocking with return to sender? Or should the gamer have more control over blocking, and learn the skill of using force blocking (and of course an additional key command)

At this time I would go with the first one, which is automatic, but drains your force. I would appreciate them streamlining this part of the game and letting me worry about something more fun imo, like cool saber moves and combinations. Mmmm. Play testing.

Or how about a compromise? Blocking could be like 'always run' in Jedi Knight. Just hit a 'always force block' checkbox and you will always autoblock at some level of force cost. If you uncheck the 'always force block' option, you will have to hit a key to activate it, and hit it again to switch it off.

At this point I'm thinking we have nearly ground this system down to fine grains of salt. Everyone is putting forth their own individual tiny grains. Looks like we are have gotten through the basic stuff though. If I had to answer I would say that I would hope that there is a menu which contains other force options besides block, or this would be one more thing to worry about. I would personally prefer to have all control over the force apparent in-game, provided things were streamlined enough.

Also, if blocking is going to cost force power, it really should be able to block heavy weapons. In the original Jedi Knight, autoblocking didn't cost any force power, but couldn't block heavy weapons.

Sure, have them block heavy weapons, but remember blocking splash weapons doesn't equal blocking all the damage from them. You would still get hurt. Apparently you still disagree with this concept based on the premise of the argument, or are you merely ignoring it for an attempt at balance? Blocking in the original JK was free, but also usesless at redirecting close to moving targets. With good block return capabilities Force Block would still pay well for itself even it can't stop the damage from splash weapons.

BTW extreme levels of energy applied in short periods of time tends to destroy complex and delicate circuitry, such as detonators and fuses. Just because the explosives in a device are exposed to a lightsaber doesn't mean they will necessarily detonate. Likewise, if the ionized casing of a concussion round is ruptured it could completely neutralize the proper process for releasing the explosion

Nevermind, apparently you still disagree with that concept. I don't know where you are getting this stuff from... Your argument seems based on, in the case of the rail detonator, assuming you know its wiring and circutry. Since this is all based on assumptions, allow me to assume that if there is a live, dangerous explosive substance in that rail, that substance does not care what any such circutry says if it is physically disturbed. The lightsaber will penetrate that rail easily when it is blocked and set off the good stuff that goes boom boom. As for the conc... I don't know real-world studies you've seen that justify what you are saying... links?

[ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-08-2001, 07:40 PM   #93
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

There are no real world concussion rifles, K-Ti. There are no lizard-men bounty hunters who walk around firing off compressed air through Über-hairdryer rifles. It's purely metaphysical.

Yes, I am reasoning that the boom boom stuff remains inert unless detonated. The saber could destroy the detonator mechanism. Boom boom stuff simply falls useless to the ground. That is one justification for blocking heavy weapons.

After all plastique can be transported through all kinds of hazardous environments without actually detonating.

Another justification is that if it will cost you Force to block, it should actually block all incoming fire. Splash is not blocked. And of course there is the simple necessity of improving balance.

I agree, at this point, we're down to details which could only be tested in game. Lets hope Raven will test some of these options to make the saber feared and respected.


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 08-08-2001, 07:47 PM   #94
CaptainRAVE
Jedi Rave
 
CaptainRAVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,272
Post

Reasons why Jedi Outcast Needs to be Made Respectable....

Because i want to play it

Because u all want to play it

I just wish games didnt come out 2 weeks later after they are released in the US.


The force will betray you to me.
CaptainRAVE is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-08-2001, 08:47 PM   #95
DeathBoLT
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 598
Post

The saber may set off rails but whose to say you couldn't put a wall in front of you that would cause the rail to detonate at a safe distance? Force Push, at high enough levels could concievably cause the rail charge to detonate much like it would if it collided with the wall. If I recall correctly, Qui Gon was able to use force push to hurl the Droids into the wall with sufficent power to break them. Why wouldn't such a wall of force be able to set off the triggering mechanisms of a rail charge designed to detonate on impact?


#nar
irc.enterthegame
#nar.. THE channel for Jedi Knight 2 players
DeathBoLT is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-08-2001, 11:12 PM   #96
Tap[RR]
 
Tap[RR]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 190
Post

I just finished watching the jk2 vid on this site (for the 100th time) and i noticed, that when you pull out a gun the force counter dissappears and is replaced by the guns ammo counter! Personally i hope it means what i think it means, maybe raven limited force using only when the saber is in hand, i hope so, cause it would actually take skill to use guns, instead of running around like a freakin moron shooting at walls next to your opponent. **waits for torment to say "that is skill"** And limiting force to Saber equiped players would balance gameplay a bit and encourage strategy and some new tactics. Also for those of you worried about how a saber would cancel out a thrown saber, in the vid at the begining of the duel he throws his saber at the dark jedi and he/she blocks it as if it were a blaster bolt, heh so its all in good.

[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: Tap[RR] ]
Tap[RR] is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-09-2001, 01:50 AM   #97
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Okay, I thought you were trying to apply some kind of real world science to explain the conc, and was curious where I could find out about such things. But nevermind.

Regardless of balance, I still think your rail theory is whack, because even if there are mechanisms to tell it to detonate, the main criteria for that would be impact. Primary mode it 'tells' it "Okay you've hit something now blow up?" Secondary mode yes "Okay you've hit something now latch on and detonate in a few seconds?" Can you at least admit that the rail will ram into the saber? It's not like it can dramatically de-accelerate in less then a second, that's just not possible by our rules or Star Wars rules. Maybe in the Matrix. Rail ---> Saber (Impact). Impact = Boom, either by disturbing its volatile content inside or by something telling it to blow on impact. And if you really want to cut this down into the smallest fractions of a second, then detonators/mechanisms can't know to disable until they've made contact with the saber. If contact with the saber is what initiates the disabling of the denators, impact can only proceed any shutdown of said detonators. And the second it impacts = boom.

I suppose the only question is, which is happens faster after impact, the 'shutdown' effect you say the saber will cause, or the mechanisms telling the rail it needs to blow up now? Now that could go either way.

The trenches have been dug, what can we do... next.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-09-2001, 11:51 AM   #98
Syndrix
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 212
Post

Actually Krayt Tion, the impact-detonate proccess that the rail charge goes through could theoretically never occur. A saber, being composed entirely of energy, may not set it off. For "impact" to occur there needs to be physical resistance, but the saber may slice straight through the rail charge without any resistance. If a saber can slice through pipes and other things, and burn through solid metal doors, who can say that the detonator would even register hitting the saber. Sorry, I dont want to get between you and Wilhuf argueing like a married couple. j/king

Back to the block. I assume it is a force power to direct it back at them, not a skill that just takes some force mana. I think it should be a passive force power, and you can toggle it. That way you just need a hotkey to switch it on or off and if it is on, then it automatically deducts a small amount of force. If it is off then you just block the shot at no cost (assuming this is how Raven are doing it). This way you dont have to worry about extra keys, timing it to perfection, or that "savvy gunner" wearing your mana down,hey Wilhuf.


Genius is limited, unfortunately stupidity is not thus so.
Syndrix is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-09-2001, 01:01 PM   #99
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Anyone that doesn't want to hear more about the rail colliding with the saber can skip this. But since this thread has seemingly run out of steam I see no harm in discussing this further. It's either bickering about nothing this morning or actually using this computer like they want me to (would you hire me?).

To use the word "actually" would imply that you have discovered a theoretical 'truth' contrary to the one laid previously before you... and I simply think that is not the case.

I must now attack the trench dug on a third front. There is going to be resistance between the rail and saber. Contrary to what you've stated I see no way the rail could be split by the saber without some kind of friction and disturbance. The rail won't split by the saber, gliding past it like grease lightning sent from the heavens. My physics is a little rusty but what one thing rubbing by another is frictionless? Friction does not only manifest itself in human-made objects we might commonly associate it with, like our jeans going down a slide. Anything with electrons in it, last time I checked, is good to go... and electrons part are of course part of the "building blocks of life."

The examples you gave, I don't see what they had to do with your point, if anything they hurt it. Qui-Gon pushing his saber hard through the blast doors? Oh, there certainly wasn't any friction there.

Furthermore, all I did last post was explore Wilhuf's theory to showcase doubt in it and was temporarily choosing it over mine to do so. Every bit of what you said can be thrown out if you begin to explore my suggestion that the contents of the rail are volatile and will make a mess if disturbed. This includes collision and penetration.

Anything else to throw in here? Hmm, yes. The best and easiest place to block on the saber might actually we wider then the rail itself. Meaning: it cannot pass through the saber, cannot collect 200 dollars, because it will slam into that wall of energy just like it would anything wider then itself.

PS- married couples rarely arguely logically.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-09-2001, 01:17 PM   #100
Syndrix
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 212
Post

Well fair enough, I could argue with you more but I wont, because I was just joking above and dont really want to precipitate any more of this rail gun debate.

P.S You call that LOGIC! calm down Krayt Tion, I'm just joking.


Genius is limited, unfortunately stupidity is not thus so.
Syndrix is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-09-2001, 01:28 PM   #101
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Bah! I was looking foward to a good debate.

I find it strange that you detected any impatience or animosity in my words, let me assure you there was none, and I am taking this very lightheartedly.

And yes, I call this mostly deductive reasoning more logical then a typical emotionally-charged conversation between a bitter couple.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-09-2001, 01:39 PM   #102
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

But they do argue over such trivia!

So, to go totally off topic:

I am drawing my argument about blocking rails from US Navy history, from the torpedos used on US Navy submarines back in WWII.

At the start of the war, the combat line submarine torpedo had a serious detonator problem (they were fatally defective). Submariners were able to hit enemy targets, but the torpedos would simply bounce harmlessly off the ship hull without detaonating.

The Navy at first denied this was even a problem, going for years without doing anything about it. Submariners had to go out into combat, and for all intents and purposes, fire blanks at enemy vessels.

Finally, following dozens and dozens of complaints by crews and Captains about the failure of torpedos to detonate, the Navy conducted a test : they fired torpedos up against a seacliff wall on the Hawaii coast. All eleven or so torpedos hit the wall, and not a single torpedo detonated. It was only after this test that the Navy actually formally acknowleged there was a problem, and reworked the detonators. From that point on, Navy subs went medeival on the Japanese fleet.

So, capn' K-Ti, what is the point of my salty tale from beneath the waves of history? Well, it's just a simple analogy. If the torpedos could literally be slammed into a seacliff wall without detonating, despite the volatility of their explosives, then, by jimminy, a rail charge could be neutralized by a lightsaber without detonating. Blar!


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 08-09-2001, 01:55 PM   #103
Syndrix
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 212
Post

Geez now I feel like I've let you down K-Ti, hehe . And yes I believe your earlier reasoning to be very sound.


Also Wilhuf, will I was argueing with you before, but think of this. The torpedoes had problems, why, this was due to three distinct problems, depth control, the magnetic influence exploder and the contact exploder. While slicing through a rail charge the saber would inevitably come into contact with the substance that causes the explosive reaction.

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: Syndrix ]


Genius is limited, unfortunately stupidity is not thus so.
Syndrix is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-09-2001, 03:39 PM   #104
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Real rail guns exist in this world that fire not explosive projecticles like in JK2 but simple pieces of metal like tungsten. When this projectile is stopped the momentum, or energy created from its momentum, must be transfered in some way. When this tungsten rail hits a piece of metal or something else extremely solid the result is a fireball explosion. This was confirmed by a chemist who happened to be in the room when this came up, who witnessed such expirements in labs where military testing was taking place on the matter (no joke).

So, the energy transfered from the momentum of the rail when it slams into the saber could easily be enough to explode it even if there weren't even any explosives in the rail, so long as the rail casing is contructed out of a very firm substance.

The only other place this energy could transfer without causing an explosion would be into the Jedi if he absorbs it by getting thrown back. The only way a Jedi could not have that rail blow up on him is the force of it threw him back. Any blocking like we'd see in JK where the Jedi just stand steady and blocks with the saber out like a firm, immobile solid bar and he will be one toasted critter.

Finally, explosives obviously were not always immune to shock and impact. The military currently loves to use explosive materials that are immune to impact and shock triggering but it wasn't always that way. It hasn't been this way for that long either on a scale using the time that humans have had explosives in their possession. Alfred Nobel was able to make a breakthrough that enabled volatile contents that until previously exploded on even the faintest of impact -like contained Liquid Nitrogen- or exploded easily with signifigant force applied -like dynamite- to not explode with any impact at all. Who is to say that Jedi Knight uses a system where only non-volatile explosives have become popular?

PS- Wilhuf, what kind of stuff they argue is part of it...the other being how they argue about it... usually with big chips on their shoulders that they grew from having to put up with each other's finer qualities for so many years.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-09-2001, 03:46 PM   #105
Syndrix
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 212
Post

I believe you mean Nitroglycerine, unless you are trying to freeze someone. Also the reason why volatile explosives where used many years ago was because the chemical procedures used to create them are much simpler than that of stable explosives. Interestingly Nitroglycerine was first designed circa 1846, where as dynamite (which uses Nitro in it creation proccess) was only created years later. While no-one can say that the SW universe doesnt use non-volatile explosives, it is more likely as compairing technologies a blaster is much more complicated than a pistol. Also the reason why volatile explosives are not popular is just that, they are extrememly volatile, and because they are unstable it is more useful to use "solid" explosives such as plastique.

[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: Syndrix ]


Genius is limited, unfortunately stupidity is not thus so.
Syndrix is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-09-2001, 07:19 PM   #106
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

Well, if the Star Wars galaxy is inhabited by people who have mastered faster-than-light interstellar travel, energy-based weaponry, robotics, artificial intelligence, cloning, and anti-gravity, then somewhere along the line they just might have come up with a relatively stable form of explosive.

Speaking of blocking, I was hoping that in Star Wars Galaxies, you could play as a Jedi Knight and earn so much experience that you would have developed extreme lightsaber blocking skill. For instance a level 100 Wookie Jedi could use Force Blocking to deflect a Deathstar ray with his lightsaber!


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 08-09-2001, 07:20 PM   #107
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Whoops yes I did mean nitrocyclerine. Yes, I don't doubt that non-volatile explosives are more advanced then those of the volatile nature. I wouldn't have pointed out earlier that volatile explosives existed first if I did.

I understand what you are trying to say about the technology even if your example doesn't match up correctly. You can bet they had rifles during at least part of the age of strictly volatile explosives along with pistols. Still, I believe you are suggesting that we use come kind of comparative technology scaling to determine whether the more common explosives were non-volatile or volatile in JK. You look at weapon technologies that were around during the use of only non-volatile explosives in the real world, notice weapons that were in JK that are similar to weapons only found after non-volatile explosives were developed, then you have your premise for the existance of non-volatile explosives in the JK universe. Before you read my next statement, can you ask yourself if this is close to what you were thinking, I bet it was.

Basically, I think that when you have to compare technology on such a wide and general basis between our world and the SW world that every conclusion you draw becomes more and more volatile itself. The wider you to have look to explain your point the more broadly-based it becomes, bringing with it things that show more and more how our world's are really disimilar while attempting to prove your point. The more you try to grab at larger generalizations to prove your point the more overall validity will "slip through your fingers" by way of further inconsistancies that arise. Yes I do believe I can apply this to your overlapping technology theory.

This is why I think when comparing a science-fiction world to ours, where no one can truly present any real answers but the creator of the world, theories or points being made based on more or very specific similarities between the worlds have the stronger possible congruence.

This post dealt largely with what I guess you might call deductive theory, because when you end up having arguments based on a science fiction world with haphazard similarities, this helpful in making a best pick, which in this case is the placement of energy point I made earlier.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-09-2001, 07:39 PM   #108
Boba Jim
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 86
Post

Ohhhhhhh Geeez. I can't believe you're again debating the technical and chemical characteristics of stuff in a fantasy, let alone a game at that, but since you're on the subject...

The only protection from a rail gun that wouldn't seem silly would simply be a force push that made the charge stray off course and miss you. Obviously that wouldn't work close up, but for those long range shots (especially with the seeking rails) a force push would keep those shots way out of your face.

Any talk about Jedis and sabers being impervious to exploding weapons is silly. It's hard to fend of an explosion unless you're encased in concrete, whether from a rail charge, mine or grenade. My 2 centavos.



Me on the set.

My lovely voice
Boba Jim is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-09-2001, 07:53 PM   #109
CaptainRAVE
Jedi Rave
 
CaptainRAVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,272
Post

The force doesnt just work like force push, force destruction etc. They could harness the power of the wind and push it away . Or just force jump over it


The force will betray you to me.
CaptainRAVE is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-09-2001, 07:53 PM   #110
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

So, going back into our fantasy Star Wars world, rather than real life examples (which I think were much better than the credit you're giving them):

1. The Force can guide the lightsaber to not only hit a laser blast (which presumably travels at near light speed) but actually direct it back to the person who fired it. No small feat. Therefore

2. It is perfectly reasonable that the same Jedi master could use the Force to guide his saber to precisely hit the detonation circuitry of a projectile (which travels much slower than a laser blast), thereby neutralizing it.

This topic reminds me of a question that was debated long ago: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


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 08-09-2001, 08:19 PM   #111
CaptainRAVE
Jedi Rave
 
CaptainRAVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,272
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Wilhuf:
<STRONG>This topic reminds me of a question that was debated long ago: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?</STRONG>
HOW MANY??

Anyway, why wouldnt a jedi just jump over it. Actually palpatine would transport it into space.


The force will betray you to me.
CaptainRAVE is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-09-2001, 08:25 PM   #112
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

Sure, jump over it or just use 'force detonator manipulate' to disrupt the circuitry inside the munition.

If Yoda can levitate an xwing, and Luke can levitate 3po in front of a bunch of animated teddy bears, and if Darth can use the Force across space to choke an imperial officer stationed on a remote destroyer, then a Jedi Lord should have enough telekenetic mastery to simply sever the circuitry of an incoming projectile.


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 08-09-2001, 08:46 PM   #113
Denise
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington state, USA
Posts: 231
Post

Quote:
"When this projectile is stopped the momentum, or energy created from its momentum, must be transfered in some way. When this tungsten rail hits a piece of metal or something else extremely solid the result is a fireball explosion. This was confirmed by a chemist who happened to be in the room when this came up, who witnessed such expirements in labs where military testing was taking place on the matter (no joke).
So, the energy transfered from the momentum of the rail when it slams into the saber could easily be enough to explode it even if there weren't even any explosives in the rail, so long as the rail casing is contructed out of a very firm substance."
Excepting, of course, that the JK rail detonator is not a railgun by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn't have anywhere near that kind of velocity. It's a rocket (leaves a smoke trail), and darned slow for one of those, too. In MOTS it has guided ammunition and in any version of the game you can fire "sticky" rails.

Anyway, aside from the intense heaT ( ) of a lightsaber not being guaranteed to play nice with an explosive warhead, there is the minor matter of basic physics. The saber's blade is energy, and energy does not play by matter's rules. Intense amounts of energy can have a weak kinetic effect (witness the solar sail concept of propulsion), but in this case it is unlikely to make the lightsaber behave like a baseball bat. Witness how Luke's attempts to deflect Vader's Force-thrown objects with his saber are almost wholly unsuccessful, and he's dealing with denser objects that are more likely to be affected (and moving slower, to boot).

So when you slice through that projectile the pieces will, as they say, "tend to remain in motion". If you're in any postion to put your saber through one it will probably be "tending" directly towards you and you're going to get hit anyway. I wonder what it feels like to get slammed into by a fist-sized glob of semi-molten material? There must not be much consolation in actually stopping the explosion at that point.

And anyway, as was discussed before, a gunner will more than likely be firing for splash and not direct hits in the first place, so even if the rails (read: rockets) are genuinely (but unrealistically) deflectable it won't make that much of a difference.

Personally, I think a Force power is a more plausible defense against such things. Some form of telekinesis could alter the trajectory of the incoming fire; there is precedent for this in the EU on projectiles up to the starfighter missile scale (Luke has been known to, quote, "tap" proton torpedoes to ensure a hit, see the escape from the Chimera in Heir to the Empire). Care would have to be taken to avoid this power becoming too useful, but it's just a rough idea.

[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: Denise ]
Denise is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-10-2001, 01:16 AM   #114
DeathBoLT
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 598
Post

why knock it off course? why not just throw up a wall of force at it(force push) and detonate it on that(assuming its operating on detonate-on-impact and nothing more intelligent than that)


#nar
irc.enterthegame
#nar.. THE channel for Jedi Knight 2 players
DeathBoLT is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-10-2001, 01:27 AM   #115
Kurgan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wink

Speaking of the properties of lightsabers, it seems they do need to be "pushed" through stuff, they don't simply cut through it like nothing. Example: Qui Gon and the blast door in TPM.

So in that sense, there would probably be some sort of impact of the rail charge hitting the stationary blade.

Just a thought...

Oh, and don't forget Force Protection for absorbing explosive damage. ; )

Kurgan

[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-10-2001, 01:32 AM   #116
Tap[RR]
 
Tap[RR]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 190
Unhappy

TAP!!!!!!!!! No one seemed to notice my other post on the near end of page four that sux0rs anyways (what are you waiting for go to page four!!!) the rails were so slow i could dodge them without using force speed, i ran past the rails shot at me, moving side to side and hit the gunner, but the saber was so weak and lag was so great it didnt do much. Heh so if the rail gun shoots at the same speed as in jk it should be NO problem at all.
Tap[RR] is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-10-2001, 03:18 AM   #117
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

lol
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-10-2001, 04:05 AM   #118
Denise
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington state, USA
Posts: 231
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Kurgan:
<STRONG>Speaking of the properties of lightsabers, it seems they do need to be "pushed" through stuff, they don't simply cut through it like nothing. Example: Qui Gon and the blast door in TPM.

So in that sense, there would probably be some sort of impact of the rail charge hitting the stationary blade. </STRONG>
Mm hmm, but we have ample example of sabers cutting effortlessly through objects more to scale with the rail charge here, for example the steering vanes on the one speeder bike on Endor. Had there been any significant kinetic transfer from the speeder bike to the saber, Luke would have been tossed through the forest like a rag doll --not that I recommend going out with a staff and smacking speeding motorcycles to check this principle, as it tends to be hazardous to your health.

Rockets are simply not made with the density or resistance of blast doors (the idea is to let the explosion out, after all). Neither are speeder bikes, hand railings, human wrists, or, apparently, even the bellies of AT-ATs. We see all of these slashed easily by sabers over the course of the trilogy.

And if I wanted to be really contrary I could argue that Qui-Gon is slow about it because he's dealing with the heat of suddenly reducing that much metal to a molten state... but I won't, as I think that the movie evidence is simply contradictory.

-----------------

Edit: Oh, and as for why I didn't suggest a Force Wall of sorts, that could be the ultimate extension of such a skill (four stars, in JK parlance), but Jedi with lesser affinity for telekinetic skill wouldn't necessarily be able to pull it off. The only parallel we have would be something Luke did after assuming the title of Jedi Master.

Bleh, the things one does with one's idle moments. I must go do something more tied to reality..

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: Denise ]
Denise is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-10-2001, 07:52 AM   #119
Sarcastic Saint
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Coruscant
Posts: 75
Post

You know i'll bet that when this game comes out you will hear nobody complain or discuss anything for at least 2 weeks.


"The stupidity is strong in that one"

Sarcastic Saint is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-10-2001, 10:57 AM   #120
Denise
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington state, USA
Posts: 231
Post

No, when a game first comes out the boards all go from sweetness and light to true nastiness. Remarkably predictable cycle, sometimes even if the subject matter is a five-star game.

Anyway.... don't worry, my Sarcastic friend. We're just going over fun little what-ifs. I can't really speak for the others, but I'm just interested in the trading of perspectives on the pseudo-science here.

Or, put bluntly, this is nothing compared to what's in store closer to release, particularly after.
Denise is offline   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 08:08 AM.

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