Combat Medic Archive

---

Atobusarragra wrote:

---

ChaoKuang wrote:

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=pistoleer&message.id=74909 LordMaxx, Pistoleer Correspondent, stated "certs are only listed for craftable weapons, if those are weapons that drop then the cert is on the weapon itself...much like the DE-10 and Geonosian..."

---

Thankyou for the link. I only hope this is the way it will be. However, I find it strange that it is not listed as a WS schematic, if it is supposedly craftable. If it is craftable, but the schematic must be looted (much like the Disruptor rifle currently in game), then my original fears that come with having looted items could be true. Something here is not right...

---

---

Pseudopd wrote:

I still stand by the balance. And thats what it's really about. having a rifleman/CM in the CU will be way too powerful...BUT... how would you know? No one has played a rifleman in the CU yet. And if you look at the weapons they aren't that far off. Heck their defenses are still uber gimp.

you forgot to quote the most important part of my post!!!!

"...Anywho, enough of the rambling! I love the CU so far. And remember...NO ONE HAS PLAYED A CU CM YET. So, all posts on the subject are pure speculation...including mine!" I'm disgusted by the CU so far. Problems that we had in the old version are still there. The latest TK announcement about mitigation confirmed that defense stacking is still going to be in the game and in force. Minimal overlap of professions was understatement.Its far from beneficial to group for exp.I can go on and on not to mention the bugs and exploits on the CU alone. But for now I'll keep it to something relevant like our medical aspects and pre-req's.

Baz Pseudopod

Master Combat Medic

---

---

Mustelafuro wrote:

I'm glad they gave us pistols And the CU isn't that bad, yes it could use some tweaks, but all in all I am fine with it.

---

If you go by that same statement the old system could have used a few tweaks to fix it as well.

---

Ka_ren wrote:

Does this meanthat we no longer need to master medic...just the ranged healing tree? And that we no longer need ranged in marksmen, but pistols instead or is pistols an additon to ranged support? If we just need the ranged healing tree and pistols 4 then I see an whole new opportunity for what combat I can master alongside CM.

---

---

GraySeven wrote:

Ah, Atobusarragara (man, what a name...)

Isnt it!

how do you reference years of experience?

I'm not going to spend the time giving you a lesson on referencing. But it can be done, and in a way which allows the work to be scrutinized and confirmed.

Screenshots of my old, ugly mug and DD-214 (if I can even find it)?

No, a screenshot will not suffice. Because, again, I will not be able to tell if you are a 14 year posting a photo you found on the 'net, or a 30 year combat Vet. Opinions, such as the one given by you, can be very valuable and helpful sources of information within case studies but they need to be presented appropriately to actually be meaningful as evidence.

It could be that there is something in the Ranged Support line they don't want CM's to have, and that the Pistol line best suits the new balance. Since specials aren't restricted, they may want you to spend extra to have the RS specials as a CM...

You would do well to check these things out for yourself before writing here. The Ranged Support line contains NO specials. Only a few mods. As I stated above, it seems rather obvious that the only reason we now have the Pistols line in Marksman is that we have a pistol (Alliance Disruptor) in the master box.

and also, balance may require that you spend the extra 14 sp's for rifle to go with CM if that is your want.

You make ALOT of assumptions about what 'they' want without providing any concrete basis. Meaningless drivel!

Regardless, what makes sense may not make balance.

Excuse me? The whole idea of this CU is to MAKE BALANCE! How is it thatyou not understand this? In the testing phase if something is not balanced, if certain professions are required to use more SP than they are worth, then we need to let the Devs know so changes can bemade to correct the inbalance.

Their could be something unbalancing about a CM with Ranged Support and Rifle instead of a CM with Pistol that has to pay extra for RS and/or Rifle.

Again, undefined assumptions and pure garbage. I am not merely refering to rifles, by the way, but carbines too. I merely use rifles as my example as they are what I have experience with.

The "realism" I suggested was simply to counter other examples of realism given in this post.

Perhaps, and I'm sorry for attacking your post rather than someone else's, but I have become annoyed at these posts which claim to know how a CM operates without providing any more evidence than 'I told you so'. This is completely meaningless.

If you try to throw realism in, you must realize the why of RL vs a game.

This sentence makes no sense. Perhaps you would like to try restating it. If you are trying to make a point regarding the continuity between RL and the game, then see my posts above. The game holds glaring contradictions in regards to this.

In RL, there is a reason certain people carry pistols instead of M-16's

Failure to make references. Point is irrelevant.

and in the game there are reasons why your pre-req is Pistols and not Ranged Support.

Quite clearly stated already: because we ahve a pistol in the master box.

I have to wonder at the defence you put up. Dont take this as a personal attack. I'm not going to attack you personally (a personal attack would be to make fun of your name, for example), I'm attacking the facts, and reasons for having pistol as CM. Clearly, it would make far more sense, to have Ranged Support - CM is MORE Ranged Support than Pistols (as stated above, Who would argue against this?). You suggest Pistols is better without any clear reasoning or evidence, and you merely make vague assumptions based on nothing more than a whim regarding what 'they' may want, without even seeming to realise this a beta test where, hopefully, we still have the chance to change things to make them more balanced! Unfortunately, because of this, I will have to discount your attempted arguments as meaningless.

Atobusarragra

---

---

Atobusarragra wrote:

---

GraySeven wrote:

Ah, Atobusarragara (man, what a name...)

Isnt it!

how do you reference years of experience?

I'm not going to spend the time giving you a lesson on referencing. But it can be done, and in a way which allows the work to be scrutinized and confirmed.

Screenshots of my old, ugly mug and DD-214 (if I can even find it)?

No, a screenshot will not suffice. Because, again, I will not be able to tell if you are a 14 year posting a photo you found on the 'net, or a 30 year combat Vet. Opinions, such as the one given by you, can be very valuable and helpful sources of information within case studies but they need to be presented appropriately to actually be meaningful as evidence.

It could be that there is something in the Ranged Support line they don't want CM's to have, and that the Pistol line best suits the new balance. Since specials aren't restricted, they may want you to spend extra to have the RS specials as a CM...

You would do well to check these things out for yourself before writing here. The Ranged Support line contains NO specials. Only a few mods. As I stated above, it seems rather obvious that the only reason we now have the Pistols line in Marksman is that we have a pistol (Alliance Disruptor) in the master box.

and also, balance may require that you spend the extra 14 sp's for rifle to go with CM if that is your want.

You make ALOT of assumptions about what 'they' want without providing any concrete basis. Meaningless drivel!

Regardless, what makes sense may not make balance.

Excuse me? The whole idea of this CU is to MAKE BALANCE! How is it thatyou not understand this? In the testing phase if something is not balanced, if certain professions are required to use more SP than they are worth, then we need to let the Devs know so changes can bemade to correct the inbalance.

Their could be something unbalancing about a CM with Ranged Support and Rifle instead of a CM with Pistol that has to pay extra for RS and/or Rifle.

Again, undefined assumptions and pure garbage. I am not merely refering to rifles, by the way, but carbines too. I merely use rifles as my example as they are what I have experience with.

The "realism" I suggested was simply to counter other examples of realism given in this post.

Perhaps, and I'm sorry for attacking your post rather than someone else's, but I have become annoyed at these posts which claim to know how a CM operates without providing any more evidence than 'I told you so'. This is completely meaningless.

If you try to throw realism in, you must realize the why of RL vs a game.

This sentence makes no sense. Perhaps you would like to try restating it. If you are trying to make a point regarding the continuity between RL and the game, then see my posts above. The game holds glaring contradictions in regards to this.

In RL, there is a reason certain people carry pistols instead of M-16's

Failure to make references. Point is irrelevant.

and in the game there are reasons why your pre-req is Pistols and not Ranged Support.

Quite clearly stated already: because we ahve a pistol in the master box.

I have to wonder at the defence you put up. Dont take this as a personal attack. I'm not going to attack you personally (a personal attack would be to make fun of your name, for example), I'm attacking the facts, and reasons for having pistol as CM. Clearly, it would make far more sense, to have Ranged Support - CM is MORE Ranged Support than Pistols (as stated above, Who would argue against this?). You suggest Pistols is better without any clear reasoning or evidence, and you merely make vague assumptions based on nothing more than a whim regarding what 'they' may want, without even seeming to realise this a beta test where, hopefully, we still have the chance to change things to make them more balanced! Unfortunately, because of this, I will have to discount your attempted arguments as meaningless.

Atobusarragra

---

---

Well lets see...

1. Referrencing MY experience would require IDing myself to a large group, some of whom simply can't be trusted with that information. However, the easiest way to referrence my statement would be to either A) speak to a Corpsman you know, B) through the Internet, do a Google (or any search engine) on Corpsman C) Hit a library or D) Keep an eye on Discovery, The Military Channel, TLC or the like.


2. Everything, but everything you referrence started with "Their could be" or "may require" or other qualifiers that means, if you truly read them, that anything I suggest is simply my opinions and ideas on the subject. I am not now, nor ever will I be, a Dev in a job as thankless as this one seems to be. Of course I'm making assumptions, I'm not a mind reader or George Lucas, so I haven't got ANY evidence on why they do something. NO ONE DOES. We make conjectures and assumptions all through these forums.

Yes, this whole thing is about making balance. However, making that balance may not make any sense whatsoever to us, simply because we don't know, nor can we know, exactly what the Devs are working with or towards. My guesses, opinions and assumptions have as much weight as any other statement ever made on these forums. The veracity of these statements will only be proven or disproven if a Dev makes a statement or once its all done and we are playing the finished product.

Now, whether pistols are better than ranged support is a personal choice. Having pistols as a pre-req may be better for some, or it may not. The same argument is on-going over at the TK board concerning 2-handed being the second pre-req for an unarmed combat profession....

In short, asking for the referrences you want is all well and good, but not possible. Every last poster to these forums outside of the Dev team is making assumptions, guesses and opininons.

---

Brainplay wrote:

---

Pseudopd wrote:

I still stand by the balance. And thats what it's really about. having a rifleman/CM in the CU will be way too powerful...BUT... how would you know? No one has played a rifleman in the CU yet. And if you look at the weapons they aren't that far off. Heck their defenses are still uber gimp.

you forgot to quote the most important part of my post!!!!

"...Anywho, enough of the rambling! I love the CU so far. And remember...NO ONE HAS PLAYED A CU CM YET. So, all posts on the subject are pure speculation...including mine!" I'm disgusted by the CU so far. Problems that we had in the old version are still there. The latest TK announcement about mitigation confirmed that defense stacking is still going to be in the game and in force. Minimal overlap of professions was understatement.Its far from beneficial to group for exp.I can go on and on not to mention the bugs and exploits on the CU alone. But for now I'll keep it to something relevant like our medical aspects and pre-req's.

Baz Pseudopod

Master Combat Medic

---

I dont want a pistol for a weapon. But if I want to go carbines I have to give up the ability to get master medic along with the bonus to bio-suppression to do it. Maybe I should stack MCM/MD for the +100 ranged/melee defense instead.......

---

---

GraySeven wrote:

Well lets see...

1. Referrencing MY experience would require IDing myself to a large group, some of whom simply can't be trusted with that information. However, the easiest way to referrence my statement

The things you mention belowdont reference YOUR statement as such, they might merely provide information about how RL CMs operate.

would be to either A) speak to a Corpsman you know, B) through the Internet, do a Google (or any search engine) on Corpsman C) Hit a library or D) Keep an eye on Discovery, The Military Channel, TLC or the like.

1. Everything, but everything you referrence started with "Their could be" or "may require"

No, this is completely incorrect. Please check a Functional grammar book.

or other qualifiers

Linguistically qualifiers help to add to the 'meaning potential' of the Thing being described. Your use here is incorrect.

that means, if you truly read them, that anything I suggest is simply my opinions and ideas on the subject.

And your own ideas and opinions may be very valid and interesting! Particularly if you really do have many years experience. However, as I stated they need to be referenced. You still fail to understand this. For example, you might do a Case Study which is then able to be scrutinized and confirmed. It is not necessary, in such cases, to ID yourself. As long as the research is conducted properly.

I am not now, nor ever will I be, a Dev in a job as thankless as this one seems to be. Of course I'm making assumptions, I'm not a mind reader or George Lucas, so I haven't got ANY evidence on why they do something. NO ONE DOES. We make conjectures and assumptions all through these forums.

So, why then did you even bother to post here? If all you have is vague assumptions to state, better to remain silent. As for evidence on the reasons the Pistol line has been made a pre-requisite, Blixtev stated that CMs are more likely to be associated with pistols. Try reading through the entire thread. Often times Devs state the reasons asto why they have done something. This constitutes evidence!

Yes, this whole thing is about making balance. However, making that balance may not make any sense whatsoever to us, simply because we don't know, nor can we know, exactly what the Devs are working with or towards.

So you implicitly support moves that dont make sense? You　implicitly support one way communication?

My guesses, opinions and assumptions have as much weight as any other statement ever made on these forums.

Incorrect, some have more 'weight' than others. As a quick example, Correspondents advice carries alot of 'weight'.

The veracity of these statements will only be proven or disproven if a Dev makes a statement or once its all done and we are playing the finished product.

There is no verification to be made here. Not on your opinions nor on mine. We can only argue for a better position as we see it based on what little information the Devs supply us with. Ultimately, they will make a decision, and that decision will not necessarily verify anything we have written, it will merely state what has been decided.

Now, whether pistols are better than ranged support is a personal choice.

Yet, you state above, based on your experience that it is not a personal choice but something that is most 'realistic'. You are beginning to contradict yoruself. And MOST IMPORTANTLY if it is a personal CHOICE, thenlet us choose, not force us to take Pistols within the Marksman table!

Having pistols as a pre-req may be better for some, or it may not. The same argument is on-going over at the TK board concerning 2-handed being the second pre-req for an unarmed combat profession....

In short, asking for the referrences you want is all well and good, but not possible.

Absolutely possible. Unfortunately it is an endeavour which requires time. I ask for references about something which is in Real Life - the roles and equipment usage of combat medics in the military. I do NOT ask for references on the future direction of the game. It is possible you are beginning to confuse the two. Hence, making guesses, etc is not a bad thing to do. But, when you talk about how something is being done in game because it reflects the 'real' situation, then you must provide proof to back your claims.

Every last poster to these forums outside of the Dev team is making assumptions, guesses and opininons.

---

---

TheBlacknight15 wrote:

No one uses a pistol in real war.

---