View Single Post

yoomazir's Avatar

07.08.2013 , 10:50 AM | #53
Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
Where does it "hint" that Commandos do more damage? I'm pretty sure that the only "hint" is "gots a big gun". Beyond that, you're just reading into it, which isn't the fault of the devs. I also wouldn't hold it to be even *remotely* binding because, even if it *is* hinting, it's not being explicitly stated, which would *actually* be evidence in your corner (and I *know* it's not explicitly stated).
Guess I 'll have to recheck those 2 NPCs that tells you what each AC is supposed to do.

Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
Except you're not realizing the entire reason *why* the "real life logic" is being abandoned. They're not being abandoned for no reason whatsoever. They're being abandoned for the purposes of creating a balanced game construct. If Commandos were *intended* to always be better DPS, why would anyone roll a VG unless they wanted to tank? If you *do* think that's the only reason someone should roll VG, then why do they only have a single tank tree?

The *entire* point of the game is that spec matters more than anything else. If you choose a DPS role, you are a fully functional DPS, intended to be balanced within a reasonable approximation of the other DPS.

And, at release, Guardian DPS *was* higher than Sentinel DPS. There were *some* Sentinels ************ like mad because they weren't doing as much as the guys with a single lightsaber, but most just sat there and recognized that it was done as such because of the current balance construct of the game. Then, the Guardian debuff got nerfed, Sentinels got buffed, and the position swapped.

Of course, it's not really the same argument you're making with Commandos and VGs though. Commandos are using a *big* gun compared to a normal gun whereas Sentinels are using *two* weapons rather than *one* (of course, it's *one* weapon wielded in two hands, so it's entirely sensible for it to explicitly hit harder than one in one hand). A closer comparison would be Guardians to Shadows, since Guardians are using the standard weapon and Shadows are using the superior version. Shadows don't completely demolish Guardians for DPS and, iirc, Shadows have actually been routinely middling for total DPS. Infiltration manages some decent spike damage, but average DPS has *never* been something to write home about (Balance had the best *theoretical* top end pre-2.0, but it required such perfect play that it was really only ever "good" at best). They've really been pretty much tied.
It is less "real life logic" like you call it and more common sense, and I do not believe, even for a second that Bioware is abandonning what they conceived when they were creating these classes in this game.

Yes, I do believe Commandos/Maraudeurs were intended to be superior in terms of dps compared to their other AC, your point with the whole Guardian/Mara drama at launch proves me right, even why all the users complaining, if Bioware was thinking like you (class lore/cosmetics, what for?), then they would have probably never bothered to balance the classes then, they would have probably said that guardians would be working as intended and so were the maraudeurs.

Your point with the sins vs guadian dps is something I think BW is still trying to fix it. Yes, I think they know there's a problem there but they can't find the proper solution, they' will eventually change it, sooner or later, just like they did with the Vanguard/PT.

Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
The cosmetics do not define the play of that class. They define the intended aesthetic. Hell, they don't even *really* define anything except for some animations. The only reason that the developers *don't* allow a massive number of weapon options amongst players is because it would require *way* too much in the way of animations (every different weapon category would require different animations for attacks, which multiplies the development effort and, since there would be different mechanical advantages to each, you'd end up with the "choice" not really mattering since there is a mathematically defined "best") and restricting specific weapons to specific classes allows each class to maintain a unique weapon aesthetic. It has *nothing* to do with any numbers or even the gameplay of the class. It's purely an aesthetic point. Whether you somehow attach mechanical importance or think that aesthetics should *supersede* mechanical importance, neither of those opinions matters because the mechanics are explicitly separated from each other.
Maybe my Engrish was/is misplaced, but why are you entering it the debate of animations? When I talked about the weapons I mean why BW made those classes with those specific weapons, maybe because each weapon kinda defines what classes is supposed to deal in terms of gameplay?

Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
Why not bring up WoW, where monks in leather, bear druids, and death knights with two-handed weapons are just as effective at tanking as paladins and warriors in plate armor using shields. In reality, a monk in leather, a bear, and a guy with a two-handed sword would all be *less* durable than a guy in plate armor with a shield. The only reason that the 5 classes are *balanced* is because of the game construct *requiring* the classes be balanced. To bring the comparison even *more* in line, a Rogue can use *daggers* and deal just as much, if not *more*, damage than a Warrior wielding a giant two-handed sword (or, in some cases, *two* giant two-handed swords).
Never played that game.

Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
I'm *still* trying to figure out how my VG's *bowcaster* is capable of generating a mortar volley, pulse cannon, or ion pulse. It's a *bowcaster* and, unless you recognize that we're dealing with a game and not some attempted approximation of reality, should only ever be firing out charged crossbow bolts, not blaster bolts or any of the more exotic ammunitions that VGs use on a regular basis. The only possible reason for my Stockstrike to consume cells and put an electrical DoT on the target is if it, for some reason, has a taser located in the butt (you only actually strike with the stock as a Commando; if you use it with a rifle, you hit em with the butt). I don't let it bother me because I recognize that all of the wonkiness is just intended to create parity with the Bounty Hunter which accomplishes all of those same mechanisms not by using their weapon but by using their armor (which doesn't even require *heavy armor* to use, but that's a different argument).
Again, why are you entering this into this debate? Why did you not include why our characters never eat nor take a poop pause? I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're trying to do here.

Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
Hell, something that you *should* bring up because of how it's an aesthetic choice that *would* impact performance in real life, body type 1 deals the same melee damage as body type 3. Body type 4 has the same movement speed as all of the other body types. Female characters hit *just* as hard as male characters. All of these things are *just* as important, if not more so, than your insistence that Commandos should do more damage than VGs based entirely upon the reasoning of "big guns should do more damage than small guns".
Bodytypes now, I'm sorry, I'm gona skip this one, can't find any reason to talk or argue about that, call me incapable.

Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
You cite "korean MMOs" when, honestly, it's something that *every* MMO does. All of the classes *have* to be balanced in a game. The hybrid tax no longer exists because fulfilling multiple roles partway isn't useful, so all DPS are equally able to DPS, all tanks are equally able to tank, and all healers are equally able to heal.
Nice to know, never played any korean game tbh,now should that also apply in SWTOR? Time to call BW on that then.

Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
If you *really* want to be shown how wrong you are, just look at adaptive armor. It's the *exact* same shell no matter who is wearing it. Looks *exactly* the same. On a Shadow, it's light armor and, on a Commando, it's heavy armor. It looks *exactly* the same. It's *already* possible in TOR to get a character wearing a bikini to tank fully effectively (female VG or Guardian in Republic Dancer's Outfit). You can do the same while *shirtless* (the cartel armor shell that's invisible). You can also dress up a Sage in trooper grade heavy armor *and it does nothing more than their robes would*.
Adaptive armor is meta-gaming, if you want to enter it into this debate for the sake of proving I'm wrong with my "real life simulator" and how weapons doesn't define the classes fine by me.

Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
The cosmetics of the game (which includes weapons, armor, race, *and* gender, all of which would have real world impacts) have no influence over gameplay and mechanical balance. They are *purely* cosmetic decisions that, at most, impact the preferred *aesthetic* and intended equipment for a class but do nothing for performance (as long as you actually follow the desired weapon aesthetic).
Like I said, the weapons that each class carry somehow defines them, at least in my eyes, and I think that's what BW is trying to do. Now said that, thx to you, I won't be suprised next time I see a class using a toothpick outdpsing another one using a huge warhammer.

Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
Except that you didn't. You just restated your position without actually countering any of my arguments. Quoting me isn't the same as actually *countering my arguments*. You could've just as easily cut out that entire quote of me and it wouldn't have changed *anything* you said.

Try actually tackling my *arguments* rather than continuing to say the same thing over and over again without actually bringing up any specific arguments or evidence other than ones that have *already* been contradicted, and we'll see about who is the *****/got owned. My vote is that it's *you* because, honestly, I doubt you're capable of actually putting together a cogent debate on the subject.
Indeed I am incapable to be on par with your level, for the sake of arguing you've made a wall of text, with at least half the stuff you wrote useless (WoW, animations, class skills, Bodytypes? gg mate), you basically accused me of trying to run this game like a "real life simulator" when I was saying that the Vanguard AC wasn't supposed to be a better dps compared to the Commando because a big canon class is supposed to deal a "bit" more damage than a simple rifle, even in a sci-fi setting, just for the sake of common sense.

I don't have your vocabulary, nor your grammar, nor your "knowledge", but you know what? I stand with what I 've said, none of your arguments proved anything to me, but like I said, I don't possess that smooth vocabulary of yours, so yeah, if you think I got owned, then maybe so, but even like that I say to you "go ***** yourself, you arrogant *****"