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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Emon
What some people don't understand is that, although in the movies a Jedi may be unstoppable against any weapon, this is a video game, and it needs balance. Therefor a Jedi should have no overall advantage over a gunner. The funny thing is, even in AOTC we see some jedi getting beaten by blasters. The majority of Jedi were killed in the Geonosis battle against gun toting droids, and we see a Jedi getting shot by Jango.

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

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

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

Originally posted by SeanTB123
As for Jango getting that one Jedi, well that Jedi was going after Dooku, and wasn't even paying attention to Jango.

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

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

Originally posted by JDKnite188
Sabers were very weak. In SP one or two slashes could kill an opponent. In MP it took many, many more. It was a hackfest that usually couldn't be won by the saberist if it was guns vs. sabers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by SeanTB123
For gameplay, yes. But as far as the movie goes, you have to remember they were outnumbered over 10 droids for every 1 Jedi. If you are being shot at from multiple angles, of course you can't block them all. As for Jango getting that one Jedi, well that Jedi was going after Dooku, and wasn't even paying attention to Jango. In JK2 if a saberist has his back to you, you can easily dispatch him with Bryar Pistol or E-11. So the movies don't really support or hurt your argument. Of course. I realize this was the case. All I was commenting on was that "in the movies a Jedi may be unstoppable against any weapon". I just feel that the movies show this is not necessarily the case. :)

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

Originally posted by
Also, Jango shot from a very close range, and very fast, wich made it very difficult for him to deflect those blast shots fast enough.And this proves my point that the statement "in the movies a Jedi may be unstoppable against any weapon" is incorrect.


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

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

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

http://jediknightii.net/_vagabond/images/column_002/BlasTechEE-3.jpg)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

N00bs did that. Real players used Absorb to counter pull. ; )
But seriously, the saber still had uses, just against the Conc it wasn't very effective. Still, why should the lightsaber be all powerful? I don't see why it should...


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


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


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


See above.


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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Great post, rather long read :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

(And Kudos if you read this entire post. :) )

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

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

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

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

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

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

I personally like the contribution of someone who made a post before (and my apologies for not not crediting you, whoever you are). He mentioned how all the guns in counterstrike, I think it was, were all balanced in the sense that no matter what weapon you weilded, your wins would still be based on skill; and that this should be the foundation for JK as well.I doubt any serious CS player would agree that all the weapons in CS require equal skill to wield. All you have to do is mention the acronym "awp" and compare to "scout" to disprove that notion. There are many weapons in CS that are quite simply ineffective, therefore kills made with those weapons would require more skill. Conversely there are weapons which are easier than most to wield effectively, therefore they require proportionately LESS skill to use to kill other players.

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

Originally posted by Spider AL
..."balance," whatever that means to each of us. "Balance" means being able to pick a weapon of choice and owning everyone else with it. If the player is unable to use said weapon to defeat his enemies regularly, then the game is "unbalanced". :D

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

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

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

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

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

The point I am essentially trying to make, is that if you are good enough, you should be able to use any weapon to beat any other person. Why did they Jedi choose the lightsaber as their single weapon when compared to ranged weaponry? Because they could. They were so skilled with a melee weapon, they could take on those who had a default advantage over them.Actually it seems fairly obvious, judging by the primary canon alone, that Jedi chose to use Lightsabres because they were Jedi and could use whatever they liked to kill people with because they have Jedi reflexes and force skills. A Jedi could conceivably use a small pat of butter to great effect against a non-force-adept opponent.

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

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

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

Please don't hurt me...Hurt you? Why would anyone do a thing like that? Kill quickly and cleanly, that's what I say. Minimise the pain. :atat:

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

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

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

Originally posted by munik:

In JO, if you wield a gun you lose maneuverability. I'm pretty sure you can't switch to third person while using a gun, but if you can you still can't roll, wall run, or kick I believe.Precisely. And would you believe that there are people who firmly insist that gunners should have no force powers whatsoever, in addition to all those disadvantages? It's quite sickening.

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

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

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

By your logic, no Jedi or Sith would ever use the lightsaber, when more "effective" weapons were available.This is precisely my logic. And before the prequels (*spit*) were released, there was nothing to suggest that Sith, whose only concern is victory, would not use every powerful weapon at their disposal to eradicate their enemies when necessary. I find it far more believable that a Sith would ignite his lightsabre and then shoot his foe using a concealed energy weapon, than I find the idea of a Sith having a "fair" lightsabre duel with a similarly armed opponent.

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

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

Even the Sith, who weren't understood to be particular fair fighters utilized lightsabers when poweful guns were readily available.Remember, the only weapon-using Sith in the original trilogy was Vader. Vader was never trying to kill Luke when he fought him, so why would he use a gun? As for Obi-Wan's demise, Vader was his old pupil, eager to prove his superiority in the ancient arts.

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

There are a few things I think would "balance" (heh, don't you say 'define balance!') the game.
One, would be varying speed, I'm not saying make a saber user run 50% faster than a gun user. Just a small bonus, 5 or 10 percent would be enough. A gun user with a good gun would have plenty of time to kill him. This would make Jedi focus more on closing the gap and avoiding the enemies bullets. When someone picks up guns, they should run slower. There should be options not to pick up guns etc etc... You get the idea.
Second, in Jedi Outcast multiplayer, I found there was a significant lack of stealth involved. There were not conveniant hiding places, no crannies, not even a nook in most cases. Most of the maps were in the day. Almost every map had one place where everyone would fight.
If you were in a saber only FFA game fighting on FFA_Bespin it would almost always turn DFA into the center courtyard fight.
Now, I hate to take my examples from other movies, but look at Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, there is a whole lot of chasing involved, but when they fight, it is mostly a small secluded fight, with the exception of a few scenes. I recall one where two people are fighting at night, and one goes through a window. The other is standing there waiting for her. She tries to run away, but is forced to draw her sword and fight. They fight etc etc...

Someone earlier stated that a red stance swing would kill an opponent in one shot... Not true, if the opponent had full life. Even if you kept it inside them for the whole time you would only get them to 29-33 HP. To me, this is ridiculous. Red swings are extremely slow, and if you keep the sword in the opponent for the entire swing (which they pretty much have to be standing still to do) it should kill them in one shot. Blue stance however, should take about 5-8 shots. Yellow should be a nice balance. People want long drawn out duels, well they should focus on blocking, not getting the first shot in.
Gunners seem to want saber to not even stand a chance against guns, yet at the same time they say to the saber advocates that they should not want saber to be all powerful a-la the movies.
It should be easier to close the space with saber, but it should still give gunners plenty of time to shoot them. A skilled gunner should kill a skilled jedi at range. A SUPER skilled jedi should be able to push the projectiles back. A SUPER skilled gunner would know exactly when you shoot to catch the jedi off gaurd. A jedi VS gunner at medium range, well, the distance would be closed very fast by the jedi, but it is much harder to push things back at closer range.
At close range? Heck yeah saber should KILL guns, real life isn't a game, star wars isn't real life.

P.S.
Who the hell thought of a LASER-CROSSBOW???
Where is the logic in that?

Originally posted by babywax

One, would be varying speed, I'm not saying make a saber user run 50% faster than a gun user. Just a small bonus, 5 or 10 percent would be enough. A gun user with a good gun would have plenty of time to kill him. This would make Jedi focus more on closing the gap and avoiding the enemies bullets. When someone picks up guns, they should run slower.Nice idea. Maybe instead of altering the speed of one player, you could make those who use guns suffer an accuracy penalty if they are moving. I think that in reality, the difference in weight between a lightsaber and a gun doesn't really matter too much to speed. But it is much harder to shoot accurately if you are moving. So that would help a saber close the gap with a gunner. They could still run away, but they won't be as efficient.
Originally posted by babywax

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

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

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

I don't recall anything in the movies nor anything in the EU fiction regarding the Sith dominating the Jedi completely as you put it. If you can make reference to something in particular, I will relent.
The Jedi were trained to prefer peace, but being able to keep peace essentially means being very skilled warriors. Based on your statement, that would mean, that the US, generally not a war-happy (let's leave the Bush jokes out of this) nation, would have a horrible military, when in fact the US has a relatively powerful and well-trained military. They don't run into battle holding their hands up waving the peace sign.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by SeanTB123
Seeing as how the Starwars community can create ships that go faster that lightspeed, create swords which can cut through any substance, and interconnect hundreds if not thousands of planets and systems, I'd say the guns would be pretty advanced. If our modern day ranged weapons are considered effective, imagine how theirs are, even back in the Golden Age of the Sith. If at that time, sabers were more effective than blasters, even non-jedi would use lightsabers.Their guns are advanced, but how many times do we see a jedi use a saber in a fight? And in how many of these fights do you think a gun would be more advantageous? Lukes use of the saber at the sarlacc pit was necessary, as he had to use r2-d2 to smuggle it. But he probaly would have fared better with a gun. What about the battle of geonosis? Those jedi's sure could have used a gun or two, instead of running into a droid army with swords like a bunch of tards. But we usually see a saber in use during a melee fight, with few opponents. In that case it probaly is a superior weapon. How often do we see the incorrect of choice of a saber over a gun in the movies? Hardly ever, because showing jedi making poor choices and dying isn't what the star wars stuff is about. The exact opposite in fact.

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by SeanTB123
That is not what I was implying at all. Note: :D = joke.


Originally posted by SeanTB123
The point I am essentially trying to make, is that if you are good enough, you should be able to use any weapon to beat any other person. But being "good enough" means that you are better than the other person. And that is the way it is now. Someone with a bryar can take out someone with a rocket launcher. And someone can take out a gunner with a saber. This has to do with the skill of the player, not an inherent equality between the weapons.

Originally posted by SeanTB123
Why did they Jedi choose the lightsaber as their single weapon when compared to ranged weaponry? Because they could. They were so skilled with a melee weapon, they could take on those who had a default advantage over them. And this is where the comparison between gameplay and movie "realism" breaks down. In the movies, the Jedi are more or less uber-beings with talents and abilites far beyond the opponents they face (for the most part). And so, like you say, their skill can make up for inherent liabilities in the lightsaber. In the MP game, however, everyone has these same abilites. This makes the Jedi a "normal" being in the game. Because everyone now has the abilities, they can no longer make up for the lightsaber deficiencies.

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

Originally posted by SeanTB123
The lightsaber isn?t just a sword, and the person wielding one isn?t supposed to be an ordinary being. In JO, if you were exceptionally good with the lightsaber and the Force, you stood a great chance against any weapon a gunner may use. Again, the problem is that in JO a jedi is an ordinary being, by game standards. Everyone has force powers. Including gunners. So the big equalizer from the movies has been removed in the game world.

Originally posted by SeanTB123
The Jedi were trained to prefer peace, but being able to keep peace essentially means being very skilled warriors. Based on your statement, that would mean, that the US, generally not a war-happy (let's leave the Bush jokes out of this) nation, would have a horrible military, when in fact the US has a relatively powerful and well-trained military. They don't run into battle holding their hands up waving the peace sign. An intersting example. And I will refrain from Bush jokes :) But allow me to take this example another way. For the sake of argument, the US tends to use the threat of force much more often than the actual application of that force. But the force is there if it is really necessary. This is quite similar to a Jedi. They have access to awesome abilities that can be brought to bare, but they ususally rely on the threat of those powers to subdue their enemies. If they Jedi really wanted to just mow down their adversaries with ease, they could just as easily choose a big gun and clean house. Similarly, if the US really wanted to destroy the world, they could merely spend all their military dollars on nukes, nukes, and more nukes. Wouldn't that be more effective if your only goal was the destruction of the other guy? But it is not the goal. So there are other issues taken into consideration when choosing a weapon like the lightsaber. In the game, though, destruction of the other guy is the only goal.

Originally posted by munik
Their guns are advanced, but how many times do we see a jedi use a saber in a fight? And in how many of these fights do you think a gun would be more advantageous? Lukes use of the saber at the sarlacc pit was necessary, as he had to use r2-d2 to smuggle it. But he probaly would have fared better with a gun. What about the battle of geonosis? Those jedi's sure could have used a gun or two, instead of running into a droid army with swords like a bunch of tards. Actually, I find that for most of the combat situations that Jedi find themselves in the movies they are better off with a lightsaber. In the case of Luke at the Sarlacc pit, Obi-wan vs. battledroids, the Battle of Geonosis, and so on, they are all many vs. one cases. The Jedi are almost always at a disadvantage numbers wise. Because of this, defense is a primary concern, since it is very difficult to attack (and eliminate) multiple targets simultaneously. The lightsaber is an excellent defensive weapon against the guns we see in the Star Wars movies. A gun is quite useless against multiple enemies since you can only take out one at a time, which leaves you wide open.

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

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

Originally posted by babywax:

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

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

I don't recall anything in the movies nor anything in the EU fiction regarding the Sith dominating the Jedi completely as you put it. If you can make reference to something in particular, I will relent.Firstly, what nonsense. I never said anything about Sith "completely dominating" anyone.

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

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

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

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

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

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

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

In that thousand years, you would think that the Sith would eventually come to the conclusion that, "Hey, if we start becoming skilled with the gun, we can totally obliterate them". - This obviously never happened. They maintained the usage of the Lightsaber in spite of the fact that they had plenty of time of preperation.Ha! No, they decided to use a MUCH more powerful weapon than a gun! Subterfuge and political intrigue. Palpatine brought the Sith back to dominance through his mind, and through the use of others as his weapons, both Jedi and Sith were his tools. The prequels are rubbish, by the way. I thought I'd just add that. ;)

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

A for the comment about the prequals being barely canon. I sincerely hope you were being sarcastic, or joking. The fact that they are made and directed by George Lucas as a reversed continuation of the first 3 movies makes them absolutely canon. The movies are the ONLY THING in the StarWars universe than is canon.Wahaha. Lucas is an overweight old washout, and the best film of the Original Trilogy (which is the ONLY primary canon), was neither screenwritten nor directed by George Lucas. That should tell you something at least. And if Lucas ever did have any talent that didn't come from plagiarising Japanese movies, he lost it well before making the prequels, which are AWFUL movies, and awfully directed. That makes them no better than EU.

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

While I find eliminating Force powers when using guns as extreme, I do believe Force powers should be reduced while using a gun. This is based on the fact that Force powers will be reduced when using a lightstaff or a twin sabers. If those reduce force powers because they require 2 hands, it should hold true for guns that require 2 hands.Firstly, the idea that holding an object in one's hand would prevent one from using the purely mentally activated power of the Force, is laughable from a canonical standpoint. Secondly, that doesn't matter. The point is that Gunners should not be penalised. The JK series has had a long and illustrious history of fine gunning matches, with people of such marksmanship that they could rival the best Quake players. Gun and Force battles must be preserved. Anything else is an insult to those fans who have followed the entire DF series. And acrobatics should be added too.

Originally posted by SeanTB123:

I'm sorry, I just refuse to believe that these elite, intelligent warriors would refuse to use a blaster out of blatent stupidity.My friend, honour and tradition are often forms of stupidity. I'm guilty of the former myself, and am quite aware of its limitations...

Originally posted by babywax:

Why would you race into an army with a gun, when you can have something that enables you to block all of their bullets, not only shielding you, but reflecting their bullets back into them?Because you can only block so many people's bullets at once, which was why the Jedi were losing the big fight at the end of EpII.

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

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


Originally posted by Spider AL
If we take the prequels as an example, since they are EU at best... I disagree with you on this, Al, but I understand why you dislike the movies. :)

I disagree with you on this, Al, but I understand why you dislike the movies. Weeeell, call me a purist. I find the prequels as offensive to mine senses as a bad EU novel, so I consider them the same. :D

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

Originally posted by Spider AL
As for DF - JO, I think they represent some of the best of the EU, though they're as far from canon as it's possible to get before you bump into the "Star Wars Christmas Special". It's too bad really. I agree that the Dark Forces series has brought us some of the better EU stories. I always felt that they captured the feel of the original trilogy quite well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To me, the notion of balance is that you have advantages and corresponding disadvantages to a particular weapon, and that not all weapons are useful for ALL situations (though some may be more useful than others). I don't think balance need mean that all weapons are equal in damage, equal in usefulness, equal in abilities, etc. Absolutely, and this is the best, most workable definition of "balance" out there. In my opinion though, your criteria already apply to most, if not all, games that have ever been released. I can't think of a weapon that doesn't have disadvantages to its use. Nor can I think of a game that contained one all-powerful weapon.

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

Good post, btw.

Originally posted by Solo4114
Too many people like FFA to remove it, and a game like this without it as another of many game modes would suffer greatly in the market. I'm encouraged right now to hear that class-based gaming will finally come to the Star Wars universe, but I'm also hoping that it does not become the ONLY option available to people. We should still have duels, FFA, NF-FFA, Sabre-only FFA, CTF, class-based CTF, class-based team FFA, etc., etc. as options... I hope that there won't be a vast number of modes, as I fear that it will splinter the community into too many groups. This is sort of what we have already seen with all the JO mods floating around out there. If I want to play one specific gametype, I may have problems finding a server that has that gametype if there are too many options.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by ryudom
i skipped a bunch so its quite possible someone said this, but...

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

I did :D

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

But hey, great point! :)

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

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

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

Originally posted by toms:

Personally i find it quite suprising that obiwan didn't borrow one of those and then fight with a lightsword & lightshield setup.I'm not sure they were "lightshields" per-se. I think they were more like those in Dune, fast-molecular/energy-transfer inhibitor shields. The battle droids walked slowly through the larger version, after all. I wonder if they'd block Lightsabres... Probably would. Good idea that, toms. It could be a fourth sabre style that could be modded later.

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



A BLOCK BUTTON!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!!!! :freakout:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it just me or is the only really unique thing about star wars the swords???
It's the only reason I play JA.
Lateral motion does nothing against someone who is minimally skilled with a gun. Someone whom is minimally skilled with a gun has to be jumped at. Someone who is medium in skill will shoot you when you land, so you use lateral motion on them. Someone who is real good with guns is unbeatable. They use absorb, push, pull and overpowered guns. Do you want to know why flechette is considered overpowered by most people? Because it is. If you run at someone with a flechette who is skilled, he will double ball you, while you fly back he will calculate where you will land and double ball you again.
I don't complain when I'm killed, almost ever. The only real thing that pisses me off is dying to one of those "empowered" people, who kill in one blue shot with a double saber and have unlimited force power, but that's modded.