Ranger Archive
Thread: Corr Summit Summary
Owen-Lars
Tue Aug 31, 2004 3:13 am
#53
some people (including me) are happy with the current combat system as much as it applies to PvE.
Fair point, some people including a few of my friends think the current system work and although i highly disagree i respect that as an opinion. Im new to these type of games and new to rpg's realy. The only other one i have played (MMORPG) is City Of Heros. I loved the combat in that because things were very tough, different skills had cooldown timers instead of combat delay which i hate. I dont like alot of the things with the current combat system because it seems far too basic.
What i mean by that is its all just states, postures and damage, there arnt any abilities that reduce the target armour ratings, lowering its resists etc. Like i said before i played COH for abit and from that experience i can take alot of possitives as far as combat goes because thats all you had to do basically. The way skills were on a seperate timer to each other, that way you could use the large and very powerfull skills which had a long timer but whilst that was recharging you could still use different skills to aid you were great features. The way certain skills and classes could control the situation, reduce a target's combat effectiveness etc. There could be many ways to involve this into swg combat wise so you would be able to use certain skills depending on your target, not just one shot to rule them all crap we have now.
One of the things i think we need to get away from is the 4 armour ratings. None, Light, Medium, Heavy just doesnt give alot of options for ar reducing skills, ways to group together to take down a target etc. If the armour of a beast had a rating then that would allow us to have certain skills that reduce this value, allow us to group together and stack ar reducing skills and more importantly still have the epic creatures that are very tough.
Im getting into details now which i wish i hadnt but as you can see there are many ways they could change the combat system to make it more beneficial to everyone and allow variation in creatures.
"Therefore, when they say EVERYTHING WILLL BE TOTALLY DIFFERENT, that means that the chances are that we won't like it as much. "
I never heard calc or the devs say this once. Why will a system that we know absolutally nothing about be worse than the one we already have? I mean come on how can it get any worse? There is a reason every corr so far have come out with a smilly face and very very pleased with what is coming, its because they are excited about what is going to happen not because they have been dancing around in hawtpants or going over a new but inferior combat system.
"That means the system I'm happy with is going to end, that means I know how I currently enjoy playing is on limited time."
What is your problem with wide spreading changes to vital systems to the game? We know nothing about the system and about what impact it will have on us so why say its the end of the world revamp? I cant see the devs making it so that players have to spend more time to get into the fun part, simply make it harder and ultimatly more fun to take down large beast. You will still be able to take down animals in a limited time but i think most of us will agree, being able to solo high end creatures is bad, being able to go to dangerous planets without fear is bad and having combat unrelated to high end group play is bad. Like i said i think you will still be able to have fun, more fun probably but thats just it, we know nothing about the system so we cannot make any valid judgements yet and getting pissed off about isnt doing you or anyone else any good.
I didnt mean anything personal by just quoting you dave but i dont think its fair on the corrs or the devs to be slating a revamp that they are going to be investing heavily in (both with time and resources) before we even know anything about it apart from the correspondents are very excited. 
DaveG
Tue Aug 31, 2004 3:44 am
#54
That's fine Owen, that'syour opinion, as I have mine, andsomeone once said, "I don't agree with your opinion but I'd fight to the death to allow you the right to have it".
I am complaining about this because I believethe devs are mis-directing their efforts with this proposed combat balance. For combat all that is required is for a few numbers to be altered (damage rates, buff values, encumbrances, max ranges), not a total rewrite of the system. Instead they should be focusing on fixing the core functions of professsions like smuggler, BH, ranger, chef, etc. So in my opinion, I think professions (including our own)that need fixing are being delayed by something that doesn't need doing [to the lengths they're obviously going to do it]. So I at least find that incredibly frustrating and at most I find it a tad offensive to all us players who are paying our good money to effectively have things thrown on us that we don't want and are then forced to wait even longer for the things we do want.
For example, in combat I have said for quite a while combat medics needed a liberal slapping with the nerf bat. However, they fixed that in a sense with a very simple mini-patch: they gave docs the ability to make resist buffs. Now I personally think they should be doing more things like this, rather than re-writing a system which doesn't need a total re-write.
As for being able to solo great hulking beasts, well I do feel fear when I'm doing that, and I also like the fact that I am capable [if I do everything right]of taking it out alone. This to me is a premium gaming experience, I get fear and reward. Furthermore, as a ranger, I feel my character is one step away from being a total hermit, onlyhaving his friends keeping him tied to civilisation, and I think that is a pretty consistent image for the ranger. Therefore, with that logic, we need the ability or at least possibility to take down any creature.
One of the things i think we need to get away from is the 4 armour ratings. None, Light, Medium, Heavy just doesnt give alot of options for ar reducing skills, ways to group together to take down a target etc. If the armour of a beast had a rating then that would allow us to have certain skills that reduce this value, allow us to group together and stack ar reducing skills and more importantly still have the epic creatures that are very tough.
This doesn't make sense to me. If a target has a certain armour rating, then it has that rating, period. The only advantage that superior numbers should add to that scenario is superior firepower to compensate for the high-level armour. The armour reduces the average damage per shot, but then lots more shots serves to raise the average damage over time (and I don't meant DoT's like bleeds,I just mean basic damage), and this how the current system works. Case closed.
I never heard calc or the devs say this once.
See Calc's opening post on this thread.
DaveG
Tue Aug 31, 2004 3:46 am
#55
That's fine Owen, that'syour opinion, as I have mine, andsomeone once said, "I don't agree with your opinion but I'd fight to the death to allow you the right to have it".
I am complaining about this because I believethe devs are mis-directing their efforts with this proposed combat balance. For combat all that is required is for a few numbers to be altered (damage rates, buff values, encumbrances, max ranges), not a total rewrite of the system. Instead they should be focusing on fixing the core functions of professsions like smuggler, BH, ranger, chef, etc. So in my opinion, I think professions (including our own)that need fixing are being delayed by something that doesn't need doing [to the lengths they're obviously going to do it]. So I at least find that incredibly frustrating and at most I find it a tad offensive to all us players who are paying our good money to effectively have things thrown on us that we don't want and are then forced to wait even longer for the things we do want.
For example, in combat I have said for quite a while combat medics needed a liberal slapping with the nerf bat. However, they fixed that in a sense with a very simple mini-patch: they gave docs the ability to make resist buffs. Now I personally think they should be doing more things like this, rather than re-writing a system which doesn't need a total re-write.
As for being able to solo great hulking beasts, well I do feel fear when I'm doing that, and I also like the fact that I am capable [if I do everything right]of taking it out alone. This to me is a premium gaming experience, I get fear and reward. Furthermore, as a ranger, I feel my character is one step away from being a total hermit, onlyhaving his friends keeping him tied to civilisation, and I think that is a pretty consistent image for the ranger. Therefore, with that logic, we need the ability or at least possibility to take down any creature.
One of the things i think we need to get away from is the 4 armour ratings. None, Light, Medium, Heavy just doesnt give alot of options for ar reducing skills, ways to group together to take down a target etc. If the armour of a beast had a rating then that would allow us to have certain skills that reduce this value, allow us to group together and stack ar reducing skills and more importantly still have the epic creatures that are very tough.
This doesn't make sense to me. If a target has a certain armour rating, then it has that rating, period. The only advantage that superior numbers should add to that scenario is superior firepower to compensate for the high-level armour. The armour reduces the average damage per shot, but then lots more shots serves to raise the average damage over time (and I don't meant DoT's like bleeds,I just mean basic damage), and this how the current system works. Case closed.
I never heard calc or the devs say this once.
See Calc's opening post on this thread.
Owen-Lars
Tue Aug 31, 2004 3:53 am
#56
See Calc's opening post on this thread.
Yes he did say that things will be completely different, however he didnt say that its gonna be bad. Infact he didnt say that he like everything they said.
So what im saying is why are you acting so negatively to a system that hasnt been outlined to us yetthose that have had the privelage to be introduced to it, to go over it with the devs love it? I just dont think anyone should be slating a system before we know anything about it.
DaveG
Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:00 am
#57
Owen-Lars wrote:
See Calc's opening post on this thread.
Yes he did say that things will be completely different, however he didnt say that its gonna be bad. Infact he didnt say that he like everything they said.
So what im saying is why are you acting so negatively to a system that hasnt been outlined to us yetthose that have had the privelage to be introduced to it, to go over it with the devs love it? I just dont think anyone should be slating a system before we know anything about it.
I'll try again:
Rather than putting their resources into doing what we all want them to do, which is fixing the functionality of several professions, they are putting all their resources into re-writing a system which I for one don't have much of a problem with, and hence think they're wasting their's and our time.
Owen-Lars
Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:01 am
#58
This doesn't make sense to me. If a target has a certain armour rating, then it has that rating, period.
What i meant to say is an armour value rather than a limited rating. For example instead of having head armouron all high end beasts they would have armour values ranging from 400-600. Certain skills would be able to lower the AR values or this by say 20-50 depending on theskill power. This would allow us to group up and take down large beast faster because if we simply had skills that knocked ar down from heavy to medium etc how does having a group work as a bonus? You work an epic creature down to having zero armour?
Its just one of oh so many problems i find with the current system.
Owen-Lars
Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:09 am
#59
Rather than putting their resources into doing what we all want them to do, which is fixing the functionality of several professions, they are putting all their resources into re-writing a system which I for one don't have much of a problem with, and hence think they're wasting their's and our time.
That is very much a personal opinion. When it was announced that the combat revamp was being pushed back after JTL everyone screamed and it showed most people wanted this revamp over anything else even balances.
Yes some people like the existing system and think couple of things could be changed but alot of others (myself included) think there are major problems that cant be fixed by simple fixes and tweat of values. The revamp will totally redefine how we experience combat and this is comething im personally waiting on with open arms. Tweaking things here and there will change things for the better yes, but the system will still be the boring old thing where you spam this until 1 your ham runs out (death or ham cost) or 2 the creature dies.
There is so much potential in this revamp and alot of people cant wait for it, i just dont like to see bad things said about a system that hasnt even been outlined yet, you may change your mind when the system is outlined, you may not but atleast then you will have something to say bad things about, and thats all good.
DaveG
Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:17 am
#60
Let's just say experience has taught me to be as optimistic as you are leads on the road to disapointment.
However the big point I'm making (again) is that regardless of how cynical I am that this new system is going to any better, I THINK, IMHO,there are other things that are more important to be fixed, and that furthermore the sort of fixes I'm talking about (such as the resist buffs from docs) willl address the spurious combat issues that number tweaking will not fix.
I know my saying my feelings here won't make a difference. I'm just a customer. However, I'm free to state them, and here is the place, and I'll have something on recordwith which to base an"I told you so" sort of post later on.
Owen-Lars
Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:40 am
#61
Yep i cant agree more that you have your right to express your opinion buti think this just boils down to the fact that some of us are completely bored with the current combat system and see its very major flaws, others are happy with the system to a degree and think priorities should change. No one person is right or wrong but we also have the right to question the reasoning behind each other's opinions which i think we have done.
Sometimes you just have to hit the problem at the source though rather than add things to 'combat' or 'balance' it. The buff system is a good example of a system that added alot of negatives and possitives to the game depending on your stand point. Buffs for me are very bad, they make your tough when you shouldnt be, they take away some risk, they lower the difficulty of creatures by making your harder. To combat this you would do what the devs have done, increase hams of creautures, armour ratings, resists etc to increase there difficulty. This is just an endless spiral due to other systems that damage the game in ways such as high end armour. How far can you go to make creatures harder? Give them even more ham? More armour and more resists?
There are a couple of very serious problems at the base of the combat system and one major one is that combat is boring. Its not just that risk isnt in there, yes that plays a part but one of the major parts is that combat simple doesnt hold the attention ofcertain end gameplayers. You can have fun hunting yes if you change things around but it still gets very boring when every creature is more or less the same with the only difference being art, ham and the rate at which you can kill it. Damage values arnt diverse enough to differentiate creatures, creature attacks are more or less prety generic (states, poisons, desieses, posturesetc), you dont need to adapt your techniques much to fight different creatures, its all just a case of rinse and repeat gamplay which after a long time results in boring gameplay.
Ifcreatures had very wideranging armourvalues, hams, resists and very cool specials then things would be very cool. You would need to adapt your technique to the current situation and perhaps even change it md combat. The same with PvP encounters (which will obviously get a massive boost once the GCW revamphits) would be much more fun ifthe cost of death andrefresh time (buffs, insure etc)was alot less. It would make it more accessibleso you would have more particiaption which is always a good thing in PvP, you would have more average players tryingit out and participating and ultimatly players who normally wouldnt go for PvP trying it out.
Again imdetails specific systems that irritate meand although could get littlefixes here and there but some like the inherent bordom factor of combat need revamping at it's core to makeit more attractive and fun.
Owen-Lars
Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:46 am
#62
"Let's just say experience has taught me to be as optimistic as you are leads on the road to disapointment."
Hehe i am always optimistic and always looking at things as a possitive rather than a negative, its just who i am. I cant handle disapointment, i dont get down and out about something if it goes wrong, i learn from it, stop if from happening again and put it down to my experiences.
I just think life can be so much fun when you expect to see things 'half full'. Once you stop expecting good things to happen to you, theres nothing to look forward to, depression would most likely set in and obvious thats a dark path.
I could die the first time i snowboard hellidrop, but atleast id die having the best time ever. So I dont think about it, adrenalin and fun is too good to hold back on concentrate on the negatives.
Anyway, where were we 
Oh yeah personal opinions hehe
Oh yeah personal opinions hehe
DaveG
Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:05 am
#63
Owen-Lars wrote:
Yep i cant agree more that you have your right to express your opinion buti think this just boils down to the fact that some of us are completely bored with the current combat system and see its very major flaws, others are happy with the system to a degree and think priorities should change. No one person is right or wrong but we also have the right to question the reasoning behind each other's opinions which i think we have done.
Yeah ok, mind if I question the rest of your posta little first though?
Sometimes you just have to hit the problem at the source though rather than add things to 'combat' or 'balance' it. The buff system is a good example of a system that added alot of negatives and possitives to the game depending on your stand point. Buffs for me are very bad, they make your tough when you shouldnt be, they take away some risk, they lower the difficulty of creatures by making your harder. To combat this you would do what the devs have done, increase hams of creautures, armour ratings, resists etc to increase there difficulty. This is just an endless spiral due to other systems that damage the game in ways such as high end armour. How far can you go to make creatures harder? Give them even more ham? More armour and more resists?
A little while ago I was very much of the position to speak out against solo-groups and buffs, in favour of working as a team. My very early days were spent in group hunts which I would coordinate, however, the fun has gone out of it for me since I started hunting big game on my own. I really prefare doing that now, and I think it's more consistent with what a ranger is, like I said, we rangers, if no-one else should be the ones that can go into the wild alone and combat the beasts. Although I do agree that buffs are not good for the game (I do not include food buffs with this), and they should be weakend, or at least made harder to make in the first place (number tweaking in both cases). Furthermore, I do look down on those who depend on doc buffs to hunt with just so they can trade blows with big mobs. In turn tho, I think high-end armour is a good thing, but the huge encumbrances that force people to use buffs is bad, so I also think encumbrances should be reduced for comp/hunting armour (number tweaking again).
There are a couple of very serious problems at the base of the combat system and one major one is that combat is boring. Its not just that risk isnt in there, yes that plays a part but one of the major parts is that combat simple doesnt hold the attention ofcertain end gameplayers. You can have fun hunting yes if you change things around but it still gets very boring when every creature is more or less the same with the only difference being art, ham and the rate at which you can kill it. Damage values arnt diverse enough to differentiate creatures, creature attacks are more or less prety generic (states, poisons, desieses, posturesetc), you dont need to adapt your techniques much to fight different creatures, its all just a case of rinse and repeat gamplay which after a long time results in boring gameplay.
While I see the sense in what you're saying, I really do, I have to ask, "how complicated to do you want PvE to get?" and "how much more complicated do you want it to get the next time you get bored?". I know Star Wars is sci-fi, but as much as possible I believe RPG's should be based heavily in real life. Hunting irl, is a repetative exercise, how manyDeer hunters have heard of who kill their prey by sprinting around with an Uzi,all in thename of fun?
Ifcreatures had very wideranging armourvalues, hams, resists and very cool specials then things would be very cool. You would need to adapt your technique to the current situation and perhaps even change it md combat.
Do you mean different 'instances' of the same species to have different attributes? If so, then we kind of have that already, but with maybe less varience than is to your taste. I'd go along with that though, however, it's all just number tweaking again, like I've been saying all along.
The same with PvP encounters (which will obviously get a massive boost once the GCW revamphits) would be much more fun ifthe cost of death andrefresh time (buffs, insure etc)was alot less. It would make it more accessibleso you would have more particiaption which is always a good thing in PvP, you would have more average players tryingit out and participating and ultimatly players who normally wouldnt go for PvP trying it out.
I'd agree about PvP, although again, we kind of already have the challenge there, because PvP is very much "paper, sicssor, stone". You don't know what weapons or armour vulnerability your target has, and of course people are less predictable than AI's. I don't like PvP at the best of times, but the first time I tried it in SWG was enough to make me resign from the faction I was with.
Again imdetails specific systems that irritate meand although could get littlefixes here and there but some like the inherent bordom factor of combat need revamping at it's core to makeit more attractive and fun.
Well so far, this post has all been answered with "number tweaking" solutions, so I'm still not sold, that's not your problem though,
Owen-Lars
Tue Aug 31, 2004 6:27 am
#64
I dont think we will ever agree on this because where you see things could be changed with number tweaking etc, i only see that as moving to problems elswhere and not making things more fun, simply removing a few bad points.
A revamp in my eyes will make things fun compared to what they used to be by totally changing the way things work rather than tweaks that would simply dress up a prety poor system.
On the creature differentiation front, there isnt alot of variation from planet to planet or creature to creature. When im getting hit by a creature i see the ocassional status effect applied, the odd dot, but mostly just random damage, that is not fun for me.Here are some examples of what Id love to have in this game in regards to creature variation whichprobably will never happen but still nice.
Creatures for example avian verieties would concentratemore onhead attacks therefor taking mind down more than anything, state effects that come with it and perhaps even specials such as dive bomb specials that take the bird to a long distance then very quickly sprints at you and KD you down. Creature abilities such as these would be combatable by using a skill if you have it such as a certain trap or distraction etc. Some birds would dive bomb, others would do other specials such as bird call what would spawn 5/6 of the same creature on your location at once, this could again be controlled by the use of traps etc but all in all if you dont have the skills to combat these its gonna hurt you,thus ranger would be a usefull hunter and group suport member.
Within a the beast table there should be animals that concentrate on various pools, some that apply special things to you that could severly limit your effectivness if you are illprepared or dont have the skills to combat them.
On armour, more specifically high end armour i think that it needs to be severly reduced and revamped in some way. Its very hard to put forward my ultimate system based on current system features and this is why i believe a revamp would be much more beneficial than a tweak here and there. Heres is what i would like in simple terms:
HAM:
Very important for hit points and defense ratings. The system would no longer use ham as asource to drain specials from instead specials would drain 'focus', aseperate and unattackable pool (although drainable). This system would be completely revamped and here is how it would look:
Health: Hit points (body hits)
Toughness: Defense ratings of the player
Action: Hit points in action (energy draining hits)
Power:Damage ratings of the player
Mind: Hit points in mind (Head hits, mind effectingshots/ablilities)
Willpower: Regen ratings of the player
Focus: Pool from whichspecials drain from (mana bar for example)
Basically instead of having individual pools to allocate stats to (current HAM system) the player canchoosehow muchthey want to orientate themselves todefense, offense, regen or focus.
If a player wants to be the ultimate tank (s)he will didicate alot of points into health, action, mind and toughness with small amounts in power and willpower. They would tailor their character to a moredefensive role but at the cost of offensivegrunt.
Armour:
Armour would take the player's defensive rating into account when deciding the damage reduction amount. For example a tankwill have invested heavily in toughness (defense pool) so(s)he would be much more effective at usingthe same armour asniper/rifleman would use for example. Although thesame quality armour they rifleman would take alot of more damage than the tank because he or she would have pumpedstats into power and focus. This system would allow players tochoose a role and stick with it throughgood and bad, forexample arifleman couldnt slap ona setof super quality armour and get the same reduction from that armour as a tk who invests in toughness.
Certain types of amour should also only be available to certain types of professions, for example composite (the all round good protection armour) should be only available to commandos, TKs should have a clothing like armour perhaps clothing that has tk components in it, other melee guys would have the ubese cert which would give great resists to kinetics and melee damage.
Buffs:
Buffs would not increase the secondary stats of a player but rather make then have higher hit points. People shouldnt be able to buff up so they can spam, they should be able to buff up so they have a 'buffer' between full health and death.
Weapons/Damage:
Weapons would take power values into account rather than toughness (defense) ratings. The amount a player invests into power would define how much damage they do. A player who has low power cannot hit as hard as a player with high power values and this allows people to speciallise in an area and stick with the pros and cons of that specialisation.
Fucus Cost:
Focus is the new pool for drain. You use a special and the cost comes from this pool. Each ability has a focus cost associated with it and cannot be manipulated in ways apart from profession gained perks. For example there is not box you can invest in to limit the focus drain HOWEVER you can invest in focus pool itself, gain skills that reduce your drain rate (for example master medic bonus, master doc bonus) and also gain skills that add to your focus pool.
A profession vary in how much focus they use but basically the more powerfull the skill is, the most focus cost it is. As you progress in your profession the cost of skills reduce and the value of focus you have increases.
Changing thecurrent set up into this usefull system that would allow players to tailor there characters and make HAM much more important as it should be. Yes little things can be done to move things around here and there but nothing so wide spreading and have such an impact like this system can be done without revamping.
As far as ranger goes with all this, they would get perhaps certs at master, perhaps a specials cert even. A ranger would have traps that allow them to stop creatures using some specials etcstop players and npcs from doing certain things etc, this would be in the trap lines. You can imagine the various bonuses as we progress up to master ranger but the main concept is that these would be creature specific defense/offense bonuses. The bonuses we get for pvp are stealth and negative to hit values attached to us making us harder to hit etc.
As you can see the example i gave was indeed a revamp. I have many ideas of how little things here and there can change the game for the better but nothing comes close to improving combat in various ways than a rewamp such as theHAM Orientatedexample i gave above
DaveG
Tue Aug 31, 2004 6:57 am
#65
I could live with your idea if I had to, all apart from one section. The armour idea is awful, it should be the same protection for everyone, or at least is should be varied in the exact oppposite way you suggest so that the more weakly defensive players can protect themselves, and thus NOT be dependent on having a tank player with them. Again though, I think the armour system as it stands is very good, you have a trade off of protection versus encumbrance, and it is upto the player to choose what best suits them at the time. My only criticism of current armour is that comp armour should have less encumbrance so that people are not forced to take buffs so that they can actually wear it.