Commando Archive
Thread: Science Fiction vs Fantasy. Please give an opinion.
Bigjimmy1
Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:49 pm
#14
Yea i think TKM, and anyother brawler classes is kinda laim in the SWG universe, but it is a game and it pleases to those CONAN the barbarian peeps out there.
Usualy in RL SWG universe id rather have a rocketlauncher or Some super fast shooting laser gun.
HyperDice
Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:39 am
#15
I am beginning to think almost all the aspects of this game are geared around the Conan type. Thank about this for a second.
Why do you think even in battle zones (okay if we even had battle zones anymore) we can’t fight on speeders. As long as both sides had the same advantage. What would be wrong with some of the big battlefields being geared up for it? This game is after all supposed to be based on the movies.
The answer I feel is it would piss off the Conan’s out there. To even give us a small area like that would most likely cause a flood of complaints about how people are being killed before they can run us down and kill us with their awesome melee non-jedi powers…
StarNick has a fun topic called What if....
It’s a hypothetical discussion about combat vehicles and if you have any specific Ideas on vehicles please post them their for him.
Maybe space will be for us and they will give the ground medieval, magical, full plate armor, that’s all is missing lol
Oh no, that X-wing has vibroknuckles. We could never beat them ranged as a lowly ace pilot! Fly away, fly away.
Why do you think even in battle zones (okay if we even had battle zones anymore) we can’t fight on speeders. As long as both sides had the same advantage. What would be wrong with some of the big battlefields being geared up for it? This game is after all supposed to be based on the movies.
The answer I feel is it would piss off the Conan’s out there. To even give us a small area like that would most likely cause a flood of complaints about how people are being killed before they can run us down and kill us with their awesome melee non-jedi powers…
StarNick has a fun topic called What if....
It’s a hypothetical discussion about combat vehicles and if you have any specific Ideas on vehicles please post them their for him.
Maybe space will be for us and they will give the ground medieval, magical, full plate armor, that’s all is missing lol
Oh no, that X-wing has vibroknuckles. We could never beat them ranged as a lowly ace pilot! Fly away, fly away.
Dubolom
Sat Aug 21, 2004 8:07 am
#16
Personally, I can't wait till WoW and Middle Earth Online hit the market so all those "Connan the Barbarian" kiddies are going toswitch to those FOTM games and leave SWG to true sci-fi fans.
Brilyn
Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:13 am
#17
Actually, it's a basic fact of physics that a sword/hammer will do more damage to a target than a bullet.
That's why Sandbags will stop a bullet, but not an arrow.
*shrug*
Guns win in the efficiency stakes, and the fact that you can fire about 400 bullets in the same time it takes to fire one arrow. 
People just assume that because guns are the weapon of choice in the modern world that they are superior to older ones in *every* way.
They're not. They're just superior in certain important ways.
Like:
It takes far more effort to swing a sword or fire an arrow than it does to pull a trigger.
It takes far more training to reach a 'basic skill' level with a sword or bow than it does with a gun.
It's cheaper (and easier) to mass produce bullets and guns than it is swords and arrows.
All of these play into the 'lowest common denominator' and the economics of war.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, or "the game would be better if........", just that your basic assumptions are incorrect. 
HyperDice
Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:48 am
#18
Brilyn, I don’t know the physics work in your world but I’m x-military, I’ve had tactics and field training as well as spending 2 tours overseas. One in Korea and trust me on this one point. Someone charging you with a machete and a lifetime of training is going to be at a disadvantage charging you head on if you have a M-16 or better. Even if you are just a novice. On the other hand it’s just a game but it’s a game based on the epic battles from the movies and I’m pretty sure they were using blasters more than hammers. I know melee can be very effective if used in sneak attacks or with careful close range ambushes but even then just in the initial attack.
HyperDice
Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:00 am
#19
P.S. If you ever worked near a machine shop or factory then you know even balanced well-folded swords are easer to make and mass produce than even your basic military grade firearms.
hopdog
Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:34 am
#20
True, with modern technology. Once the machinery is in place and mass production started it wouldn’t much too much of a difference. Our special forces are taught melee as a backup.
Just remember that was a long time ago in a galaxy far away though. Maybe they were not as advanced as we are lol
Stand there, let me hit you in the head with this rocket, and tell me if it hurts. There’s your sign lol
Just remember that was a long time ago in a galaxy far away though. Maybe they were not as advanced as we are lol
Stand there, let me hit you in the head with this rocket, and tell me if it hurts. There’s your sign lol
Nuke67
Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:57 am
#21
Brilyn wrote:
Actually, it's a basic fact of physics that a sword/hammer will do more damage to a target than a bullet.
That's why Sandbags will stop a bullet, but not an arrow.
*shrug*
Guns win in the efficiency stakes, and the fact that you can fire about 400 bullets in the same time it takes to fire one arrow.
People just assume that because guns are the weapon of choice in the modern world that they are superior to older ones in *every* way.
They're not. They're just superior in certain important ways.
Like:
It takes far more effort to swing a sword or fire an arrow than it does to pull a trigger.
It takes far more training to reach a 'basic skill' level with a sword or bow than it does with a gun.
It's cheaper (and easier) to mass produce bullets and guns than it is swords and arrows.
All of these play into the 'lowest common denominator' and the economics of war.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, or "the game would be better if........", just that your basic assumptions are incorrect.
As technology progresses so do weapons of war, a sword will kill you just as dead as a gun will, but the fact is a master gunner will kill a master swordsman before he can even get close enough to even bring the sword into play, such iswhy ancient weapons even though still deadly when used are not used anymore because they are inferior to modern weapons, why you don't seetroops with swords charging a squad of m-16, m-60 infantry today, fact of the matter they would be massacred, thoseguys are deadly with their swords, but the guys with them modern weapons are deadlier and can kill them at a longer range, polish calvary found that out when they charged the German panzers at the start of WW2 it showed horse ridden calvary were obsolete, totally obsolete in modern warfare.
The only reason these melee classes are in this game is because this game is a direct copy of a combat system from a Fantasy RPG, SOE created Everquest, a fantasy RPG, I am sure when SOE made this RPG they did it the cheapest way the could, just copied their combat system from that, a guy on the GCW forum made a excellent post about it, very detailed, explaining why melee classes are superior in this game to ranged classes even when by all measures of logic they shouldnt be, in fact logically swordsman etc shouldn't be in this game at all, I read some of the EU books which I know some of the content comes from I doubt any book had swordsmen running around killing things, I am willing to bet everyone had blasters and the jedi had light sabers, no medivel weapons around anywhere other than decoration.
I was in theed on my server the other night, over half or not more of the people fighting pvp were carrying clubs, swords are war hammers, I felt more immersed if I was playing Dungeons and Dragons seeing a battle like this not Star Wars, ranged classes are the meat and potatoes of Star Wars, when I played it as a kid I used toy guns as blasters, I didn't imagine going around killing stormtroopers with a sword, 5 guys I worked with bought this game on launch, all 5 quit because they said it was NOTHING like Star Wars, and I think that really is hurting SOE on this game, they felt they could just make another fantasy rpg, throw some Star Wars stuff in and it and voila a Star Wars games, not thinking that a guy with a ancient weapon going around killing all the ranged classes would seem out of place and over all stupid.
I refuse to use a sword,axe or club in a Star Wars game, as my signature says, if I wanted that I would have played a fantasy RPG, I am thinking about playing MEO when it comes out, because yes swords there make sense, on this game it doesn't.
Brilyn
Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:49 am
#22
< I don’t know the physics work in your world >
The same as they do in *your* world.
I'm not looking to flame or be flamed here, so let's keep it civil?
A 3kg sword (10lbs) moving at roughly 100metres per second will impact with far greater kinetic energy than:
a 10g bullet moving at 762m/s.
That would be a *fact*.
< Someone charging you with a machete and a lifetime of training is going to be at a disadvantage charging you head on if you have a M-16 or better.>
Have I debated *that* at all?
Nope.
I completely agree. You can't damage someone with a melee weapon until you close the distance.
< On the other hand it’s just a game but it’s a game based on the epic battles from the movies and I’m pretty sure they were using blasters more than hammers. >
I'm not debating that either.
I completely agree, melee weaponry should be chucked.
I think they included it 'cause a lot of the books and stuff involve it? I dunno, I've only seen the movies.
< I know melee can be very effective if used in sneak attacks or with careful close range ambushes but even then just in the initial attack.>
Again, I'm not addressing tactics.
I'm simply addresssing the posters assumption (that is repeated everywhere in every Sci-fi game forum, ever. ) is that a bullet does more damage (per impact)than a sword.
) is that a bullet does more damage (per impact)than a sword.Which is patently and demonstrably false.
nbd9k
Sat Aug 21, 2004 8:42 pm
#23
not to get in a semantics arguement over physics, since everyone in the world knows more than i do, but an arrow will go through a sandbag only if its set with a razor tip. you couldnt get a bullet tipped arrow through a sandbag either. the razor tip will apply the force of the bow load (eg 90lbs) with the surface of a needlepoint. 90 lbs applied on a needlepoint can get through quite a bit.
and then theres the other side of the arguement. a 64 grain 5.56 mm nato round may not be able to make it through a sandbag at a few hundred meters, but with in bow (or even sword) range, you could get a round into the second or third sandbag. now a 140 grain 7.62 mm round fired at any of those ranges will get through as easily as any razor-tipped arrow. thats why we used to use 3/4 inch steel plates to back the sandbags when setting in popup targets on a range. and almost any 162 grain round or more would have no trouble.
now think even harder: a 50 caliber depleted uranium round can TEAR through 2 inches of plate steel from a mile away.
moving on. pull out that sword from earlier, and try and cut that sandbag in half. physics says youre applying more force, but youre lucky if you can bury it more than an inch or two. try it on a wooden table or a door. a bullet will go right through while the sword sticks again. even if you swing it with enough power, the force youre applying is only effective in the striking portion of the blade. find yourself a japanese wakizashi or tanto. attack the door with a thrust as opposed to a swing. it will go right through. but here, weve gone back to the same idea as the razor tipped arrow. applying all the force to a small surface area will do the trick.
besides, ever wonder how the military gets by with dull bayonets? (i assure you, they are dull...except for the tips.)
physics is a great way to argue. god knows my doctorate seeking brother uses physics to argue everything.
but you have to agree that within the starwars universe, a futuristic, energy bullet firing version of a rifle is going to do far greater damage than an antiquated weapon that cant truely outperform our modern weapons.
this wasnt even the arguement that was originally presented. seriously, melee weapons dont really belong in a game where everyone can shoot at eachother, and they certainly shouldnt do the same amount of damage: think about what composite armor is supposed to be made of.
thats what he was really trying to say here.
-harv.
Brilyn
Sun Aug 22, 2004 10:53 am
#24
< (eg 90lbs)>
Double or triple that figure for a 'proper' bow.
Now, I can't debate the statistics on bullets. Mainly because I haven't a clue what you're talking about.
What you're writing around is the base underlying physics of it all: Pressure.
Arrow can *also* punch their way through steel, depending on the arrow point used. I can't claim it'll punch through 3/4 inch steel, as I've not seen it, nor do I have numbers for that anywhere handy.
< a 50 caliber depleted uranium round can TEAR through 2 inches of plate steel from a mile away. >
Sure.
You're now using a more dense material, with more volume. Thus, this is not the 10g bullet I was talking about orginally. I think the muzzle velocity on thos is about double 762m/s ? I'm not too sure.
< moving on. pull out that sword from earlier, and try and cut that sandbag in half. physics says youre applying more force, but youre lucky if you can bury it more than an inch or two. >
Yes.
Physics also says that the sand (that you've cut through) is now applying friction to the blade, and sucking out all your energy.
< a bullet will go right through while the sword sticks again.>
*shrug*
That's a gross generalisation, that's largely incorrect. A Claymore (sword, as opposed to munition. ) will happily snap most tables in two, mainly due to the additional force that Leverage adds.
) will happily snap most tables in two, mainly due to the additional force that Leverage adds.This discussion is going exactly where I wasn't looking to go: specifics.
The basic point I was making (before the military-stuff got involved): is "a sword" contains *vastly* more mass than "a bullet" and will do more damage to a target, because "a sword" deliever more kinetic energy than "a bullet".
< even if you swing it with enough power, the force youre applying is only effective in the striking portion of the blade. >
Yup, absolutely right. This is the main reason I was only talking about kinetic energy and 'people' (who are mostly liquid, and 'low friction').
< besides, ever wonder how the military gets by with dull bayonets? >
No, not at all.
Every wonder why most middle-age swords were completely dull? Because once you reach a certain degree of 'thinness' on the edge of the blade, anything further is academic.
Ultimately, it comes down to this:
Let's say it takes 10units of whatever to kill a human. A single bullet will deliever 50, a sword 500. It doesn't matter in the real world, as both kill when applied correctly.
In SWG, it takes 1000 unites of whatever to kill a player. But SOE didn't increase the weapons similarly, so people can now *easily* close to melee and commence with the butt-kicking. This would be where all complaints lie.
StarNick
Sun Aug 22, 2004 10:57 am
#25
That's a gross generalisation, that's largely incorrect. A Claymore (sword, as opposed to munition. ) will happily snap most tables in two, mainly due to the additional force that Leverage adds.
You make the claymore sword sound so happy and carefree....
nbd9k
Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:03 am
#26
Thats it right on the nail head, i think.
the only thing i twitch about is applied physics versus actual demo situations. the claymore going through the table, eg. it might, but not if you or i was doing the swinging. maybe the governator. thats really the deal with any sword.
ive seen a well trained martial artist punch through a brick wall. i cant say how he did it, or if i could even come close without pulverizing my hand. theyve come up with physics explanations as to why they guy can do it, but once again, even alot of superior fighters (not the average) would be hard pressed to mimic this same feat.
if all of our melee fighters run around with the ability to chop a table in half with a sword or punch throguh a brick wall, than that becomes the average, and THAT is the reall problem we see here. better to take such feats out all together, if you get my meaning.
-harv