OK WHO THINKS THAT IN THE NEW GAME LIGHT SIDE NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED??
Originally posted by Rockstar
OK WHO THINKS THAT IN THE NEW GAME LIGHT SIDE NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED??
Please don't post in CAPS. It's considered to be SHOUTING. You can use bold or italics just as well for emphasis. Thanks. :cool:
As for the Force powers...I think both Light side and Dark side powers need to be properly balanced with each other. For every light side power there should be a Dark side counter, and vice versa. That's mostly how it is with JO, at the moment, but I would say some powers need to be tweaked a bit more. I wouldn't want to see one set of powers improved at the expense of those playing with another set of force powers, because that wouldn't be fair. My own view is that Force Drain is a little too powerful at the moment - in terms of how fast it can be used to drain a Light-siders Force pool, especially considering you need to have half your Force power to even engage Absorb. I'm sure some people will disagree with that view.
Basically...players will very rarely find common ground in these kind of matters, as the long drawn-out discussions over 'balance' in JO have already proven. I would say that I think the devs need to play-test JA to destruction when it comes to balancing issues.
sorry about the shouting lol
but ALL of the light side powers are COUNTERS!!!! what the hell is the point of being a char that can only make a power useful when the enemy hurts you?? atleast when your dark you can randomly shoot crap and have some whacky chance of hurting the enemy.
i think that the light jedi should have an ability that once they absorb enough dark energy that they should be able to execute a short ranged attack that attacks the enemy. i think that would be veeery cool, and would give some offense to the light side. but its not evil offense... its DEFENSIVE offense ;) just like it should be..... lucas arts should seriously consider that
i also think that the sabre should beable to block force lightning :D
THAT would be ultra cool ;) not unfair either. coz you could still ground and back attack foes with it
anyways..
[U][B] could people plz post their ideas here of what they think would be cool powers or features of powers that would make a cool adition to JKA
The reason why the Light side is full of defensive powers is because you are using the Force for good and not evil. If you had too many aggressive type powers, then really speaking you should not be Light side, in my view. Force Push at least can be used as a short range attack, especially when pushing someone to their doom off a catwalk. Personally, I wouldn't want to see too many aggressive Force powers on the Light side.
As for posting about new Force powers, etc., there is already a thread discussing that. Please keep this one on topic. :)
Originally posted by Rockstar
but ALL of the light side powers are COUNTERS!!!! what the hell is the point of being a char that can only make a power useful when the enemy hurts you?? "The Force is used for knowledge and defense, never to attack." Of course the lightside powers are all counters. That is what they are supposed to be: defense!
Originally posted by Rockstar
atleast when your dark you can randomly shoot crap and have some whacky chance of hurting the enemy. If this is what you like, then play with Dark Side powers. But don't try to apply this strategy to light sided powers, because that is not what they are for.
Originally posted by Rockstar
i think that the light jedi should have an ability that once they absorb enough dark energy that they should be able to execute a short ranged attack that attacks the enemy. i think that would be veeery cool... It may be "kewl", but attacks of any sort are not what the light side is about. Again, "The Force is used for knowledge and defense, never to attack."
Originally posted by Rockstar
and would give some offense to the light side. but its not evil offense... its DEFENSIVE offense ;) just like it should be..... Not like it should be. :) The light side jedi does not need or want offensive powers. Offense with the Force is, by definition, evil.
Originally posted by Rockstar
lucas arts should seriously consider that I don't think they should, and I doubt they will :)
Well, in JK, a light side guy could unleash a very bright light to blind people by using force blinding.
Originally posted by jesseg88
Well, in JK, a light side guy could unleash a very bright light to blind people by using force blinding.
So could the Dark siders, in SP at least. Remember Yun used Force Blind on Kyle.
Anyway, Force Blind did nothing but blind your opponent...it didn't strip them of health. So in a way, it was a defensive, semi-offensive power.
Keep in mind that Kyle is not totally a light sider. He has used both light and dark powers in the past. So I don't think he can be used as an example of a what powers a light side Jedi would use :)
Originally posted by Prime:
Keep in mind that Kyle is not totally a light sider. He has used both light and dark powers in the past. So I don't think he can be used as an example of a what powers a light side Jedi would use
Nor can Luke, by the same rationale. Because in movie canon, it's not what powers you use that makes you light or dark, it's how you use them. Think MotS. That system was the most accurate in terms of canon... it was quite good fun, too. When I think of gameplay though, I don't mind too much. There's always one or two powers that end up being the most effective, so it doesn't matter which side contains them, or if there are sides at all.
ok ok about my idea how i think a light jedi should beable to place points a new move and when absorb is equiped you could "store up" dark energy and use it against the enemy. i know what the light side of the force is about, and i know that yoda said that the force should only ever be used in defense. but if one could absorb dark energy IN defense and send it back in the form on an enhansed force push (powerful enough to hurt the enemy on impact and ground them) then that would be cool and still light side ethicle
you say you want realism but in the movies do you see people using force lightning every 3 seconds in a battle, force powers are used very rarely, yet in mp mode there may be a micro stint where people are not using them? im not complaining. im just saying that if the force wasn't used so much it wouldn't be a problem, but it IS and the light powers.... well SUCK!! i knwo you can still win with them .. but ....... yeah.... u get the drift
im just saying that if the force wasn't used so much it wouldn't be a problem, but it IS and the light powers.... well SUCK!! i knwo you can still win with them .. but ....... yeah.... u get the driftI get the drift, for one. Sorry, but the Light powers have been the same since JK1, and I really like them. I hope they don't change them much at all. :)
Originally posted by Spider AL
I get the drift, for one. Sorry, but the Light powers have been the same since JK1, and I really like them. I hope they don't change them much at all. :) I agree. I also would prefer that they went back to handling the Force in a more MOTS style, because it is closer to the movies. Oops, I might be exposing myself as a fanboy :)
I like the Light Side powers, because I don't think they "suck" and because I think they are more effective than Dark Side powers (for me). I can counter just about anything a Dark Sider can throw at me, and since another Light Sider isn't going to throw anything at me, I'm well protected. The crappy thing about Dark Side powers is that you can be vulnerable to other Dark Siders, since you have little direct protection (although there are things you can do, obviously). It is just my preference to use the Light Side, because I find I last longer with them. In any case, Raven has made it so in reality you can counter anything anyone throws at you, regardless of what side of the Force you use.
Rockstar, why do you really want to change the Light Side powers? If you hate Light Side powers so much, and love offensive stuff, why not just use Dark Side powers? Then you can play the way you want. JO is great that way :)
I don't see much wrong with the powers, sure a little tweaking here and there but no major over haul is needed.
People tend to forget that what sucks in one game type, owns in others.
Light is great for gunning and CTF but useless in 1v1 full force dueling.
Drain is king in 1v1 FF dueling but a waste of time in CTF/guns.
Making everything “perfectly balanced” so everything is of equal use in every situation kind of defeats the purpose of even having different powers to begin with.
Originally posted by shock ~ unnamed
I don't see much wrong with the powers, sure a little tweaking here and there but no major over haul is needed. I'm also pretty happy the way they are. I say leave them be.
Originally posted by shock ~ unnamed
Making everything ?perfectly balanced? so everything is of equal use in every situation kind of defeats the purpose of even having different powers to begin with. They only way to make the Force "perfectly balanced" in every situation is to turn it off. :)
They only way to make the Force "perfectly balanced" in every situation is to turn it off. Gameplay balance is a contradiction in terms. Fun gameplay is made up of many levels of imbalance.
Not if you look at the entire picture, you're just looking at small isolated parts. Look at the whole thing and then you can tell if it is balanced.
Balance can be acheived without making each side exactly the same. Balance, by definition, is two forces working oppositely, neither one being stronger (don't quote me on that). If Dark and Light have different, but equal powers, there is no problem. Some of the forces work better for certain situations, so the trick is to shift the gameplay to fit your choice. For example, if you keep losing in a duel to a guy using drain, mind trick him and give him a DFA from behind, even if he uses seeing, he is still at a disadvantage, because his force is being channeled to seeing instead of drain. As long as all the force powers have an equal amount of value (damage, force drain, protection, etc.) and the player's character has equal (or selectable) values (health, armor, force power, etc.), the game is balanced, without having every force power be an exact replica of the other one.
In saber only duels, some situations call for red stance, others for blue. Good players can use any one effectivly, while bad players use one move over and over, then call it's counter-move cheap. If a guy lunges, I hit him on the butt with a yellow, if he DFAs, I lunge. In this way, the stances are balanced, but each one is better for a certain situation.
So there.
Only if the dark side is improved as well.
Originally posted by babywax:
you look at the entire picture, you're just looking at small isolated parts. Look at the whole thing and then you can tell if it is balanced.No offence, but this seems to be nonsense to me. Please elaborate, babywax.
Anyway, balance is a myth. In every multiplayer game ever made, there are less powerful weapons, and more powerful weapons. Less powerful abilities, and more powerful abilities. There are some weapons that never get used, and some weapons that always get used. That's not balanced, but it's not undesirable. Weapons of different power levels promote flow to a multiplayer match, area control for instance.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
If Dark and Light have different, but equal powers, there is no problem.Sure, that works in theory... try making it a reality though. ;) Much too difficult to be done intentionally.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
In saber only duels, some situations call for red stance, others for blue. Good players can use any one effectivly, while bad players use one move over and over, then call it's counter-move cheap. If a guy lunges, I hit him on the butt with a yellow, if he DFAs, I lunge. In this way, the stances are balanced, but each one is better for a certain situation.Not true. If they were all equally useful in an equal number of situations, they'd be balanced. They're patently not. One stance is most useful, the other stances are less useful. They require special circumstances to be useful. The same goes for guns, and force powers.
Look at CS. At first, you buy the MP5, because it's cheap and does more damage than the pistol, which is free. Later you buy the M16, because it's "the best". Hardly anyone buys shotguns, but the guy who is "good" with shotguns, can own everybody else. That game IS balanced very well, it just depends on the types of players.
As long as no particular gun is statistically better than another one, the game will be balanced. Just because players favor a certain weapon, doesn't mean that the others are not as good. The play style is a big factor on the methods you use. Campers use sniper rifles and gunners use repeaters.
And yes, certain techniques do require special circumstances, Al. That's the whole point of having more than one weapon; the good players know when to use a certain gun, and their prey do not.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
Look at CS. At first, you buy the MP5, because it's cheap and does more damage than the pistol, which is free. Later you buy the M16, because it's "the best". Hardly anyone buys shotguns, but the guy who is "good" with shotguns, can own everybody else. That game IS balanced very well, it just depends on the types of players.There's a fundamental flaw in your reasoning, Solbe, you assert that shotguns match rifles in balance because a person of exceptional skill can use that shotgun to win. Well of course they will! Because people of exceptional skill do exceptional things; things that other people can't do. They win using bad weapons DESPITE the drawbacks inherent in the use of those weapons, not because those weapons match all the others for usefulness.
CS is NOT balanced, and I will explain why: Two players of equal skill fight. One has a shotgun, the other a colt. Or an AK. Or a scout. The man who is not using the shotgun is guaranteed to win at almost any range. Furthermore have you ever seen a serious match demo, a tournament demo, in which the dual berrettas were used regularly to great success? What about the TMP? or the UMP? How about the Sig 550? Those weapons are rubbish. People use them to kill other people once in a blue moon, such kills are so exceptional that it's a badge of honour to have accomplished them! Call that balance?
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
And yes, certain techniques do require special circumstances, Al. That's the whole point of having more than one weapon; the good players know when to use a certain gun, and their prey do not.That is the point, my friend. If you use a flechette in 9 out of 10 situations and the disruptor in the tenth, because it's the only weapon to use, that means the two are NOT equally useful, and therefore are not balanced. IF the game was TRULY balanced, with EVERY weapon doing equal damage for equal ammo costs with exactly equal trajectories of fire, there would BE no game. It's that simple, balance is a myth.
You stated above that your definition of balance was two equal forces working against each other. Can you truly sit there and say to me that two CS players of equal skill, one with a SIG-550, or a scout, the other with an awp, would be evenly matched? Of course the weapons in CS aren't "balanced".
How about gameplay. Perhaps CS is popular because it's GAMEPLAY is so balanced. Let's examine it:
One team wins the first round by the BAREST of margins, their last surviving member kills the last surviving member of the opposing team with a lucky shot. He has one point of health left. The next round, his team starts with enough money to buy a fully automatic rifle each. Is that balanced gameplay? In tournament games, people strive beyond all reason to win the pistol round, because that one round can define the course of the rest of the game. Is that balance? Of course it isn't, it's just the way the game is, and it's a richer game for the imbalances.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
As long as no particular gun is statistically better than another one, the game will be balanced.So what you're saying here is, no multiplayer game ever made has ever been balanced? That's what you're saying, frankly. Quake: Rocket Launcher. Quake 3: Railgun. UT: Shock combo. UT2k3: Biogun, shield gun combo. CS: Awp. JK: Conky. JO: Golan/Heavy Rep.
There is always one gun that is MOST useful for the MOST people in the MOST situations. And that's what provides flow to the game. Ammo hunts and timing. Area control. Shield timing.
People throw the word "balance" around as if it's the panacea for all gaming woes. The truth is, not only is it a figment, a myth, but it also means different things to different people. You obviously have your own... unique definition of "balance", and other people have theirs. Few versions match, so all should be discarded with the realisation that "balance" has become an insubstantial buzz-word used to rationalise a gut-feeling about whether one enjoys a game or not. You can't quantify "fun", and it's futile to try.
You're not listening.
If a guy is good with a shotgun and his opponent is good with a rifle, either one can win, there is no need for one of them to be a "better" player overall. And if there was a god-like player who found that dual berettas fit his play style, he very well could win tourneys with them; they are not worse, they are just specialized to certain situations. In DOD for example, a grenadier can make just as many kills with his rifle as with the bayonet, it just depends on which he like to use.
If every gun did the same damage (which you keep bringing up for some reason) the game would be less balanced because certain play types would be excluded. If the only gun was an Uzi, then people who prefer to snipe would be left out, and so on. If all of the guns have different but equal parameters, no such problem arises. If the sniper rifle has range and damage, it also has long reloads and cost lots of ammo. If the MG can spit out thousands of rounds a minute, it has shorter range and ammo problems, etc.
Your idea that a lucky kill at the end of CS match disrupts balance is just wrong. I've been on the team that loses the opening "pistols round" and still come out on top in the end. If one team has all AKs and the other has all pistols, the pistols hide behind boxes and pick up the AKs. Now the momentum has shifted greatly...
Scout vs. AWP? The better sniper would win. Either one would need a headshot right off, because if they didn't get one, the other guy could win in one shot as they reloaded.
I played Quake 2 about a month ago online (against people who have played only Quake 2 since its release. Many of them used Railguns and Rockets, but others used Uzis and still could win. When the rocketeer fires, the uzi moves, and while the rocketeer reloads, the Uzi gets 5 headsots in a row. Balance.
There should be one gun that works best in most situations, but it can't work in all situations. If say, the "best" gun is the MG, a sniper can still own the map, a knifer can still own the map. I play DOD and usually use the "newb cannon" people say it's cheap. Look at the actual stats and it's just a good all around gun that works well in most situations. that doesn't mean I have a better chance of winning than the sniper in the window...
Sure we all have different definitions of balance, but as long as the game is technically and statistically balanced, it's all BS.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
You're not listening.You're right. I'm reading. ;)
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
If a guy is good with a shotgun and his opponent is good with a rifle, either one can win, there is no need for one of them to be a "better" player overall.Oh don't be silly, of course the shotgunner would have to be better to make more kills. The rifleman can kill at any range, the shotgunner only at close range. It's the same as a knife vs. a glock. Sure, the knife man may win, POSSIBLY, but only if he closes the distance. That means he has more work to do, thus he's at a disadvantage, thus the knife is inferior to the glock. Thus the sabre is inferior to guns. Thus the impact-hammer is inferior to the guns in UT. Thus no game is balanced, and thank goodness for that.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
And if there was a god-like player who found that dual berettas fit his play style, he very well could win tourneys with them; they are not worse, they are just specialized to certain situations.He'd have to be pretty godlike to consistently prevail with dual berettas, and his play-style would have to be particularly strange. They ARE worse than say... a USP or a deagle. Less reliable, wider spread, inaccurate and HUGE reload time. They're rubbish! You'd have to be an enormous muppet to use the berettas! And you think they're balanced when compared to other guns?
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
If every gun did the same damage (which you keep bringing up for some reason) the game would be less balanced because certain play types would be excluded. If the only gun was an Uzi, then people who prefer to snipe would be left out, and so on.Nonsense, the game would be PERFECTLY balanced, it just wouldn't be any fun. You yourself defined balance as equal forces opposing each other. The only way to obtain that, is to have one weapon for everyone. Thus, "balance" is undesirable and unattainable.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
If all of the guns have different but equal parameters, no such problem arises. If the sniper rifle has range and damage, it also has long reloads and cost lots of ammo. If the MG can spit out thousands of rounds a minute, it has shorter range and ammo problems, etc.Oh, it's the "inherent disadvantages" argument. Won't wash I'm afraid. Players learn to compensate for any disadvantages that accompany a powerful weapon. You might say that since the AWP has such a low rate of fire, it should be no more or less effective than the... say, the SIG commando. Wrong. People compensate through different patterns of movement, and use of cover.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
Your idea that a lucky kill at the end of CS match disrupts balance is just wrong. I've been on the team that loses the opening "pistols round" and still come out on top in the end.Lol, of course it's possible to come out on top. But is the playing field BALANCED? No. Are you at a disadvantage? Yes. Either skill or luck causes one to win when one is at a disadvantage like that, that doesn't mean for one MOMENT that the two equally skilled teams- one team armed with pistols and one team armed with fully automatic rifles- have an equal chance of winning. Of COURSE the team with rifles will win more often. One would have to be deranged to bet otherwise.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
Scout vs. AWP? The better sniper would win. Either one would need a headshot right off, because if they didn't get one, the other guy could win in one shot as they reloaded.No offence, but that's just laughable. First, you still can't get by without putting the word "better" in your description of one of the hypothetical players. The whole point of that analogy was that the two players are of EXACTLY EQUAL SKILL. And I made that clear.
Secondly, the Awp not only has higher penetration than the scout (so cover is less useful), but one torso shot will dispatch the opponent in question. The scout takes two torso shots. So the Awper can afford to be MUCH less accurate, and even if the scouter hits him square in the chest, he could afford to miss once. THAT's an advantage. THAT's what tips the balance in close games. THAT's why CS is totally imbalanced in almost every respect, and that's why it's such a good game.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
There should be one gun that works best in most situations, but it can't work in all situations. There is NO gun that works better than ALL other guns, in ALL situations. You're just describing every gun in every multiplayer game ever.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
Sure we all have different definitions of balance, but as long as the game is technically and statistically balanced, it's all BS.You want statistics? Check This (
http://www.cs-sxe.com.ar/estadisticas1/server.html) out. And This (
http://www.nomanzlan.com/stats/server.html). Now tell me all those weapons are equally useful.
Frankly as far as I can tell, your definition of "balance" is sometimes so flimsy that it could apply to any contemporary multiplayer game, and sometimes so unattainable that nobody will ever make a game that satisfies its requirements. Changeable. That's a microcosm of the whole gamut of definitions that everyone flings around. Nobody has a definitive idea of what "gameplay balance" means, and oftentimes they don't even know what their OWN idea of "balance" is.
Originally posted by Spider AL
You're right. I'm reading. ;)
Oh don't be silly, of course the shotgunner would have to be better to make more kills. The rifleman can kill at any range, the shotgunner only at close range. It's the same as a knife vs. a glock. Sure, the knife man may win, POSSIBLY, but only if he closes the distance. That means he has more work to do, thus he's at a disadvantage, thus the knife is inferior to the glock. Thus the sabre is inferior to guns. Thus the impact-hammer is inferior to the guns in UT. Thus no game is balanced, and thank goodness for that.
He'd have to be pretty godlike to consistently prevail with dual berettas, and his play-style would have to be particularly strange. They ARE worse than say... a USP or a deagle. Less reliable, wider spread, inaccurate and HUGE reload time. They're rubbish! You'd have to be an enormous muppet to use the berettas! And you think they're balanced when compared to other guns?
Nonsense, the game would be PERFECTLY balanced, it just wouldn't be any fun. You yourself defined balance as equal forces opposing each other. The only way to obtain that, is to have one weapon for everyone. Thus, "balance" is undesirable and unattainable.
Oh, it's the "inherent disadvantages" argument. Won't wash I'm afraid. Players learn to compensate for any disadvantages that accompany a powerful weapon. You might say that since the AWP has such a low rate of fire, it should be no more or less effective than the... say, the SIG commando. Wrong. People compensate through different patterns of movement, and use of cover.
Lol, of course it's possible to come out on top. But is the playing field BALANCED? No. Are you at a disadvantage? Yes. Either skill or luck causes one to win when one is at a disadvantage like that, that doesn't mean for one MOMENT that the two equally skilled teams- one team armed with pistols and one team armed with fully automatic rifles- have an equal chance of winning. Of COURSE the team with rifles will win more often. One would have to be deranged to bet otherwise.
No offence, but that's just laughable. First, you still can't get by without putting the word "better" in your description of one of the hypothetical players. The whole point of that analogy was that the two players are of EXACTLY EQUAL SKILL. And I made that clear.
Secondly, the Awp not only has higher penetration than the scout (so cover is less useful), but one torso shot will dispatch the opponent in question. The scout takes two torso shots. So the Awper can afford to be MUCH less accurate, and even if the scouter hits him square in the chest, he could afford to miss once. THAT's an advantage. THAT's what tips the balance in close games. THAT's why CS is totally imbalanced in almost every respect, and that's why it's such a good game.
There is NO gun that works better than ALL other guns, in ALL situations. You're just describing every gun in every multiplayer game ever.
You want statistics? Check This (
http://www.cs-sxe.com.ar/estadisticas1/server.html) out. And This (
http://www.nomanzlan.com/stats/server.html). Now tell me all those weapons are equally useful.
Frankly as far as I can tell, your definition of "balance" is sometimes so flimsy that it could apply to any contemporary multiplayer game, and sometimes so unattainable that nobody will ever make a game that satisfies its requirements. Changeable. That's a microcosm of the whole gamut of definitions that everyone flings around. Nobody has a definitive idea of what "gameplay balance" means, and oftentimes they don't even know what their OWN idea of "balance" is.
My aren't you passionate and consice?
Knife vs. Glock- Knifer hides behind box and takes out glock from behind. Glock would have to watch his back the whole time because the knifer would be more cautious. You can win with anything. The glocker would have to worry about reloading and wouldn't kill as quickly at close range, so the odds are pretty much even, anyway, if both players are of equal skill with their respective weapons.
AWP's damage has been reduced recently, so I'm still right. :D
If an AWPer engaged a Commando in an open area with no cover (in a big cube map) the odds would be exactly equal. The maps are made so that certain places favor certain players. Snipers have camping spots, gunners have wide open areas.
Okay, if the players were of exactly equal skill and luck was not a factor, both the AWP and the Scout would die at the same time, because they would both fire simultaneously and get head shots.
You gave me a bunch of stats for some server. that just shows who uses which guns the most, not the actual parameters for the guns. Plus, those stats most likely include all of the shots fired at teammates during the buying round by idiots, so the results are both inaccurate and useless.
Finally, what tips the balance in close games is skill. No two players are exactly the same.
whoa..... lots of reading... my eyes hurt :D anyways....
Originally posted by shock ~ unnamed
I don't see much wrong with the powers, sure a little tweaking here and there but no major over haul is needed.
People tend to forget that what sucks in one game type, owns in others.
Light is great for gunning and CTF but useless in 1v1 full force dueling.
Drain is king in 1v1 FF dueling but a waste of time in CTF/guns.
Making everything “perfectly balanced” so everything is of equal use in every situation kind of defeats the purpose of even having different powers to begin with.
Drain can be useful in CTF. I dunno about guns... well maybe. :)
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
Knife vs. Glock- Knifer hides behind box and takes out glock from behind. Glock would have to watch his back the whole time because the knifer would be more cautious.You still can't seem to construct an argument without altering the analogy. They're both equal in skill. They both know the map equally well. Neither is better.
I feel I have to repeat that, just to make sure it's clear: They're both possess equal skill at all weapons, and equal skill at the map. So the glocker wins, because he can kill at any range. It's obvious. It's clear. There is no room for debate.
The question is not "is it possible to win using a knife". Of COURSE it's possible, for a player of greater skill, or extreme luck. It's not possible under statistically normal circumstances. THAT's why the knife is inferior to the glock, and that's why the weapons are not balanced.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
so the odds are pretty much even, anyway, if both players are of equal skill with their respective weapons.You're still going wrong: They're equal in skill with ALL weapons. They both know how to use the knife equally well. They both know how to use the glock equally well. The AWP equally well. So the glocker will win, because the knife is inferior.
It could be tested. Set up two bots of equal skill. Give one bot a melee weapon, and the other, a gun. (a gun that isn't blocked by the melee weapon.) It's simple. It's obvious. It's incontrivertable. Ranged defeats melee, power defeats weakness.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
AWP's damage has been reduced recently, so I'm still right. :DPresumably you're referring to 1.6. Not only do you have to resort to references to an unfinished, beta test version to support your non-starter argument, but you're bringing the debate down to an infantile level. I'm right. No, I'm right. No, I'm right. :p
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
Finally, what tips the balance in close games is skill. No two players are exactly the same.Bots all have the same skill. Try it out. ;) Your argument is fatally flawed, because you ignore the inherent value (or lack of value) of weapons. You can't even apply your OWN criteria to balance a game, because you have no solid base on which to measure the values of weapons. Of course there are players so close in skill that only the acquisition of a powerful gun will tip the match one way or another. Of COURSE there are players so close in skill that a moment's lag can cost either one the match.
Let me draw it out another way: In the same situation, are all guns equally useful? Of course not, that's obvious. So whichever gun is most useful in the most different situations is the most USEFUL. In JO it was the Flechette/Heavy Rep. In Quake, the RL. In CS, it's arguably the AK/Colt/AWP. That is inherent imbalance. It's unavoidable when making a game, and any concept of balance is mythic at best.
By your rationale, ALL games are totally balanced. Well obviously that's meaningless, because anyone can make up a hypothetical situation in which even the most feeble and useless of weapons could be employed to aid victory. Just as senseless as the idea of "balance" itself, in fact.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
If an AWPer engaged a Commando in an open area with no cover (in a big cube map) the odds would be exactly equal.Ohhh so you can hit someone once in the torso with a SIG commando and kill them? Of course you can't! Of course the AWP has an advantage. Of course they're not equally powerful. Of course they're not balanced.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
Okay, if the players were of exactly equal skill and luck was not a factor, both the AWP and the Scout would die at the same time, because they would both fire simultaneously and get head shots.Bahaha! Wrong. And who said anything about luck? Just because they're EQUALLY skilled, doesn't mean their skill level is superhumanly high. They might both hit each other in the torso. In which case, the AWP would win. Thus, the AWPer has the advantage. Thus, at the end of the match, the AWP player would have more kills. Thus, the two weapons are not equally powerful, not even statistically, thus they're not balanced. Quod Erat... Etcetera.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
You gave me a bunch of stats for some server. that just shows who uses which guns the most, not the actual parameters for the guns. Plus, those stats most likely include all of the shots fired at teammates during the buying round by idiots, so the results are both inaccurate and useless.You ask for statistics. I give you statistics. You then try to massage them so that they don't blow a hole in your argument. :rolleyes:
Those statistics (from TWO different servers) show that the highest numbers of kills by a LONG chalk were made with five or six guns. And five or six guns at the bottom of the scale made no kills, or hardly any kills at all. Of course the guns at the top of the scale are more effective, easier to use and totally, unutterably imbalanced. Thank god for imbalances.
DAMMIT! I wrote a lengthy response to Spider AL, and then my post never got through. Anyway, here's the gist of it:
Bots are not people so they are no gauge of the games guns. 2 bots are exactly the same, so it defeats the purpose of this argument.
Range is not the only factor that determines a guns usefulness. In a tight map with sharp corners, the short range weapons will dominate every time, because they are designed to have high damage or rate of fire, so they can kill guys that use RLs and sniper rifles.
The AWP is your weapon of choice for "most situations", but if a guy used the Commando for most situations, he would alter his play stlye and, in fact, alter those situations to fit his needs. For exmple, he would rush or use grenades or do something to surprise the sniper.
Your stats are for players, not the guns. If you looks at the values for all the guns (damage, cost, ammo, accuracy, etc.) I reckon you would get pretty close values, hence balance. Just because the AWP can kill a guy in one shot, doesn't mean it's the best. What if 2 guys with glocks show up at once?
I never said every game is balanced, nor will I ever say that. I said that some good games get close to balance by making their guns have equal strengths and weaknesses.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
DAMMIT! I wrote a lengthy response to Spider AL, and then my post never got through.Tee hee! :D
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
Bots are not people so they are no gauge of the games guns. 2 bots are exactly the same, so it defeats the purpose of this argument.:rolleyes: That's drivel tbh. The whole point of the argument was that some guns are better than others. Give a rocket launcher to one of those bots, a pistol to the other, and let them fight. That way, you can't say that the rocket launching bot won because of his greater skill.
QED. ;)
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
Range is not the only factor that determines a guns usefulness.Nobody ever said that range was the only factor that determines a gun's usefulness. Please read more carefully.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
The AWP is your weapon of choice for "most situations", but if a guy used the Commando for most situations, he would alter his play stlye and, in fact, alter those situations to fit his needs. For exmple, he would rush or use grenades or do something to surprise the sniper.In which case he would no longer "just be using the commando". He would have grenades as well. You're still giving extra skills to your hypothetical little man, aren't you! :p Well, you're not going to get away with it, no matter how hard you try. They both have one gun, no other weapons, full armour and the same training with each gun that the game has to offer. The AWPer will win, because the AWP is the most powerful weapon. One shot stop, anywhere from the bellybutton to the scalp. That's not a matter for debate, Solbe. Everyone who has eyes and a brain, knows it.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
Your stats are for players, not the guns.If you read the pages more carefully than you obviously have done, you'd have seen that the stats are for the guns, and not the players.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
If you looks at the values for all the guns (damage, cost, ammo, accuracy, etc.) I reckon you would get pretty close values, hence balance.The fact that you firmly believe that all the guns in counter-strike even out is a testament to the fact that your understanding of the game is limited. It was bad enough that you were comparing the dual berettas to all the other weapons earlier, now you want to compare the glock to the AWP? Pfft. The knife doesn't cost anything, does that make it infinitely better than the AWP? What nonsense.
You obviously believe that all games are totally balanced.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
Just because the AWP can kill a guy in one shot, doesn't mean it's the best. What if 2 guys with glocks show up at onceYou're giving your little hypothetical man re-enforcements now? You claim that if two guys gang up on a lone sniper that makes their measly little popguns EQUAL to his weapon? Spare me.
Frankly I'm growing more and more astonished with each successive post. :eyeraise:
Okay, how about we balance this thread, and get back on topic? It's about balancing force powers in JA, not balancing guns in CS. Thanks. :cool:
*Grumble grumble*
Your moderater friends can't protect you forever!
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree... for now.
Anyway, the light side of the force should be improved, relative to the dark side. Light powers should serve to block/reflect the powers of the dark side, but to give light siders powers that damage or otherwise hurt the enemy wouldn't fit. If the light side was made to be mostly defensive, and the dark side made to be mostly offensive (ie. No dark rage style invulnerability), the force powers would seem far more accurate to the whole SW theme. Mixes of the 2 sides would be interesting, but impractical, as players would use one great dark side power, augmented by a light side power.
I would like to see more servers (particularly duel) that give you a force level like "jedi" instead of "Jedi master" or none at all. This way people would have to learn to use just a few force powers, and the actual physical combat would remain the most important part of the match. That is one of my major problems with the current system; if I play a duel with no powers, I can't use the occasional push, and if I play on a push server, it gets spammed. I think that a mod where the server can select the amount of force a power drains would be nice...
IT SEEMS SOME PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CS FORUM & A JK FORUM!!!
it seems this vote is in high majority. i would think it so cool if the makers of JKA actually read this board and come accross this thread
well 2 bad darkies but it seems taht the light side needs SOME offense to hurt the enemy as it was SOOO accurately
[Anyway, the light side of the force should be improved, relative to the dark side. Light powers should serve to block/reflect the powers of the dark side, but to give light siders powers that damage or otherwise hurt the enemy wouldn't fit.]
i agree. for those FOOLS that say get rid of heal!! (idiots!) tell me, what else force wise can a light sider to to another light sider??
thankyou :).
the lightsiders need some offensive attack, i still think it would be cool if it were in the form of an "seperate", ENHANCED force push attack which hurt the enemy on impact aswell as knock back. and that if the jedi had force absorb that once their force pool was near full that bonus energy could store and be used to make the 'enhanced force push' more powerful and maybe work on a small group of enemies.
maybe ontop of that, when executing this attack the light jedi would have to drop his guard for about a *real* half second leaving him open to lightning (before his enemy was knocked back)
Originally posted by Rockstar
IT SEEMS SOME PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CS FORUM & A JK FORUM!!!
Really, there's no need to SHOUT. You can use bold and italics just as well for emphasis. Thanks. :cool:
well 2 bad darkies but it seems taht the light side needs SOME offense to hurt the enemy as it was SOOO accurately
Er, what? Sorry, but I don't understand this sentence at all. Can you please clarify this sentence?
i agree. for those FOOLS that say get rid of heal!! (idiots!) tell me, what else force wise can a light sider to to another light sider??
Will you please stop calling everyone FOOLS and IDIOTS just for stating their opinions? You don't have to insult others to get your point across. Thanks. :cool:
the lightsiders need some offensive attack, i still think it would be cool if it were in the form of an "seperate", ENHANCED force push attack which hurt the enemy on impact aswell as knock back.
I agree that an enhanced push that can cause some damage to an opponent might be useful, especially if they are pushed into a wall or some other object. After all, this is how some of the battle droids were dealt with in TPM. The damage would be more a secondary effect of an enhanced push. But I still don't think there should be a direct offensive attack for Light siders.
Originally posted by Rockstar
the lightsiders need some offensive attack,
You may have heard of the lightsaber? :saberb:
Originally posted by Rockstar
i still think it would be cool if it were in the form of an "seperate", ENHANCED force push attack which hurt the enemy on impact aswell as knock back. and that if the jedi had force absorb that once their force pool was near full that bonus energy could store and be used to make the 'enhanced force push' more powerful and maybe work on a small group of enemies.
maybe ontop of that, when executing this attack the light jedi would have to drop his guard for about a *real* half second leaving him open to lightning (before his enemy was knocked back)
Look...maybe if, say, level 3 absorb could redirect lightning or drain back at the opponent, sure. Maybe it could actually HEAL the user, when absorbing dark powers. But Jedi DON'T USE THE FORCE FOR OFFENSE. The force is "for knowledge and defense" said by the greatest Jedi of them.
Anyway, Jedi don't really NEED offense, since they can essentially render the dark siders useless with level 3 absorb. At that point, it's a saber fight. I sugest if what you really want to do if run around hurting people with the force, but want the pretese of being a Jedi, that you say, "Screw morals; time for darkness!" because....morals aren't really that important in a COMPUTER GAME!
Originally posted by Rockstar
it seems this vote is in high majority. i would think it so cool if the makers of JKA actually read this board and come accross this thread
well 2 bad darkies but it seems taht the light side needs SOME offense to hurt the enemy as it was SOOO accurately First of all, the question for the poll is "do you think that in JKA the light side be improved?". This is not asking whether the light side should have offensive powers. So the poll does not indicate that people want an offensive light side. If you really want to find out what people think of that idea, I suggest you start a new poll asking that specific question.
Originally posted by Rockstar
i agree. for those FOOLS that say get rid of heal!! (idiots!) tell me, what else force wise can a light sider to to another light sider??
thankyou :). You can mind trick them, push them, and pull them.
Originally posted by Rockstar
the lightsiders need some offensive attack... They do not need them, and should not have them. The light side is not offensive in nature. That "strategy" is reserved for the dark side. The light side's usefulness lies in defending against those darkside powers. If you like dark side powers, use the darkside. Don't ask that the light side be altered just to fit your playing style.
Originally posted by StormHammer:
Okay, how about we balance this thread, and get back on topic? It's about balancing force powers in JA, not balancing guns in CS. Thanks.I understand your concern that we keep on-topic, but since JA hasn't been released yet, how are we supposed to discuss the (flawed and mythic) concept of "balance" without referring to other games as being analagous to our points of view? We can't really discuss JA specifically, since it doesn't exist yet!
Naturally I'll refrain from discussing CS in accordance with the moderator's judgement, but hopefully the moderator will lift this injunction.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree... for now.There is nothing more agreeable to me than disagreeing with you, Solbe. But since both our arguments speak for themselves, (those who know and play the game we were discussing will see the obviousness of the one-sidedness) there is little more to say. ;)
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
Anyway, the light side of the force should be improved, relative to the dark side. Light powers should serve to block/reflect the powers of the dark side, but to give light siders powers that damage or otherwise hurt the enemy wouldn't fit. If the light side was made to be mostly defensive, and the dark side made to be mostly offensive (ie. No dark rage style invulnerability), the force powers would seem far more accurate to the whole SW theme. Oh who cares about accuracy to the "theme". 1.02 was a good example of force powers which were... well, powerful. The Dark Side wasn't dwarfed by the light, heal was not weak, etcetera.
1.02 force powers, plus the addition of a meditative healing stance and level-per-level matching of mind-trick and sight would be the ideal JO powers in my view,.. but JA powers will be a different kettle of fish. All I want to see from them is that they are all powerful. No weedy useless powers, in other words. I want to be part of a clash of titans, not a squeaky impact between mice.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
I would like to see more servers (particularly duel) that give you a force level like "jedi" instead of "Jedi master" or none at all. There are plenty of duel servers like that around my neck of the woods already. :D
Originally posted by Spider AL
Oh who cares about accuracy to the "theme". I do! Sorry, Al. I coudn't resist. :D
Originally posted by Spider AL
1.02 was a good example of force powers which were... well, powerful. The Dark Side wasn't dwarfed by the light, heal was not weak, etcetera.
1.02 force powers, plus the addition of a meditative healing stance and level-per-level matching of mind-trick and sight would be the ideal JO powers in my view,.. but JA powers will be a different kettle of fish. All I want to see from them is that they are all powerful. No weedy useless powers, in other words. I want to be part of a clash of titans, not a squeaky impact between mice. This is what I would like to see as well. I want powerful force powers that have powerful counters. Nerfing force powers isn't necessary, if there are opposing powers that are just as powerful. I'd rather Raven had gone that route when trying to tweek the gameplay balance.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko
I would like to see more servers (particularly duel) that give you a force level like "jedi" instead of "Jedi master" or none at all. This way people would have to learn to use just a few force powers, and the actual physical combat would remain the most important part of the match. Personally, I wouldn't like to see more servers with a lower force level. If you are going to have a force server, why not give the players all the tools? One of the great things about this game is the Force. To many people, the physical combat isn't the most important part. Anyone who spams something should be easily defeated. In any event, there are lots of servers out there that cater to the style you're looking for. :)
Originally posted by Rockstar
[B]it seems this vote is in high majority. i would think it so cool if the makers of JKA actually read this board and come accross this thread
The poll kinda sucks. We don't know what the force powers will be in JA. And *if* there will be drain and heal exactly like they are now, your poll makes no sense. Improve light side? In what way? In what game type? Make it better than dark? Why?
Everyone and their dog has commented on "light side offensive powers", so I won't go there.
for those FOOLS that say get rid of heal!! (idiots!) tell me, what else force wise can a light sider to to another light sider??
I suppose that idiot would be me. :D Actually, I didn't vote for getting rid of them altogether, but whatever..
I don't understand what you mean. What *else* can a light sider do to another? Is heal something you do to another player? :confused:
One addition to Prime's list: Force Seeing is one of the best light side powers imho.
As for the name calling... dude, you're the one who has major problems with grasping the very basics of gameplay or Star Wars. Try to behave. :)
Originally posted by Luc Solar
One addition to Prime's list: Force Seeing is one of the best light side powers imho.
Oh... I thought force seeing was a neutral forcepower?? At least I have been using it when playing as a darksider ;) I have level 1 mostly, so I can see annoying mindtrickers... Even darksiders have counters you know :D
Originally posted by Luc Solar
One addition to Prime's list: Force Seeing is one of the best light side powers imho. I agree completely. I didn't include it because you can't really use it against another player directly.
In any case, I find seeing extremely useful, and I usually have it on level 2 at least. Then you can see people before they come around corners and so on. Then you time your shots to reach the corner when they just come around it. :)
Originally posted by HertogJan
Oh... I thought force seeing was a neutral forcepower??
DUH! :o
Umm... I knew that! I was just testing you guys! :rolleyes: :D
My eyes hurt from using seeing... :cool: Must put on the shades.
I won't go into any further argument with Al on this thread, because he's obviously going to hold his own views quite stubbornly, so I'll leave it to forum surfers to decide what balance is to their mind.
Anyway, I don't like the idea of giving a hurtful push to light siders, that would be just the same as giving them lighning or any other offensive move. I think that lightsiders should have, say, better acrobatics or dodging techniques or something (although that wouldn't be fair to darkies, so just something similar). Anakin Solo went into a sort of super force mode in one of the EU novels (and believe it or not, if you play this game, you will be endorsing the EU.). That could be a neat addition, maybe. How 'bout a stun move like Obi Wan used to kill Maul. You could turn it on, and the enemy's defence would lower for a few seconds. I really can't offer a solution to the light side problem, but that's what I've got add for right now.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko
How 'bout a stun move like Obi Wan used to kill Maul. You could turn it on, and the enemy's defence would lower for a few seconds.
Stun Move? I thought Obi flipped himself up out of the pit and used the force to pull Qui-gon's lightsaber to him. I think that caught Maul off guard which gave Obi the opportunity to slice Maul in half.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
I won't go into any further argument with Al on this thread, because he's obviously going to hold his own views quite stubbornly, so I'll leave it to forum surfers to decide what balance is to their mind.And replying at the same level of maturity:
I win. :D
Originally posted by yolkboy:
Stun Move? I thought Obi flipped himself up out of the pit and used the force to pull Qui-gon's lightsaber to him. I think that caught Maul off guard which gave Obi the opportunity to slice Maul in half.Yeah, that was what he did. Trouble was, it was filmed and cut so slowly that there's no explanation for Maul's lack of reaction. This uber-martial-artist has a full second and a half to react, to do SOMETHING. But he doesn't. Bleh.
In order to explain the shoddy, feeble direction away, some assert that Obi used a "special mind-trick". In the screenplay released at the time however, there's no mention of any such thing.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko
I won't go into any further argument with Al on this thread, because he's obviously going to hold his own views quite stubbornly, so I'll leave it to forum surfers to decide what balance is to their mind. I ended up disagreeing with you in this case. It seemed that most of your examples involved external influences that made up for the inherent disadvantages of the smaller weapons. :(
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko
Anyway, I don't like the idea of giving a hurtful push to light siders, that would be just the same as giving them lighning or any other offensive move. I do agree with this though :)
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko
and believe it or not, if you play this game, you will be endorsing the EU. Or I'll just be playing this Star Wars game because it has lightsabers in it. I'm pretty indifferent to the EU, but I don't see how me buying this game makes a statement on how I see the validity of the EU.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko
How 'bout a stun move like Obi Wan used to kill Maul. You could turn it on, and the enemy's defence would lower for a few seconds. As others have stated, this simply didn't happen.
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko
I really can't offer a solution to the light side problem... I'm not convinced that there is a problem with the light side that needs fixing.
Originally posted by Spider AL
I understand your concern that we keep on-topic, but since JA hasn't been released yet, how are we supposed to discuss the (flawed and mythic) concept of "balance" without referring to other games as being analagous to our points of view? We can't really discuss JA specifically, since it doesn't exist yet!
I understand your argument, and if this game was the first in a series and focused on guns alone, of course your debate over balancing guns would be very relevant. However, I think you've taken my comment too literally. Of course there is a frame of reference for JA...Jedi Outcast. It is the closest to JA in terms of the gameplay style, Force powers, etc. We know there will be differences - as you rightly say, until JA arrives we cannot discuss in any detail specific points of balance until we know what they are. But in this thread you're free to discuss how the mechanics of JA (specifically regarding Force powers) might be improved in relation to JO, and even JK. Sorry my previous post lacked clarity. :)
Originally posted by Spider AL
Yeah, that was what he did. Trouble was, it was filmed and cut so slowly that there's no explanation for Maul's lack of reaction. This uber-martial-artist has a full second and a half to react, to do SOMETHING. But he doesn't. Bleh.
In order to explain the shoddy, feeble direction away, some assert that Obi used a "special mind-trick". In the screenplay released at the time however, there's no mention of any such thing.
Heh... Poor editing/filming tsk tsk. Thanks for clearing it up.
"Deep breaths, man, just deep breaths..." :o
:rolleyes: I didn't say that Obi Wan used force blind, or something to that extent, nor did I say that he should. I just think that there should maybe be a move that lowers the enemy's defence, perhaps in the form of psyching him out. If you could use "Force Determination" or "Force Growl" or something like that, your enemy would be stunned for a critical moment. Anyway, the fact is, to my mind, the light side powers should give the player passive defensive abilities, beyond those of the dark-siders.
Originally posted by StormHammer:
I understand your argument, and if this game was the first in a series and focused on guns alone, of course your debate over balancing guns would be very relevant. However, I think you've taken my comment too literally. Of course there is a frame of reference for JA...Jedi Outcast. It is the closest to JA in terms of the gameplay style, Force powers, etc. We know there will be differences - as you rightly say, until JA arrives we cannot discuss in any detail specific points of balance until we know what they are. But in this thread you're free to discuss how the mechanics of JA (specifically regarding Force powers) might be improved in relation to JO, and even JK. Sorry my previous post lacked clarity. :)Ah, I understand. Though I feel that using only analogies related to the three JK games is kind of limiting to the evolution of a discussion, I'm aware that a thread can go off-topic rather badly in the wrong direction and that you're just trying to keep it on the straight and narrow. And civil, more importantly. I empathise.
"Balance" doesn't exist though. :D
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
I didn't say that Obi Wan used force blind, or something to that extent, nor did I say that he should.Actually you said this: "How 'bout a stun move like Obi Wan used to kill Maul. You could turn it on, and the enemy's defence would lower for a few seconds." And I pointed out that Obi used no such move, nor did he stun the Sith in any other way according to the screenplay. Your idea for a stun move is workable though, despite the illegitimacy of its conception. :)
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko:
Anyway, the fact is, to my mind, the light side powers should give the player passive defensive abilities, beyond those of the dark-siders."Passive"? If by "passive" you mean "always on" then such things are tedious and unneccesary. Perhaps those who are too lazy to click the absorb button once every half a minute or so would benefit from such things, but I can't see who else would. One's ability to choose where and when to use all one's Force Powers (and the ability to turn them off to produce certain effects) is the key to playing well, and the key to winning matches. Taking powers out of players' control and/or adding new powers that players can't control is asking for trouble.