Commando Archive

---

garvin wrote:
Interesting...I've heard that with the big ATST Nerf coming, the FP cost will be dropping...can anyone verify what that fp cost is currently on TC? If it is really dropping down to 2K for an ATST, nobody should feel bad about killing on...2K in pts doesn't take that long to earn, and I'm sure imps will have plenty of back-ups...lol

---

Test Center AT-ST stats:

Medium Armor (used to be heavy armor)
Dmg : 770-1250 (used to be 1240-1250)
Kinetc: 35%
Energy: 35%
Heat: 100%
Cold: 100%
Stun: 100%
Restraint: 15%
Acid: 15%
Electricity: 15%
vulnerability: stun

HAM: 55,470

FP Cost: 9,540

thank you nipple.

ill be hanging my rocket launcher and surrendering heavy weapons4 if it goes live. heck i may just master commando and drop it altogether, only thing left worth using is the flamethrower, and even that gets old quick.

55k ham... gawd soe dev team is full of retards.

energy resists low... what was I saying about atst becoming easier to kill by other classes than commando? now a rifleman WILL shoot that atst down faster than we will... and the pistoleer with out LP too.

I wouldn't get to excited. This just made me real friggin nervous!

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=Developers&message.id=15023#M15023

dang, hit enter instead of shift, read last comment made by TH and you'll see what makes me nervous.

---

garvin wrote:

For those interested in the upcoming changed to the ATST check out:

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=Developers&message.id=13525

Some Highlights:

• AT-ST’s have less armor but more Hit Points
• For use PvP or Faction Missions Only
• DoTs that can effect AT-ST’s are only Fire
• Non-Creature Handlers can have 1 pet (ie, 1 AT-ST)

Looks like a lot of Imperials will be joining the CH ranks to be able to call multiple ATSTs...and when they do, their improved hit points won't mean much when you consider the weaker armor, blast damage and fire dots...

In other words...Rebel Commandos are singing in the streets...Break out the Flame Throwers and Rocket Lauchers...we havin ourselves a BBQ tonight...errrr....next patch...

---

Hi Garvin!

I just made a post regarding Commando heavy weapons versus the current AT-ST and the Test Center AT-ST here, but the meat of the post is:

Versus Launcher Pistol:
AR3, damage of 255 from AP0
18500 / 255 = 72.55 (73) hits to destroy, over 204.4 seconds* - Current AT-ST HAM levels
55,470 / 255 = 217.53 (218) hits to destroy, over 610.4 seconds* - Test Center AT-ST HAM levels

Versus Rocket Launcher:
AR3, damage of 3,300 from AP3
18,500 / 3300 = 5.6 (6) hits to destroy, over 42 seconds* - Current AT-ST HAM levels
55,470 / 3300 = 16.8 (17) hits to destroy, over 119 seconds* - Test Center AT-ST HAM levels

* At an average of 2.8 seconds per shot for the LP, actually more like 1 second per shot, but for the sake of averages here I'll calculate at 2.8. As for the Rocket Launcher, I'm basically using the average speed I've seen. Results may vary! *grin*

I do highly recommend taking a look at the original post, as it shows a bit more of the math involved and explains in further detail -- at least to the levels that my attention would allow. *grin*

So in reality, Rebel Commandos are getting the short end of the stick on this one, unfortunately. It seems that what might have been beneficial to Rebel Commandos and detrimental to Imperials was in truth detrimental to both parties.

I've got 2 more posts regarding AT-ST lifespan calculations, if you're interested:
AT-ST vs. Bounty Hunters
AT-ST vs. kinetic damage

I'm all for the "give the rebels some equally expensive fp-pet"-idea. After losing a couple ATSTs today, right now i don't even feel like playing anymore. Allright if i was stupid enough to go PvP with them but i lost the first one to a bug, and the second one to being carelessly semi-afk in the imperial base on dantooine, which got jumped by some rebels (who found it very funny to destroy 2 weeks of playing, even though i don't PvP.Yes, it takes that long to gain rank and 20k fp).

Now how am i supposed to get back at them? I can kill them sure, they'll clone and lose nothing but 1 percent of decay. So why not give rebels a stupid (yes, they areterrible), ridiculously expensive fp-pet that we can kill when they are careless (all depends on your view here). PvP in this game sucks anyway, so that we imps are outnumbered really doesn't matter that much. Personally, after today i'd go Commando straight away and enjoy ruining rebels' gaming-experience.

And seriously? A flamethrower vs a 50ft tall heavily-armoured battle-droid. Come on. I'd much rather see master tailors run around tieing strings around their legs to put them out of action.

Also, when they made all DOTs not able to kill the victim, did they deliberatly forget about fire?.. Sure the fire wouldn't go out when you fall down (get incapped) and so on, but would you stop bleeding because of it? Don't think so. After watching the same rebels that stormed the base, get a quick TEF and flame us, and even though they die, badly outnumbered and what not,we do too, without a chance of fixing it(cause we're on fire, not poisoned, not bleeding or _anything_ else you in fact can fix) i don't fancy it much. Why?

Regards Commandos.

makes sense with fire

and with the resistance @ 100% looks as if fire dot will be ignoring resists for a while

either the guy posted the stats forgot this..or its on TC....the at-st doesnt have Blast vulnerablitiy when it should...

but anyways...55k is a bit drastic..i think 30k is more reasonable...and still at that, it will take a small group of commandos..how it should

in no way in heck should 1 commando be able to solo an at-st...you always see a small squad of commandos doing it! (2+)

---

StarNick wrote:

makes sense with fire

and with the resistance @ 100% looks as if fire dot will be ignoring resists for a while

either the guy posted the stats forgot this..or its on TC....the at-st doesnt have Blast vulnerablitiy when it should...

but anyways...55k is a bit drastic..i think 30k is more reasonable...and still at that, it will take a small group of commandos..how it should

in no way in heck should 1 commando be able to solo an at-st...you always see a small squad of commandos doing it! (2+)

---

If you're referring to me, the stats I posted were the Test Center's AT-ST stats, not the live servers'.

Live server is:

HAM 18,500 (a bit more in action pool)
AR3 (heavy armor)
100% to stun
70% to everything else
Vulnerability to stun

So yes, live server AT-ST does have blast vulnerability, as does the Test Center AT-ST.

How do I know? I just logged in and looked at my AT-ST in the game.

For the record, napalm doesnt really affect a tank, unless you pour it into the engine exaust.

Napalm or gas on a object is the same. Reason napalm is worse is that it sticks to the human skindue to tar. Napalm is a antipersonal weapon, it have same effect as gas on vehicles.

If you still are in doubt, go take a physics class or 2

---

For the record, napalm doesnt really affect a tank, unless you pour it into the engine exaust.

Napalm or gas on a object is the same. Reason napalm is worse is that it sticks to the human skindue to tar. Napalm is a antipersonal weapon, it have same effect as gas on vehicles.

If you still are in doubt, go take a physics class or 2

---

Actually, you are wrong. Gasoline is a solution of saturated hydrocarbons ranging from C5 to C18, is highly inflammable, and has a low flash point, but not as low as diethyl ether which has a flash point of 24 deg. C. The reasons for making napalm in the first place was to make it safe so it won't combust when you don't want it to, but will burn when you want to deploy it, and also importantly to make it burnLONGER and HOTTER thereby doing more damage to your target. The original Napalm was developed by the famous chemist and professor from Harvard, Louis Fieser, (who happened to marry one of his graduate students, and in 1968 started the quintesential series of books by Fieser and Fieser), was composed of aluminum palmitate and aluminum naphthoate. This is then mixed with gasoline to make a gel. Imentioned in a previous post what is used now in a previous post. This sticks to anything and burns for 30 secs which is much longer than gas. It also burns much hotter above 3000 deg. F. I'm not sure what you are refering to as 'tar', but as far as I know tar is what is left from the fractional distiallation and cracking of crude petroluem. It could mean something else, I just don't know what you mean by that. Perhaps you are refering to the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons due to the lack of any intramolecular oxidizers, which will lead to the formation of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, elemental carbon (soot), and water? This property makes flamethrowers very useful against enclosed spaces.

I believe in a previous post I said that napalm BOMBS are one of the best weapons against tanks, and that I would not be willing to run up to a tank with a flamethrower Tanks are suseptable to flamethrowers at theirrear where they are vulnerable. TheRussians in Afghanistanand Chechnya use a one shot disposable 'flamethrower' with an effectiverange of 600m, the RPO-A Schmel thermobaric round. (Thermobaric is another word for fuel-air, which is what napalm bombs are). These RPO-A flamethrowers can be used against armored vehicles, but the crew usually survived to return fire even though the damage. Vehicles with reactive armor would survive but shots on other armored vehicles to the flanks or top would do damage to them.

I took modern physics I and II as an undergrad and it is not useful in this discussion. The one year of physical chemistry I had was more cogent, but it was still not as pertinent as the year of chemical physics I had in grad school. To be honest with you I think physics s**ks b**ls, chemistry is where it's at. Not everything burns at the same temperature, to oversimplify it, it's dependent on the amount of energy in the bonds of the compounds. The more exergonic a reaction, in this case combustion which can be thought of as a runaway chain reaction, will depend on the heat of combustion of the compound. Since gasoline is a saturated hydrocarbon, (it only has sigma bonds), it will not release as much energy per mole as the polystyrene,( a long chain polymermade fromof vinylbenzene(styrene), and benzene, ( a 6 carbon aromatic hydrocarbon. This is what modern napalm is made from. Polystyrene and benzene both are aromatic which gives these molecules great stability and therefore will release more energy. If this is wrong feel free to correct me, I couldnt find a CRC handbook of chem and phy lying around and i'm not interested enough to get one from the library.

Something can't be right with the ATST stats that you posted twice.

Both say that the ATST has high resist to stun(the TC on said 60 or 70% and the live one says 100%) but then you say that they are both vun to STUN, I don't know about the TC but on live they are vun to BLAST not stun.

---

RDHOmega wrote:

Something can't be right with the ATST stats that you posted twice.

Both say that the ATST has high resist to stun(the TC on said 60 or 70% and the live one says 100%) but then you say that they are both vun to STUN, I don't know about the TC but on live they are vun to BLAST not stun.

---

Sorry, hah. Mistype on my part. Yes, vulnerable to dt_blast, not stun.

My bad!

---

Nipple wrote:

Spasmolytic

---

Skinny Puppy ROCK (They're back together...)