Carbineer Archive

First Week Carbineer Issues

This thread is to focus on the Top 5 Issues for the Carbineer. Each week I will ask upon this community to bring forward its top 5 problems that they are experiencing. I will take this information and pass it forward to the Developers.

That’s basically the guidelines. I’m here to take the information that you give me and email it straight to the Devs. Other than that I’m just an ordinary Carbineer such as yourselves.

I would just like to ask if you may, as a personal favor, to please post the issues that you think are severe and need to be fixed immediately for the sake of the carbineer. You can voluntarily post any and every issue that you know as well and I will keep them in mind and noted for future reference. However, most importantly I would like to make sure that only the absolute most needed changes are submitted.

Along with your posts you can add what changes you would like to see to the carbineer class. Anything you see wrong with the game play of the carbineer? Is the class not balanced or any bugs with skills and what not. Suggestions, ideas and debates are welcome.

Here is a link to a thread that contains changes and suggestions to the carbineer that you may want to check out:

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=carabineer&message.id=723

• Consistent spelling for the name of our profession


• Carbine defensive modifiers (or complete lack thereof)


• Carbine manufacturing (HAM costs, especially the stock issue)


• Specials not performing as expected (no apparent improvement between mid and top rank specials, scattershot spam incorrect, action shot knockdown issues, etc)


• Pistol accuracy at range. This is a balance issue between the various ranged weapons, which you're already quite familiar with of course. The pistoleers aren't going to get it fixed (see thread below), so we should make sure it gets looked at.

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=pistoleer&message.id=1208

---

TychusTM wrote:

• Consistent spelling for the name of our profession


• Carbine defensive modifiers (or complete lack thereof)


• Carbine manufacturing (HAM costs, especially the stock issue)


• Specials not performing as expected (no apparent improvement between mid and top rank specials, scattershot spam incorrect, action shot knockdown issues, etc)


• Pistol accuracy at range. This is a balance issue between the various ranged weapons, which you're already quite familiar with of course. The pistoleers aren't going to get it fixed (see thread below), so we should make sure it gets looked at.

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=pistoleer&message.id=1208

---

Tychus's list hit every concern I have, save that I wouldn't say that consistent spelling necessarily is urgent enough to warrant top 5. Instead, I'd have somebody take a careful look at BH-using carbine vs. Carbineer, as I look at the two and can't see the balance. I understand that BH has a high quantity of prereqs -- but the people trying to defend that this warrants them more power with each weapon because they're locked into one path just don't hold water. More power overall than "just" a master pistoleer or master carbineer, yes. More power in a given specialty, hell no. But the key that must be considered is, can a combatant who focuses on combat skills equal a bounty hunter without going the bh route? IE, is there enough combat related stuff out there that can synergize to let a Carbineer+125 skill points of other combat related stuffcompete with a BH as a combatant? I don't think there is, and I think it's because the current non-hybrid classes just don't stack with anything else well, leaving the hybrids as the super-warriors (stuff like smuggler/pistoleer, and BH all by itself or even combined with a touch of pistoleer/carbineer to get even MORE bonuses) that outpace any other combination due to stacking skills and specials.

Did that make sense? I dunno. But as it is, BHs (or combinations including BHs or smugglers) look to be set to dominate the PvP scene since they're best at any given type of combat, which just doesn't sound right -- a galaxy full of bounty hunters?

"Specials not performing as expected (no apparent improvement between mid and top rank specials, scattershot spam incorrect, action shot knockdown issues, etc)"

Most important of these, I would think, would be that some specials have an "area effect" effect, when the description distinctly indicates that the attack is to be used against one target (Action Shot 2, for example). But certainly, all of these problems could be fixed at once.

-Carbine HAM issue with carbines that *dont* require stocks as well as ones that do

-Carbine crafting issue with HAM costs regarding experimentation point effectiveness(this could be more of a weaponsmith issue)

-Lack of valuable special moves high up in carbineer tree(no special at master carbineer)

-Lack of decent defensive modifiers as said before

-Overall weapon balancing as even post fix, it looks like only 2-3 carbines will be worth using.

*****I cant stress enough to make the point to the devs that the carbine HAM issue goes deeper than just stocks. Are they ever going to address exactly what this "fix" will fix?

I agree with what has been said above and purely for the purpose of reiteration ill relist some of the aforemenioned qualms in my order

1. Please oh Please! Make someone who specializes in only one field of weapons, Stand a chance against someone who can go up only ONE TREE and kick our BUTTS!!! Just look at their skill mods they end up with 60 or 70 plus in speed and accuracy for pistols and carbines while a master carbineer gets like 30 or 40??


2. *kinda havin to do with the first one* Please make we want to buy a carbineer, give me a reason to be different, because right now those same skill points are much more wisely spent in pistoleer or riflemen. Give us some effective ranged attacks!


3. Lower the HAM costs!


4. Make the guns more effective! Elite carbine= elite piece of crap !


5. Straighten out the attacks like suppresion fire 2, legshot 3 (worth the wait i think not) and action shot 2

Thanks

I agree with what the first reply stated.

I think everyone wants the obense HAM usage fixed, as well as having devs take a look at all our skills to ensure they are doing what they are supposed to - which they dont seem to be.

Heres the biggest issues I see in the order they need to be addressed.

1. HAM costs. These are silly, its been commented on to no end. These should be a fairly straightforward fix, and something that can be implemented quickly.

2. Broken styles. Lets get these reporting damage properly and having the proper effects. These are what make carbineers stand out, so they've got to work properly.

3. Defensive bonuses. These are out of whack atm. I don't think rifleman or pistoleer are too high or somehow too advantageous, I think that carbineer just wasn't given enough bonuses, especially for the amount of xp that we are dumping into these skills. The defensive cover bonuses are great for rifleman, the melee defensive bonuses are great for pistoleer and carbineers....just...havea smattering of knockdown defense and stun defense and a few others. We could deal with less styles and more bonuses, especially if the styles are lacking any serious upgrades.

I made master marksman before I decided to go Carbineer and now I don't want to give up the defensive bonuses accrued from master marks because there are so few given in carbineer.

-Gravaar

Looted DH17 and possibly E11s sometimes come up with an error saying thatt you aren't qualified to use them.

Thanks to everyone that responded. I'll be sure to compile together and send them in tomorrow night. So if anyone has any problems or bugs that they would like to see adressed right away that has not been listed, please do so.

Thanks again.

Might want to read this post SOJ.

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=Development&message.id=162990&highlight=#M162990

We also need a bit of more aiming and attack speed to keep to par with a Pistoleer.