Topic: ATST Grenade Launcher (Read 1307 times)

urkspleen · « **on:** November 30, 2008, 01:27 am »

It bugged me to know that the atst had a grenade launcher in Star Wars but not in the game. Can we add a special ability that launches a grenade (they are concussion) with a small area affect to stun infantry? (without making it uber strength)

you can check out atst specs here: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/All_Terrain_Scout_Transport

Sarcastic · « **Reply #1 on:** November 30, 2008, 01:31 am »

I think it sounds good. The barrage area is tough to make great use of so a grenade launcher with like a 30-50 second recharge rate sounds good.

Corusca Fire · « **Reply #2 on:** November 30, 2008, 01:45 am »

Concussion grenades would make it overpowered, i think.

Dr. Doozer · « **Reply #3 on:** November 30, 2008, 01:49 am »

There was a reason it was left out. Putting that in defeats the purpose of the light scout walker.

aceofhicks · « **Reply #4 on:** November 30, 2008, 02:03 am »

I agree with Krystal, I say no.

urkspleen · « **Reply #5 on:** November 30, 2008, 02:04 am »

it doesn't help attacks against vehicles , and it would or should have a small blast radius and reasonable reload time. its not like adding a rocket barrage or something...it's the same thing an infantry unit might use

in real Star Wars they have it, but it is still a light scout walker...

Dr. Doozer · « **Reply #6 on:** November 30, 2008, 02:05 am »

But it's still adding a heavier weapon. The AT-ST, game-mechanic-wise, it no more than a way to go patrol areas and go and have a look at enemy activity. It can hold its own against infantry; that's all it's meant to go up against. What you're suggesting would make it be able to take down things better then it.

urkspleen · « **Reply #7 on:** November 30, 2008, 02:10 am »

Quote from: Krystal's #1 Fan on November 30, 2008, 02:05 am

But it's still adding a heavier weapon. The AT-ST, game-mechanic-wise, it no more than a way to go patrol areas and go and have a look at enemy activity. It can hold its own against infantry; that's all it's meant to go up against. What you're suggesting would make it be able to take down things better then it.

if infantry is "all it's meant to go up against," how is adding a way to neutralize infantry (an anti-infantry weapon,) make it able to take down things better than it?...

Django (sunfalcon) · « **Reply #8 on:** November 30, 2008, 02:14 am »

I say its fine and leave it as it is.

Mandalor Vipeer · « **Reply #9 on:** November 30, 2008, 04:44 am »

I like the idea because it improves it's main purpose. If we're going to have units in it, we should throw in all of it's weapons and anything else that's on it too. You guys want it canon, without being uber. This would not make it uber, this would make it better for it's purpose.

BansheeMalthus · « **Reply #10 on:** November 30, 2008, 10:41 am »

I like it. As stated" the AT-ST was a heavily armed light ground combat vehicle". It was meant to be a kinda hit and run deal. Big gun for small vehicles/Structure, Small gun and grenade launcher for anti-personal. Maybe an underpowered version of a Zann Cons. grenadier? Just 1 grenade at a time and a decently long reload?

urkspleen · « **Reply #11 on:** November 30, 2008, 03:15 pm »

thats the idea, except the grenade wouldn't even do damage like a grenadier's....just a stun affect, as it is cannonically a concussion grenade

aceofhicks · « **Reply #12 on:** November 30, 2008, 03:16 pm »

Well, if it only stuns that would be OK in my opinion.

Tanus · « **Reply #13 on:** November 30, 2008, 06:58 pm »

I like it. it's not like you're proposing giving it a nuke or anything. It's canon, and it's not uber if it can only stun/take out a few infantry.

Argonnath · « **Reply #14 on:** November 30, 2008, 06:59 pm »

I vote no. I dont need any new weapons for scouts

Tanus · « **Reply #15 on:** December 01, 2008, 03:58 am »

looking at the poll, this is too close to call. lets wait for a team member to sort this out.

Mandalor Vipeer · « **Reply #16 on:** December 01, 2008, 04:34 am »

I agree because it's tied.

dsarebmaster · « **Reply #17 on:** December 01, 2008, 02:50 pm »

Wait, are you discussing adding a special ability for this (or changing the existing one), or are you talking about adding a concussive/stun grenade to it's firing pattern?

Solar · « **Reply #18 on:** December 01, 2008, 03:04 pm »

It would be added to it's firing pattern i believe. it is after all a weapon system.

urkspleen · « **Reply #19 on:** December 01, 2008, 09:10 pm »

I suggested it as a special ability, because having it constantly fire (slight over-exaggeration) would in fact be uber...anyways, people don't tend to use grenades that liberally...it also wouldn't make sense in the firing pattern because it would do no damage to vehicles

Mandalor Vipeer · « **Reply #20 on:** December 02, 2008, 12:18 am »

I agree.

dsarebmaster · « **Reply #21 on:** December 02, 2008, 02:57 am »

SO.... we're talking about an ability? like a combo of 'stun infantry' and 'barrage area'? would the latter be replaced? powered down? fill me in.

urkspleen · « **Reply #22 on:** December 02, 2008, 03:31 am »

i thought this was pretty clear....the intention is for a 2nd special ability separate from barrage area, and will not replace barrage area unless it is agreed that it would be too uber. This ability would be simple....you choose were to launch a grenade to, and the atst fires it....the grenade does no damage, and can only stun infantry. the ability would have an acceptable reload time, area affect, etc...

Solar · « **Reply #23 on:** December 02, 2008, 10:06 am »

There is no need for an ability,

It can easily be coded to not fire at Vehicles (using Aggressor Code), It can have the same recharge rate as the ability etc so no more "Uber" And that removes the need for coding in Autofire options which require LUA. Also it isn't as if Grenades take that long to reload, modern day launchers can fire about six in a clip consecutively.

urkspleen · « **Reply #24 on:** December 02, 2008, 12:26 pm »

that's actually really smart...i didn't think you could code it to fire only some of the time.

GREAT IDEA!

Tanus · « **Reply #25 on:** December 02, 2008, 07:07 pm »

sounds good to me.

Doktor von Wer · « **Reply #26 on:** December 02, 2008, 08:50 pm »

Quote from: urkspleen on November 30, 2008, 01:27 am

Can we add a special ability that launches a grenade (they are concussion)

Seems right to me.

Remember when deciding on ideas and thinking about balance, people, that balancing the mod is our job, you don't have to worry about it, and bear in mind that V2 will have a completely redone land combat style anyway!

e^(πi)+1=0 · « **Reply #27 on:** December 02, 2008, 10:29 pm »

if they're concussion, what we can do is use the projectile Urai's ability uses, as well as a small explosion, that would only kill one rebel trooper if it was a direct hit.

urkspleen · « **Reply #28 on:** December 02, 2008, 10:43 pm »

sounds good

Mandalor Vipeer · « **Reply #29 on:** December 03, 2008, 04:22 am »

yeah it does sound good!

Tanus · « **Reply #30 on:** December 04, 2008, 02:43 am »

Quote from: Tanus on December 02, 2008, 07:07 pm

sounds good to me.

my previous statement stands. just give 'em the damn grenade.

Mandalor Vipeer · « **Reply #31 on:** December 04, 2008, 02:44 am »

Tahnk you. Very blunt. Listen to the guy!!

Tanus · « **Reply #32 on:** December 04, 2008, 03:59 am »

i do my best lol.

e^(πi)+1=0 · « **Reply #33 on:** December 04, 2008, 09:14 pm »

not cannon; in cannon, it was only a concussion grenade launcher: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Concussion_grenade

urkspleen · « **Reply #34 on:** December 05, 2008, 12:16 am »

Quote from: e^(πi)+1=0 on December 04, 2008, 09:14 pm

not cannon; in cannon, it was only a concussion grenade launcher: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Concussion_grenade

Forgive me, I thought I had made it clear enough in the first post that it would be "only a concussion grenade launcher"....

e^(πi)+1=0 · « **Reply #35 on:** December 05, 2008, 01:19 am »

not your fault, some people are pushing for standard thermal detonators, which is not cannon.

Mandalor Vipeer · « **Reply #36 on:** December 05, 2008, 01:37 am »

Why thermal detonators? that's horribly uber and uncanon. Not to mention pointless as it would totally change the role of the AT-ST. Just concussion grenades. That makes it remain balanced and canon.

Dr. Doozer · « **Reply #37 on:** December 05, 2008, 01:48 am »

I'm not a fan of the concussion grenade idea myself, but THERMAL DETONATORS? That would change the role of the AT-ST to medium assault vehicle!

Mandalor Vipeer · « **Reply #38 on:** December 05, 2008, 02:07 am »

That's what I just said. We just want to add an ability to help with it's role. Not change it's role.
It can walk over troops and kill them anyway so it is really just stopping them so they can't move for a few seconds.

e^(πi)+1=0 · « **Reply #39 on:** December 05, 2008, 03:46 am »

anyways, it doesn't matter because its not cannon.
1-0 for concussion grenades

Mandalor Vipeer · « **Reply #40 on:** December 05, 2008, 03:49 am »

urkspleen · « **Reply #41 on:** December 05, 2008, 04:47 am »

finally a vote!

3-0

Doktor von Wer · « **Reply #42 on:** December 05, 2008, 07:37 pm »

Wookieepedia reference on concussion grenades. I personally think the first is what it should have.

'Physical, Sonic

The first one was a fairly standard grenade, used by many factions. It exploded with a small blast radius, killing most organics and damaging equipment. A sonic shockwave was expelled in the explosion that stunned anyone right outside the 4 meter blast radius.
[edit] Sonic

The second kind did not detonate in a traditional sense. The common blast radius was 4 meters, fairly large for a handheld explosive. It created only the sonic shockwave, stunning anybody hit by it rather than killing or wounding them.
[edit] Physical

The third kind, designed for use against vehicles and equipment. The grenade was very useful against vehicles that where fast or slow moving vehicles because of its tendency to stick to vehicles armor. The grenade was not used much against organics, due to its small blast radius. '

What's more we should get its other armaments right too. Right now they have an all but useless dual cannon and that's it. It should have, canonically, a heavy double blaster which fires 2 shots in succession with a small area of effect, and a single E-WEB cannon for short bursts of anti-infantry fire. The heavies should fire a blast which is effective against infantry and light vehicles but with a large recharge time, only 2 per volley and inaccurate against infantry, relying on the explosion. The E-WEB should be a burst fire of anti-infantry used only when employed against infantry.

As with my EPs infantry have been modified to die more realistically (but not like flies) and are far bigger investments, there are also far more of them, so this shouldn't upset it too much, as with the infantry rebalances I have planned for vehicle beefing to be more properly to relativism.

Mir'ika · « **Reply #43 on:** December 05, 2008, 07:45 pm »

The conc nades are a nice idea. Works with the role w/o making the ATST too horribly powerful. 4-0

Mandalor Vipeer · « **Reply #44 on:** December 05, 2008, 08:03 pm »

You are repeating my thoughts. (and posts)

Tanus · « **Reply #45 on:** December 06, 2008, 03:07 pm »

this thread makes my eyes bleed. APPROVE IT ALREADY. damn. so much pointless debating.

Mir'ika · « **Reply #46 on:** December 06, 2008, 05:34 pm »

OK then. 1-0

Mandalor Vipeer · « **Reply #47 on:** December 06, 2008, 07:21 pm »

why vote again, it's already got a pole. However if we must, 2-0

urkspleen · « **Reply #48 on:** December 06, 2008, 10:27 pm »

that's weird....I just got dejavu

3-0

e^(πi)+1=0 · « **Reply #49 on:** December 09, 2008, 10:58 pm »

I agree, physical sonic.
4-0

Tanus · « **Reply #50 on:** December 09, 2008, 10:59 pm »

It blows my mind as to why you're voting when there's an attached poll.

e^(πi)+1=0 · « **Reply #51 on:** December 09, 2008, 11:07 pm »

simple; look at the numbers of votes; not even 15 different users posted at the topic; people just vote yes without reading the debate, so the in-topic votes are much more informed, and you can have separate polls for different issues.

Tanus · « **Reply #52 on:** December 09, 2008, 11:08 pm »

in that case...

5-0

Sterling01 · « **Reply #53 on:** December 10, 2008, 12:44 am »

D · « **Reply #54 on:** December 10, 2008, 06:45 am »

kyle, someone doesn't have to POST to have read the topic, and thereby made a informed decision!

I voted and i had read the whole topic 2 days ago and made an informed decision. In fact reading the posts changed my mind. I was originally against when i first saw the topic on the forum, now i am for.

And now i am posting about posting....simply stupid. I will stop. I just had to make that point.

Mandalor Vipeer · « **Reply #55 on:** December 10, 2008, 08:55 pm »

Yeah. I agree when there's a pole attached, let it be the vote.

e^(πi)+1=0 · « **Reply #56 on:** December 11, 2008, 02:43 am »

the problem is that not everyone thinks like you guys; some people simply do not read the topic before voting; all I'm saying is that in-topic votes are much more likely to be informed.

urkspleen · « **Reply #57 on:** December 11, 2008, 02:48 am »

yes, and this all has to do what with the

......lol

that's why the decision should be almost only from the mod team
the rest of the people should be allowed to give ideas and their thoughts, but they are not the ones making the mod so they should not really get a vote because then things like this happen

that made me realize that I'm a huge hypocrite....i guess i won't vote anymore more though

D · « **Reply #58 on:** December 11, 2008, 04:20 am »

the decision DOES always lie with the mod team.....at least what is in thier capabilities and what they have time for

Mandalor Vipeer · « **Reply #59 on:** December 12, 2008, 02:35 am »

Yes the decision lies with the mod team, but they need input from the populace. If people don't like an idea, they need to know. If people don't like the mod, they won't play it. Therefore, the idea of a vote is to get the overall opinion.

e^(πi)+1=0 · « **Reply #60 on:** December 12, 2008, 03:51 am »

^ exactly.

SoulPain (FanEAW) · « **Reply #61 on:** December 21, 2008, 04:11 am »

i agree, 7-0, i think this has been accepted, lock topic and move this as this is getting slowly off topic.

Mandalor Vipeer · « **Reply #62 on:** December 21, 2008, 09:16 am »

agreed. Please lock this.

Ultimate Empire at War

News:

Poll

Give atst concusion grenades?

Author Topic: ATST Grenade Launcher (Read 1307 times)