Commando Archive
Thread: dont asume anythaing
Brilyn
Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:06 am
#27
< i am trying to open the eye's of all who look at this forum and say "cry babys""stop your whining" >
Hey, that's fine. I'm not saying either.
I just want to see if any of your issues can be addressed by a WS willing to put some time in.
< you can do 3k dmg with a flamer with the same amount of time so most of thees are not pro. >
o.... k....
It's not *all* about the flamer.
It's about having a choice of 5 different damage types, with varying degrees of AP at your disposal.
You can do 3k of Damage against something that has low Heat Resistance in that time.
You can't against something that has high Heat Resistance.
AsCarbineer, if... no, sorry. *When* I run into something with high Energy Resistance, I don't give up. I pocket the Laser Carbine, and take out the DXR.
Just because the Laser Carbine is *the best* all round carbine that I generally use in 99% of *all* combat situations, doesn't render the DXR useless.
It's a tool, and it has it's place.
As do Grenades that do Blast and Acid damage.
Now. I agree, this is not totally the same time.
I mean, *all* my skills count equally towards the DXR and the Laser Carbine.
I think it's really a load of [edit] that the HAR and FT run on different skill-trees.
I'm not going to downplay any of your serious issues.
But don't just see 'Flamethrower' when you go into combat.
< The problem here is that most thaings do have a hi resist against heat because of the so "overpowering" flamer >
Actually, not 'most'. Some.
I don't participate in much high-end PvP. Carbineer isn't really cut out for it. *grin*
But what I *do* recall:
Nightsister Protectors: 100% resist Heat.
Super Battle Droid: stupid-high Heat Resistance.
So I do agree, in part, with your assessment.
Conversely:
Nightsister Protectors: 100% *everything* bar Kinetic and Blast.
SBD: Stupid-high resistance to *everything*.
At Least with the Protectors you can break out the Thermals, right? only 15% resistance to them.
I'm not asking for you to list all the critters with high Heat Resistance. I know there's quite a few.
But, fact of the matter is, the 2 most common Resistances are Energy and Kinetic, *not* Heat.
If the FT was upgraded to Light AP (and I think it should, at the least), then your damage output doubles, yes? 
OceasArt
Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:28 am
#28
I am all for the Commando revamp. I would like to make one statement though. If we get a big bump in power for both PVE and PVP, we will have servers full of commandos. I wish they could do something about that.
(my other toon is commando)
RazerWolf
Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:42 pm
#29
I had a long reply posted up, but the forums logged me out and deleted the post so **edit** it.
Brilyn
Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:57 pm
#30
< logged me out and deleted the post >
That sucks. 
If you feel up to it later, I'd quite like to see it, if you feel like risking the forums again.
hopdog
Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:44 pm
#31
good good, i like to see it when where trying to figure somthing out on this topic instead of half way flaming it. I'm looking forward for ThunderHeart's review for commando's that hes "soposed" to post to give us a glimp's of hope.
It would be really nice if ThunderHeart would give his opinion on this matter on my subject
*wish's for Thunderhart's brief messege*
It would be really nice if ThunderHeart would give his opinion on this matter on my subject
*wish's for Thunderhart's brief messege*
StarNick
Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:02 pm
#32
good good, i like to see it when where trying to figure somthing out on this topic instead of half way flaming it. I'm looking forward for ThunderHeart's review for commando's that hes "soposed" to post to give us a glimp's of hope.
It would be really nice if ThunderHeart would give his opinion on this matter on my subject
*wish's for Thunderhart's brief messege*
It would be really nice if ThunderHeart would give his opinion on this matter on my subject
*wish's for Thunderhart's brief messege*
1) We're just argueing pointlessly...basically everything you said in the original post (and was argued on...the classic commando arguement has been argued in countless posts for a year now)....we all know....as well the reason why we don't wait for TH's message...
2) You'll be wishing a loooong time for a brief message from him 
Message Edited by StarNick on 08-19-2004 11:03 PM
aeuralis
Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:31 pm
#33
>< Secondly, there is no ACCURACY line for the weaponsmith to experiment on.>
>Actually, you are completely and totally wrong.
What you are experimenting on is RANGE not accuracy. There is a difference. Secondly, the range is capped at 32m. So if you throw them at a charging target, by the time it goes off you will be in the blast radius.
Hellshot
Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:14 am
#34
OK, I haven't posted a longish thread on the state of commando in a while, so why not, its a slow day:
The combat system in this game is broken, I think we can all agree that much, but how is it broken.
a) DPS among professions is too widly varied
b) Special spammage is too prevalent
c) Use of specials kills the player
d) Armor and buffs are too overpowered and too overused
Assuming that we all agree on those 4 pts, lets examine commando as a class. Thunderheart recently stated that we are supposed to be the heavy weapons specialists. In my mind, this means that we should be the class meant to damage heavily armored targets. Well, we fail to stand out in this role because of the prevelance of plenty ofmedium and heavy armor piercing weapons that can be fired at a faster rate than our consumable heavy weapns. So lets through out the whole armored thing and look at our class as ones that are supposed to do the initial damage and generally causemass havoc. Here I think where our class is and where it should be come closer together. Here is a tree by tree analysis of this role, with upside and downside.
A) Field tactics
-Upside
Wide range of damage types (acid, cold, blast, heat)
Area of effect damage
High initial damage
Provide pure combat experience
-Downside
High HAM cost
Slow attack speed
Area of affect damage does not affect non-aggroed targets
Expensive on a per shot basis compared to standard weapons
Innacurate
Can damage the user
Small stack size, making powerups and slicing a pain
B) Heavy Weapons
-Upside
Wide variety of damage types (blast, energy, acid, electricty)
Area of effect damage
Very High inital damage
Provide the only long range "specials" that are commando specific
Two weapons with AP3 (HPBC and RL)
-Downside
High HAM cost
Slow attack speed
Area of affect damage does not affect non-aggroed targets
Expensive on a per shot basis compared to standard weapons
Wild variance in accuracy and ranges
Moderately small stack size
No powerups
Two weapons that do not have heavy AP (the acid stream launcher is AP2 and the heavy lightnining
cannon is AP1, just like the light lightning cannon
)
)C) Flamethrower
-Upside
Extremely high initial damage (greater than 10k against targets without resists)
DOT attack that can target the health pool
-Downside
Extremely low rate of fire and DPS
No AP value
No specials to target initial damage to a specific pool
Commando specials limited to 16m or less, but classified as a ranged weapon
D) Heavy Acid Rifle
-Upside
Fairly high inital base damage and special damage
Provides a secondary damage type to the flamethrower
-Downside
Less damage than an equvialent flamethrower
Extremely low rate of fire and DPS
No AP value
No specials to target a specifc pool
Commando specials limited to 16m or less, but classified as a ranged weapon
Marginally usefull situational weapon that is made less useful by the weapon switching delay
Looks like a piece of aluminum pipe with a handle slapped on it
Is the butt of all jokes in SWG
Is a weak clone of the FT
No one likes this gun
Brilyn
Fri Aug 20, 2004 4:59 am
#35
< What you are experimenting on is RANGE not accuracy. There is a difference.>
For grenades, yes.
For other weaponry, no.
Weapon 1 has +30 at Ideal Range
Weapon 2 has +60 at Ideal Range
Assuming everything else is equal, which will hit more often? Which will be 'more accurate'?
Thus do I experiment on Accuracy.
What you are saying is akin to saying that I can never Experiment on Condition, because it's called DURABILITY in the Experimentation dialogue box: basically incorrect.
StarNick
Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:38 am
#36
Weapon 1 has +30 at Ideal Range
Weapon 2 has +60 at Ideal Range
Assuming everything else is equal, which will hit more often? Which will be 'more accurate'?
Thus do I experiment on Accuracy.
Technically you're half right...and half wrong. You get a bonus with a better chance to hit at the ideal range....it doesn't entirely make the weapon itself more accurate, just its Ideal. Experimenting on this could very well make it very inaccurate 64 m, but very accurate 30 m, this i do not know as im not a smithy. But with ideal range bonuses, it gives a better chance for you to hit...most likely using your existing accuracy mods (imagine using a weapon while having very poor accuracy, even with good ideal range....you're going to miss quite a bit right?). So in a sense, yes you're experimenting on accuracy...in another sense, not really. Just a bunch of wordplay here....
Brilyn
Fri Aug 20, 2004 9:16 am
#37
It *is* a bunch of wordplay, but it's also more than that.
Let's take the Lightening Beam Cannon as an example, as it's Ideal Range is nicely in the middle (32m).
Point blank: -43 at 0m
Ideal: +41 at 32m
Max: -119 at 64m
Graph that. As you move from 0m to 32m you're accuracy (ie % of shots that land on target) improve.
As you move from 32m to 64m, it'll decrease.
Now, we're not sure if the graph should be a curve, or a line. Depends on the equation SOE use.
I'm gonna assume a line, for the sake of simplicity.
You can plot your Range Modifier at any range using that graph.
Now, weapon number 2. *Also* a Lightening Beam Cannon:
Point blank: -43 at 0m
Ideal: +71 at 32m
Max: -119 at 64m
If you plot this again, you'll see that the bumped up Ideal range improves your accurarcy at *every* point, except 0m and 64m.
< most likely using your existing accuracy mods (imagine using a weapon while having very poor accuracy, even with good ideal range....you're going to miss quite a bit right?). >
Now this bit is very true.
Hence why I'm looking for Starsider Commandos to run some tests for me.
I mean, I'm *certain* the weapon will be more accurate. It just mightn't make enough of a difference for a commando to care, is all.
aeuralis
Fri Aug 20, 2004 1:17 pm
#38
>I mean, I'm *certain* the weapon will be more accurate. It just mightn't make enough of a difference for a >commando to care, is all.
Since neither of us have the equations, i will say that while i see your point , i disagree with the asumption of a line as the correct representation of the accuracy function. It may have parts that can be represented as line but the general equation is most a piecewise function. Your final statement is my point. You can make them as accurate as possible but that doesn't make them viable in combat. The fact of the matter is that Commandos do 95% of combat inside 16 meters. It doesn't change the fact that if you throw a grenade at 32m, because of the speed and delays, the target can be within 10m before it goes off, allowing the commando to get hit by the damage. I experiment on my grenades to make sure the have sufficent range so i don't have to get hit by the blast. BUT I have made some that were just experimented to max damage and reduce ham. I hit the same number of times with both. So i am not sure that it makes much difference. The difference i noticed was with the range experimented grenades did more damage on average. But NONE of them did the listed max damage.
StarNick
Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:20 pm
#39
I'm gonna assume a line, for the sake of simplicity.
You're tempting the gods here...knowing the devs, that line is curved