Pistoleer Archive
Thread: Why doesnt pistol have a ranged death blow?
Message Edited by Lhargylflharfh on 05-12-2004 07:54 PM
JawaJoey2 wrote:
Thatmay make some sense, but that sucks when it comes to fun. People want to be able to choose a weapon type, master that proffession, and be effective with it. The simple truth is, there are people who want to use pistols in the game. For some reason or another, they think they're especially cool, want to be like Han Solo, want to be fast and close up but not melee, or whatever, but people want to use pistols and still have the option of effectively killing something else on their own.
Can't be helped. If you want to use a certain weapon you will also have to realize that it is only effective at it's given role.
What contradiction? Between offensive balance and offesnive balance? You obviously misunderstood me. You want to measure things on an overall, offense, defense, status effects, status defense, range scale between the proffessions. I want to measure things on a scale large enough to differentiate the proffessions, but small enough to make the relative proffessions equal enough to be playable against and with eachother at a similar level. Everything should be balanced, but on their own. Speed/damage/accuracy should be balanced. Defense shoudl be separately balanced. Status and AOE effects should also be balanced on their own. Your view of everything be balanced together gives little freedom in choosing your proffession. "If you want to be assualt, then you can't be a pistoleer, no matter how much you would like to use pistols. Sorry, you don't get to choose your weapon then choose your role, you have to choose your role and are forced into a certain weapon." Giving one proffession OFFENSE and one DEFENSE makes the options of modifying your proffession through others less important and deemphazises a strong point of the game.
Can't work that way. As I said earlier you end up with all the professions being exactly the same with just different profession with just different graphics.
You are stating that all offense should be equal, all status changes equal, and all defenses equal. That means everyone being the same. You can't seperately balance them. You have to do them overall.
Bingo. If you want to be a certain role then you need to take the professions that emphasize it. You can't have all professions able to do all the same roles.
Giving one profession offense and another defense doesn't make it less important. It makes it more important. You have to decide what combinations of offense, defense, and combat multipliers will best fit your play style and your role.
Even if that did make groups more diverse or something (sounds more like a pain in the arse that would simply be avoided) it severely hurts soloers who want to be able to kill whatever they encounter with the same relative ease, and surely doesn't seem worth it. It would benefit some groupsthat havepeople who were willing and able to find a diverse array of proffessions to include, and no one else. Finding who you need to be your group would be a pain (Carbineers aren't everywhere you know), and it's a lot funner to go out with your freinds, whatever proffession they are, and hunt everything. People would rather avoid the hassle and avoid some animals than get the slight advantage of having another profession. It would be of too little benefit to be worth implementing and becoming a pain for countless more people.
Thats the problem. Not just that the solo player want to kill everthing with the same ease, also that all professions want the same thing. I solo all the time. Yet should a solo player be able to solo a Kraty with the same ease as a group of twenty?
You could still kill a MOB with a group. The point was that it would be advantageous for certain professions to fight specific ones. But that doesn't mean you HAD tohave one to kill it. Just that it would be a bit easier.
How is balancing the playing field all the same? You have your defense/offense view which is a very encompassing balance, but that doesn't mean that anything less means everyone's the same. That's proposterous.
Overall damage has to be somewhat equal for the game to be fun. It simply isn't fun for pistoleers to not have a chance against a riflemen just because Waste here says that they're the anti melee ranged prof.
Of course it's the same. Lets look what you said. You want offense balanced. That means combining speed, accuracy, and damage. So how do you propose to balance it? Doesn't that mean that over say a minute they all do about the same damage? Isn't that the balance you are talking of? Then you would do the same for defenses. Then for the combat multipliers. That makes them all the SAME.
I didn't say a Pistoleer should have no chance against the Rifle. Just they won't have a good one. Just like the Rifle won't have a good chance against Carabineer, and Carabineer won't be good against Pistoleer. It's called having a role. It's stacking one professions strengths against anothers weaknesses.
You balance picture is very nice if you're in the real world organizing an army, but wouldn't be fun or fair in SWG. People have the right to choose their weapon and have the capability to succeed in fighting with it. You seem like a fairly logical person, so I'll assume that in your balance version, a Pistoleer would have a 50/50 chance vs. a Rifleman (despite the fact that you've called Pistoleer an anti-melee prof, thus rendering it's "defense" less effective against another ranged opponent [making a duel unfair {and unfun} for the pistoleer]). But the proffession can be a lot more fun if they don't have to be stuck in a defensive role and can put up a strong offense. More action, more fun.
No. A Pistoleer vs Rifleman would be 20/80. Because you are putting the Riflemens strength (raw damage) against a weakness in the Pistoleer. By the same token the Carabineer would be 80/20 vs Rifle. While Pistoleer would be 80/20 vs Carabineer. But you can also change those odds by certain situational modifiers. For example getting really close to the Rifleman would lower his chances while rasing the chances of the Pistoleer.
They can put up a good fight. But only when their strength is matched against anothers weakness.
People do have the right to pick their weapons. But the ability to succeed with them should not always be the same. Otherwise what is the difference between professions if everyone has the same chance of success? No, certain weapons should be advantageous over others in certain situations.
You don't need to force any proffession into such large roles. Due to the very nature of the game, you can get supplementary proffessions and modify your main combat role, which can be whatever you want, to be effective in different areas. As I've said before, if a Pistoleer wants to be a more defensive player, he has the ability to get fencer or something and he'll be much more defensive. If he wants to be offesnive he can get bounty Hunter also. What's so great about this game is that you can do that. You have enough skill points to supllement your proffessiona nd consequently make your character very unique and put it in whatver role you want it to be in. Your view forces players to choose their weapon based on their desire in combat effectiveness, not on their own personal desire. You don't need to have pistoleers be specialised anti melee, because if people wanted to be that, they could, but not everyone who wants to use a pistol does, so they should get a fair starting point which they can modify to fit the role that they choose.
Exactly. Even though all the professions have roles, it is possible to stack professions to increase the range of roles you can do. Lets say you want to be defensive and use lots of combat multipliers. Then Pistoleer/Carabineer is the way to go. But you will still have a disadvantage. That is your raw damage is lower. So you could go Rifleman/Pistoleer. Good offense and defense. But your combat multipliers are lower. Go Rifleman/Carabiner and you have combat multipliers and raw damage. But low on defenses. It means there will always be some weakness whatever the combinations you take.
My view doesn't require them to choose weapons based on their desire in combat effectiveness. It requires them to choose based on the role they wish to play. It lets them tweak their character based on their play style. In your view it doesn't matter. They are all just effective. I could be Rifle, or Carabineer, or Pistol. It doesn't matter. I would have the same chance using either. So in your system it doesn't matter. If I want to be lots of offensive power it doesn't matter. Since they all have the same offensive power. If I want combat multipliers it wouldn't matter. They are all the same under your view.
Do you really want a system where they are all the same? Same offense, same combat multipliers, and same defenses? Why not just drop Carabineer, Rifle, and Pistol into a single profession called Ranged Warrior and set it up like Marksman. One branch for rifle, one for pistol, and one for carbine. It would be the same effect as what you are asking for.
This is still going? LMAO.
/whipDeadhorse
/kickDeadhorse
/yellatDeadhorse
true_Kieran wrote:
Actually such a system sounds interesting but is a fun killer, we've had something like this i DAoC, let me give you an example. At the highest lvl (lvl 50) pretty much everything still interesting you could do is RvR (realm vs realm). Each group could have 8 members. In on of the 3 Realms, Hibernia, you had 3 "healer" classes, the bard, the druid and the warden. The druid had the high buffs, he could buff only a certain amount of people at a time other than our docs, the bard had the ability to make the group faster and the warden had something often called "bubble", a magical shield which protected of slow attacks so to speak. Then you had 3 magical classes, the mentalist, the eldritch and the enchanter, all three had only one skill line that was wanted in groups, but this one wanted very much, mentalist was for mana regeneration, the other two had about the same job, to do the main damage, oftencalled the bombs. Then you had 2 stalker classes, one more for ranged the other more for melee, and 3 tank classes. Now thanks to special abilities, an elite group always consisted of one of the three healer classes, one mentalist, two who can be either enchanter or eldritch, and two tanks. Stalker classes were important because without them you had no info of the enemy on the field, yet almost no one wanted them in group because they weren't as effective in combat and without group, your chance to get Realm Points (the only reward in RvR, given for killing people of other realms) was between 1% and 0 during the main time, their only chance was to go out there hidden during morning times and hope for finding a single char hunting. Since the 3 healer classes were support classes, not main fighting, there were less than of other classes and some groups started to say "no, we won't go out there without at least two of them" which led to waiting times of 20 minutes to 2 hours and several classes almost never getting groups. Now sure, our groups here can be larger, but then many will still say "some professions are more effective... less people, higher chance to get the loot myself". Naff groups already get kept low, so that you don't have to share too much money.
Haven't played DAoC. But I don't think you example translates exactly. My suggestion only makes some changes to MOBs. You example seemed to be about PvP. Also the suggestion would only make it easier if you had someone that could hit the weak spot. However it isn't required. You could still kill the MOB. It just might take a little longer.
Jawa,
You keep stating that you would balance offense, combat multipliers, and defense separately without making them the same. GIve specifics of how you would do this.
Raptor2k1 wrote:
One thing I'd like to comment on. Everyone keeps talking about the love triangle of Pistoleer, Carbineer, and Rifleman. My question is: What about commandos? They're the only profession to havea prerequisite requirement of the entire marksman profession, so should they simply be better than all of them? (not saying I'm advocating this, just pointing out that there's a profession out there being ignored with all of these talks of professions countering eachother - what would their role be? And if you're going to be one of those folk that thinks commando should be a support profession, despite investing more skill-points into combat than any other profession in the game, I'm going to smack you!)
Now, the only real way this is going to end up balanced and fun as a result of the way the game is designed is if profession power is based upon skill-point investment. Rifleman, Pistoleer, and Carbineer should all be on even playing fields in terms of combat effectiveness, but for different reasons and through use of different strategies.
Ie. Pistoleer damage output might not be high at closer ranges, but they can avoid enemy fire with great deftness (kinda like now, except vastly improved.) Rifleman could focus on pure offensive power at long range, having little defenses to speak of. Carbineerscould be in the middle-grouds here. Sinceit takes a bit more skill investment, commando could have massive firepower at a variety of ranges, and a ranged toughness skill for taking fire.
This is a vastly over-simplified concept of balance, but it is still a valid point. Just because professions are balanced around what skill investmentgoes into them does not mean that they will "all be the same".
Message Edited by Waste93 on 05-13-2004 08:17 AM
Waste93 wrote:
How would you do that? Would damage scale based on range?
Also it doesn't make the Rifle more effect. It makes them more effective at long range as you said, but less effective as the target closes the distance. It makes them the same effectiveness as the others. The reason being the very short distances involved and the ease at covering those distances.
As you stated "So the Rifleman and the Pistoleer would probably kill the same thing at about the same speed, and take about the same damage, but the fight would be totally different for each. ". The fight would be different in that they used different skills and weapon sure. But other than that it is exactly the same.Kill something at the same speed, take and do the same damage. What is the difference between the two then? Their titles, the name of their specials they spammed sure. But the fight isn't totally different. Not if they are doing the same damage over time and taking the same damage. But if you really thing about it, they are the same. Just different graphics.
Thats just it. They have the same effectiveness. Always. There is no difference. A Rifle at 50m is the same as a Carbine at say 35m, which is the same as a Pistoleer at 15m. Other than the range number, they are exactly the same. No difference at all.
How would your system change the role? You system makes the only role that of what range you want to fight at. I can be a Pistoleer that is most effective at 15m. But what is my role? How does it differ from the others? It doesn't. I would have the exact same role if I was Carabineer. It would just be at a different range bracket. So how am I changing my role by picking up Carabineer? I'm not. I'm just chaning my effective range bracket. That's it. For as you stated, all of them would have the same effectiveness within their ideal range bracket. That isn't a role. That is three identical professions with slightly different ranges.
If I went Carabineer, or Pistoleer, or Rifle. What is my role? My role shouldn't be just to kill things but at slightly different distances. As you've explained it that is what the role is. If I go Carabineer/ Pistoleer how have I changed my role other than changing my range brackets under your system? I haven't. Because they all have the same role, only different ranges they are most effective.
You really are narrow minded, and worst of all, stuck in our view. Neither how they community thinks about the professions, nor how the developers of the game and the professions think about it, nor any argument matters to you, just because you don't want it that way. I'll not waste anymore time on you here.