Pilot Archive

for all of u who say that 1-3 hit kills are great because they match up pretty well with what happens in the movies, i say this: why would the devs give us 10 levels of tech for each component, about 20 different ships to choose from, and 3 different navy's to fly for if any ship, INCLUDING MULTI PLAYER SHIPS, can be wasted in 1-3 shots. what difference does it make what ship u fly if any ship can be killed in 1-3 hits. pvp damage is the prime culprate behind this and pvp damage needs to be lowered. the fact that multiplayer ships can be wasted so quickly by a tie lfighter or an awing is definitive proof that pvp damage should be lowered , in my opinion.

Message Edited by Ditolus on 02-04-2005 04:52 PM

Have you PvP'ed in JTL yet?

Or did you have a single fight(that you probably lost) and suddenly become the PvP expert?

Or are you just reguritating what you read on the boards having never tried any of it yourself?


However.... i think everyone agrees MP ships need a different ruleset.



I swear this debate will never end.. Its like a boxing match.

In this corner we have Xwing/Tie fighter sim series and other misc flight sim fans!

in the other corner we have the the purist RPG players who are unaccomstomed to a high speed aerial or space combat against a thinking human opponent!

At the sound of the bell come out fighting!

DING DING!



Ok im done venting, have fun.

nope. in fact i've pretty much played nothing but jtl since it came out. y do u automatically assume someone who disagrees with your viewpoint is a whining noob?

>> nope. in fact i've pretty much played nothing but jtl since it came out.

That doesnt say much. I have too, whats your point? JTL is the only reason i play SWG.


>> Y do u automatically assume someone who disagrees with your viewpoint is a whining noob?

(*cough* its WHY and YOU) My viewpoint has little to do with anything. I'm just sick and tired of reading about PvP damage reduction, its all over the place now. Isn't there ANYTHING else USEFUL people can talk about? Or is the board out of useful info and now we're down to pointless bickering as the only thing left to discuss?

After reading most of the Pvp damage whining, here's the conclusion ive come to:

They got owned, and they don't like it. They spent all this time mastering pilot, they have this picture perfect idea on how they feel things are "supposed to be", and the instant they stepped into the fire, they got burned, and their ego bruised. They can't handle that. So rather than accept the challenge and step up to it, they want to change the rules to something they can better handle so they can continue to feel the same way about themselves as they did grinding pilot via PvE.

Thats my psycology mixed with sarchasm for a friday evening. Im gonna get off work soon and have me a beer. Have a nice weekend.

---

Ditolus wrote:
for all of u who say that 1-3 hit kills are great because they match up pretty well with what happens in the movies, i say this: why would the devs give us 10 levels of tech for each component, about 20 different ships to choose from, and 3 different navy's to fly for if any ship, INCLUDING MULTI PLAYER SHIPS, can be wasted in 1-3 shots. what difference does it make what ship u fly if any ship can be killed in 1-3 hits. pvp damage is the prime culprate behind this and pvp damage needs to be lowered. the fact that multiplayer ships can be wasted so quickly by a tie lfighter or an awing is definitive proof that pvp damage should be lowered , in my opinion.

Message Edited by Ditolus on 02-04-2005 04:52 PM

---

I must disagree. Would you prefer if there was one or two ships that would be "the best" for PvP in space? This would result in something very similar to the "composite clone" problem the ground game is suffering.

You also say that it doesn't make a difference what ship you fly in PvP when in actuality, it does. If you want to fly a small maneuverable ship, you have to make sacrifices on shielding. If you want a big armored ship, you have to give up speed and maneuverability. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. Furthermore, the component system allows you to be flexible and lets you do all sorts of combinations.

Finally, I agree that multiplayer ships should have better defenses, but all of those ideas have been hashed and re-hashed many times.

having spent my fair share of time in online flight sims (and worked as a programmer on a few), a damage reduction will not make a whole lot of diff.

in any combat flight sim like this, there are a small number of pilots who understand acm, and understand a2a tactics. doesn't matter if they are flying a y wing or a spitfire, the technique is the same...


as ot me, i like the way it is now. combat is fast and brutal, like it should be. this is actually pretty much like a ww2 combat game. if the other guy gets a good shot on you, you are going down.

reminds me of the good ww2online times:
flying along, 10-15km up, looking for spits to kill, and thud thud black. 20mm is a one shot kill if you have your joystick up your exhaust pipe

and that's how it should be.

someone will always be better than you. the secret is to catch that person while they are not looking

---

Ditolus wrote:let's say tiger woods and i enter a putting contest. but we only get one putt each. now obviously tiger is an insanely better golfer than me. but since it's only a one putt contest, i could easily get a lucky shot off and win.

---

First off, luck is a part of life. I'm sure there's plenty of combat pilots who scored kills simply because they were in the right spot at the right time. Secondly, your analogy doesn't work. Even in a one-putt contest, Tiger Woods still has an advantage. He'll know what kind of ball to use, the perfect club to use and how the terrain will affect the ball's path. He may even know how the type of grass on the course will affect the ball. The average person won't know any of that. All that knowledge comes from talent and skill earned through constant practice.

As for your title, 1-3 hit kills don't negate diversity, they highlight it. The current pvp system separates the average pilot from those with talent and skill.

Message Edited by SwordNMace on 02-05-2005 08:58 AM

---

Ditolus wrote:

let's say tiger woods and i enter a putting contest. but we only get one putt each. now obviously tiger is an insanely better golfer than me. but since it's only a one putt contest, i could easily get a lucky shot off and win. but if the contest were lets say 15 putts, then tiger would most likely win since he would have a better opportunity to display his skill.

as it stands right now most fights lsat less than 10 seconds with 1-3 shot kills the norm. no matter if you're flying a heavy or light fighter.

---

I like that analogy, well said.

However, you can do 15 quick pvp space fights, and if someone is better at it, they will likely win most of them.That wouldprobably mean they are more skilled under the current pvp system.

I admitI am terrible at pvp in space. I've only tried it once and died instantly. If fights lasted longer it would at least be easier to get some practice at it. To me that would simply be more fun, isn't that the whole point of playing this game?

If i wasn't having any fun, of course I could just leave or not pvp, but before I do im going to give the current system more of a chance. Oh well!

for some practice, load up some low level guns with a friend and go /duel. then count every hit as a kill, after someone takes a hit, they back off to about 1000m and come back for more. once you both got the hang of it, try fighting to shields down like this. if you are both in small manuverable craft then this will take a huge amount of time.

i personaly think damage should come down by half, not half of what it is now, but a .5 multiplier instead of a .75 like now. i think the devs just forgot to factor in weapon overload 3 when they setup the values on player shields/armor and weapons. setting it to .5 would make it so that heavy ships could take a couple hits from lighter ships but light ships would still die in 1 or 2 shots. they should also make higher level shields more powerful so that heavy ships have more protection, right now my tie-advanced has the best shield ive ever seen, which is totaly unballanced.

---

Mac_Leod wrote:

---

Ditolus wrote:
for all of u who say that 1-3 hit kills are great because they match up pretty well with what happens in the movies, i say this: why would the devs give us 10 levels of tech for each component, about 20 different ships to choose from, and 3 different navy's to fly for if any ship, INCLUDING MULTI PLAYER SHIPS, can be wasted in 1-3 shots. what difference does it make what ship u fly if any ship can be killed in 1-3 hits. pvp damage is the prime culprate behind this and pvp damage needs to be lowered. the fact that multiplayer ships can be wasted so quickly by a tie lfighter or an awing is definitive proof that pvp damage should be lowered , in my opinion.

Message Edited by Ditolus on 02-04-2005 04:52 PM

---

I must disagree. Would you prefer if there was one or two ships that would be "the best" for PvP in space? This would result in something very similar to the "composite clone" problem the ground game is suffering.

You also say that it doesn't make a difference what ship you fly in PvP when in actuality, it does. If you want to fly a small maneuverable ship, you have to make sacrifices on shielding. If you want a big armored ship, you have to give up speed and maneuverability. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. Furthermore, the component system allows you to be flexible and lets you do all sorts of combinations.

Finally, I agree that multiplayer ships should have better defenses, but all of those ideas have been hashed and re-hashed many times.

---

i would actually say that there already are 1 or 2 ships that are "the best". i would call awings as u stated, the "composite of space". simply for the fact that since pvp damage is so high, the high end armor and shields are really pretty useless. which only leaves maneuverability as the real factor in space pvp. the problem is people who prefer the heavy fighters and a flying style that depends on heavy armor/shields and not on maneuverability are getting jipped.

---

Ditolus wrote:

---

Mac_Leod wrote:

---

Ditolus wrote:
for all of u who say that 1-3 hit kills are great because they match up pretty well with what happens in the movies, i say this: why would the devs give us 10 levels of tech for each component, about 20 different ships to choose from, and 3 different navy's to fly for if any ship, INCLUDING MULTI PLAYER SHIPS, can be wasted in 1-3 shots. what difference does it make what ship u fly if any ship can be killed in 1-3 hits. pvp damage is the prime culprate behind this and pvp damage needs to be lowered. the fact that multiplayer ships can be wasted so quickly by a tie lfighter or an awing is definitive proof that pvp damage should be lowered , in my opinion.

Message Edited by Ditolus on 02-04-2005 04:52 PM

---

I must disagree. Would you prefer if there was one or two ships that would be "the best" for PvP in space? This would result in something very similar to the "composite clone" problem the ground game is suffering.

You also say that it doesn't make a difference what ship you fly in PvP when in actuality, it does. If you want to fly a small maneuverable ship, you have to make sacrifices on shielding. If you want a big armored ship, you have to give up speed and maneuverability. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. Furthermore, the component system allows you to be flexible and lets you do all sorts of combinations.

Finally, I agree that multiplayer ships should have better defenses, but all of those ideas have been hashed and re-hashed many times.

---

i would actually say that there already are 1 or 2 ships that are "the best". i would call awings as u stated, the "composite of space". simply for the fact that since pvp damage is so high, the high end armor and shields are really pretty useless. which only leaves maneuverability as the real factor in space pvp. the problem is people who prefer the heavy fighters and a flying style that depends on heavy armor/shields and not on maneuverability are getting jipped.

---

First, if you have 2 or 3 heavy guns, you can one shot a lighter fighter, while the lighter fighter still has to land several hits to get through your shields and amror with his guns. So, heavy fighters are not getting jipped, they are just not ruling pvp combat as they do PvE.

Second, from what I can tell, people want to lower damage so their leet gear counts more than skill. They can't handle a battle where flying skill and aiming matters, not camped loot.

well im of the opinion that lowering pvp damage would on average make fights last longer. in fact i think this would make the more SKILLED pilot come out on top more often. let me use an analogy to demonstrate point.

let's say tiger woods and i enter a putting contest. but we only get one putt each. now obviously tiger is an insanely better golfer than me. but since it's only a one putt contest, i could easily get a lucky shot off and win. but if the contest were lets say 15 putts, then tiger would most likely win since he would have a better opportunity to display his skill.

as it stands right now most fights lsat less than 10 seconds with 1-3 shot kills the norm. no matter if you're flying a heavy or light fighter.