[Discrepancies in the "Nature of the Force"]

Hmm, I don't think the babysnatchers analogy has any proof to it outside popular fan opinion. I know a lot of people rp that, but I can't think of an example outside of fan supposition that where a person didn't join willingly or willingly give their child for training.

Seriously, how do the Jedi get ahold of people's kids for training? Is it like an adoption alternative?

Do they sometimes come across as holier than though, unrealistic tools of a corrupt government? Sure, lol. But the sith mostly come across as murderous sociopaths who'd skin babies just for a new hat, so I don't think too much finger pointing holds up under scrutiny. Both sides have issues.

 

You seem to assume that I consider the Sith to be a direct counterpart or somehow the only alternative to the Jedi, and that by rejecting the one I am implicitly accepting the other. This is not the case.

[Practical or For Show?]

Yeah but realistically, if it had been just a regular battle between Home One and the Executor. I don't think they would have destroyed it, there had to be concentrated fire upon the Executor to bring down it's shields to even hit the bridge, that's why Piett opted for intensifying the forward firepower, but the gunners were too slow.

 

Also IIRC, Palps was dead at that point so the whole fleet was in disarray. Though if I am remembering wrong, still point stands.

 

But anyway moving on now..

 

Palpatine had literally zero relevance on the battle. He didn't even issue orders to his fleet or communicate with them!

[Practical or For Show?]

True but the odds of getting through to the bridge wasn't that big.

 

As a famous smuggler once said, "Never tell me the odds!"

 

Seriously, if all the lead engineers had to tell the Emperor was 'well, the odds of that happening and our gazillion dollar starship being destroyed are pretty slim...'

[If The Prequels Were Good]

I actually just rewatched the Phantom Menace all the way through from beginning to end for the first time in, I think, nine years.

 

You know, I enjoyed it quite a bit. I never really hated like some did, and in fact I consider it to be the best of the prequels for several reasons.

 

What are those reasons, if I may ask? (Excluding the obvious answer of "Liam Neeson!"

[Practical or For Show?]

Ever hear of plot hm?

 

Besides the Executor was only destroyed due to the fact that the gunners weren't fast enough to intensify the forward gun batteries as Piett told them to.

 

If you also recall Ackbar ordered concentrated fire upon the Executor, so I wouldn't call it was just 3 Starfighters blowing up the ship single handily. There was more to it than that.

 

The survival of your warship should NEVER depend on the commanding officer being able to spot an incoming starfighter and verbally direct fire towards it. That is all.

[If The Prequels Were Good]

Nothing because...you know my opinion, the Prequels were good. It's not fact that they were bad, people really need to stop making it out as it's fact that they were bad movies. They weren't bad movies, it's all opinion...just because someone or a group thing a movie is bad, doesn't mean there aren't those out there that see it the same way.

 

STOP WITH THIS NONSENSE.

 

Perhaps it's not possible to declare a movie "bad" or "good". But you can attach some labels and make some objective judgements.

 

The prequels had choppy dialogue, with very repetitive editing and uninteresting camera angles. The fact that some scenes were carried by talented actors speaks only to the skill of those actors.

 

The plot was... questionable, at best. There have been lengthy explanations made via novels, expansions, and other outside works. That does wonders for the "historians" trying to piece together the jumble that came out of those films, but the fact that they cannot stand on their own without requiring lengthy and complex explanations in other media sources indicates some plot holes you could drive a bus through.

 

The special effects? To die for. Those films had great special effects and a fantastic score by John Williams. Which stands to reason because Industrial Light & Magic pretty much pioneered the creation of good film CGI.

 

I guess the main question to ask yourself as a fan is: "Did I enjoy watching those movies and would I watch them again?"

[Other Force Sensitive Groups]

I know that there are many force traditions aside from the Jedi and Sith, but how does the Republic handle those?

 

I've dabbled in the JK storyline and know that Tython is the ancient Force world where the Jedi got started, and throughout TCW there are a few alternate force traditions that are encountered (Witches of Dathomir, etc.) but how does the Jedi Order/the Republic handle them?

 

For example, the Jedi actively recruit children into their order... but what if another group were to attempt the same? Or accept students of any age? Have there been instances of this occurring?

[Discrepancies in the "Nature of the Force"]

It seems to me that the Jedi spend far more time providing support for Republic military actions (be it against rebels, pirates, Dark Jedi, or foreign military forces) than they do... helping people. I don't see any arm of the Jedi dedicated to building houses, or feeding the poor. So what do they do aside from kill people and mediate disputes?

 

In answer to your question::-- What about the Agricultural Corp it seems a noble cause? Although I have read little about it aside from it being the main cause of fear (ironic for an institution that want's its member to not feel it) of many padawans in the EU. Obi-Wan was close to joining it's ranks and it was something that Scout was expecting to happen as she was known to be 'weak' in the force. I think this has little written regarding it as it is clearly a difficult subject to set what are essentually a series of hero stories.

 

This 'strength in the force' idea I see as akin to a force-sensitive individual being able to the another's strength as we would a footprint for example.

 

Edit::;- Just done some research and here's a link::-- http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jedi_Service_Corps

 

It seems that they do quite a lot of good.

 

That's kind of the issue... it was a source of fear for padawans! "Real" Jedi weren't in the Service Corps. It's almost as if the Jedi look down on people who aren't "strong enough" in the Force to be capable fighters.

 

At the same time, they hold this strangely hypocritical view of warfare. It's something that they are apparently extremely good at, and train extensively in, but they repeatedly deny that it's one of their core missions. There is just this really weird hypocritical vibe running through everything the Jedi do.

 

For example:

Lightsabers are not weapons! .... "This weapon is your LIFE, Anakin!" ~ Obi-Wan Kenobi

No relationships allowed, they lead to the dark side! (But force sensitive bloodlines are not only commonplace, but shown to produce the strongest Jedi...)

Jedi are servants of the Force... but really, they're just there to back up the Republic's word.

[Practical or For Show?]

Recently tried that Phoenix Rising mod, quite fun and gives lots more power to the capital ships, though the loading times are killer...Nice find never the less. Though, as Tune as said in this thread, and as I have said in the past, game mechanics must be put aside or else we shall all go crazy and everything will be in disarray!

 

PROPOSAL: If the Venator topic is quite finished, what are your opinions on indirect vs direct fire support? For a good example, the SPHA and the SPMA.

 

On the note of game mechanics, I would like to point out that many of the "technical details" for a lot of military hardware originally comes from '90s era Star Wars games. Oh, the irony and potential for paradoxical loops...

 

Movie and novel writers are frequently less concerned with the technical particulars of weapons and shielding systems and more with how the presence or absence of said systems affects the story being told.

 

Moving on, I'm 100% behind indirect fire in almost every application. Over-the-horizon targeting capabilities (provided by overhead "eyes" or by remote spotters) are a game changer for any fighting force. Direct fire is only useful when fighting in enclosed areas (read: urban environments) where indirect firing arcs are often obstructed.

[Darth Bane's new canon]

Personally, I hope that the new canon that has yet to be written has the sith abandoning the rule of two. I find the sith of the old republic far more interesting than the sith post Bane. I'd also like it if the sith species was discovered to still exist in some remote place.

 

As for rewriting the existing canon, I'm more worried about them screwing with KOTOR lore than anything else.

 

Frankly, I don't think many people as Lucasarts really care that much about the KotOR Era stuff. The last thing that is really TRULY relevant for the Film Era is what happened with Bane and the establishment of the Rule of Two, and the subsequent thousand years of relative peace for the Jedi Order.

[Practical or For Show?]

I sincerely doubt that turbolasers would be effective against fighter squadrons. They have a slower rate of fire, so no matter how good the targeting systems, fighters will still evade them. The reason PD laser batteries work is because they rely on rapid fire saturation techniques to ensure a hit against the incoming fighter.

 

Furthermore, what do you actually GAIN by using a capital ship? A large, expensive target that is vulnerable in many ways?

 

The two stand out examples are tractor beams and orbital bombardment. In fairness, the tractor beam does rely on the mass of the starship deploying it. Orbital bombardment however would be more effectively carried out by bombers and fighters anyways.

[Practical or For Show?]

Quoting myself. Imperial has more then double power out put of the Venator so as a Destroyer it will inevitably have stronger shields and weapons even if the Venator's weapons are more efficient the Imperial has so much more energy it doesnt matter. Overall shield and Firepower strength makes it the better Destroyer.

No arguments here!

 

In a straight up fight, the guy with more juice wins. However, it's stupid to fight head to head like that when you have superior fighter forces.

As far as Empire at war, every one already knows this. It is a game mechanic and does not show the proper number of fighters or guns on any of the ships.

 

Empire at War is a great game but not really great at showing how these things work.

That's why I referenced the Phoenix Rising mod. It's a nigh-religious reconstruction of canon warships and starfighters, and reworks the entire balance of the game to be in line with Star Wars canon. It's quite impressive, if you enjoyed the original game but wanted a little more hardcore, true-to-the-lore experience that also has incredible depth and diversity, check it out. They get the details down to the concussion missile launchers and backup power generators, haha.

Basically. Star destroyers beat anything smaller except bombers and fighters to a small degree, Bombers are beat by Corvettes and Fighters, Fighters are also beat by corvettes and Frigates, Corvettes are beaten by Frigates and Destroyers. The game mechanic does not encourage stacking one ship type. Even the empire has the http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Tartan-class_patrol_cruiser in the game specifically designed to WRECK bombers and fighters.

 

Well played some one should have a ballanced team in that game, and the Imperial-class is AMAZING to have in that game because the garison extra fighters and bombers can be used to keep bombers off you while your Tartan wrecks their fighters and your bombers go wreck their Mon Cal Ships and your Imp Destroyer just wrecks everything else on the field.

Here's the thing, as powerful as capital ships are their biggest vulnerability is other capital ships and BOMBERS. The best antidote to bombers are fighter interceptors and/or light frigates. Other fighters can deal with the interceptors ship to ship, and pocket cruisers can shred the light frigates with turbolaser fire.

 

An ideal fleet has a flexible strike force of bombers, medium fighters for patrol/defense, and some smaller cruisers that can provide turbolaser cover fire for the strike force to knock out the screening frigates that protect the enemy capital ships.

 

At no point are capital ships really necessary, unless you need them to carry large amounts of non-hyperdrive equipped fighters (which may be cheaper in the long run than spending money on all those hyperdrives).

[Discrepancies in the "Nature of the Force"]

If only "making" someone strong in the Force was possible. The Imperial Remnant tried that after the death of Darth Sidious. They tried to imbue people with the Force artificially through crystals(with the assumption that these rare crystals had the Force in them. It failed. Midichlorians are in every living being and creature in the Star Wars galaxy. It's the level of Midichlorians in the blood that dictates whether a sentient being can manipulate the Force.

 

So, crystals were obviously a fail. But that still doesn't answer the question of whether you can inject midichlorians. If they can be measured and detected, surely it must be possible to filter them. Instead of blood platelet injection, why not a midichlorian injection? Just siphon a ton of them from low-level sensitives and concentrate it in an uber-serum!

Mace Windu is a proponent of peace, as the Jedi during his time served as peacekeepers UNTIL the Clone Wars broke out. Remember that when he says "Jedi are not soldiers", he is answering Chancellor Palpatine's response:

 

PALPATINE : I don't know how much longer I can hold off the vote, my friends. More and more star systems are

joining the separatists.

 

MACE WINDU: If they do break away -

 

PALPATINE: I will NOT let this Republic, which has stood for a thousand years, be split in two! My negotiations will not fail

 

MACE WINDU: If they do, you must realize there aren't enough Jedi to protect the Republic. We are

keepers of the peace, NOT soldiers.

 

Its not that Mace is confused. Jedi kill only when they have to, even in war. Soldiers kill in war because if they don't, someone will kill them. He wasn't that thrilled to put the Jedi into another war. The Jedi had not seen open war for roughly a thousand years.

This quote makes far more sense in context, thank you! When taken out of context, it seems that Mace is being contradictory. With the full context, it seems like more of a warning that the Jedi are too small to properly guard the entire Republic.

1. Seriously? Jedi believe that they are extensions of the Will of the Force.

Obviously he doesn't mean literally that the Force will talk to you, its just that the Jedi can be shown something through the Force that they can use to their advantage. A perfect example of this is when Obi Wan Kenobi is hanging over the edge of the reactor pit with Darth Maul standing over him. We are shown that something is reminding Kenobi that his master's saber is lying on the floor and can be used. That's the Force "talking" to Kenobi, bailing him out of a tight spot.

I think that was a directing decision so that we were given insight (as an audience) into what Obi-Wan was thinking about. As far as evidence for the Force "talking" to him... it's a pretty scant case at best.

There is still no evidence as to what the Will of the Force could be. Does the Force think? Does it make decisions?

It seems to more often manifest itself as a survival instinct/quick reflex boost for Jedi.

2. In war, Soldiers in history have been taught to kill or be killed. Jedi do not kill unless absolutely necessary. An example of this is where Obi Wan disarms Zam Wesell, the Mercenary hired to assassinate Padme Amidala in AOTC. She had her blaster drawn, he spun around and sliced off her hand, which allows her to live for questioning while still eliminating the threat she previously posed. Obviously Jango Fett had other plans.

Soldiers take prisoners as well. One of the most common missions for a special forces team is to gather intelligence by scouting and capturing enemy soldiers for information. This was a tactical decision on Obi-Wan's part, since he would have actually undermined his own efforts by killing her.

 

You seem to be making a strange distinction between Jedi and soldiers when they fight. On the battlefield, their actions will be the same. A Jedi will fight to defend themselves, as will soldiers. When they need prisoners, or have the ability to take them without being killed, they will. ( "Set for stun!" anyone?)

 

It is when the Jedi is confronted by the Dark Side's temptations that they measure themselves. A Padawan's trials to Knighthood requires that they confront the Dark Side of the Force. Obi Wan Kenobi was supposed to take the trials in order to become a Jedi Knight. Once the Jedi determined that the assassin sent to kill Queen Amidala was indeed a Sith Lord, one that had been killed by Kenobi, he did not need to the take the trials and had become a Knight.

This seems very odd. You say that a Jedi shouldn't look for challenges, but apparently killing a Sith Lord in single combat qualifies one for the rank of Jedi Knight? That's a heck of a challenge. And if the Jedi aren't supposed to seek a challenge... how do the trials test them if not by challenging their abilities? This just seems to be another huge discrepancy in the espoused values of the Jedi (not craving adventure) and their actions (accepting a lethal duel as the rank requirement for Jedi Knight)

4. The word "Solah" was a term used by the Jedi during training sessions, especially with Lightsaber velocities, to indicate to stop. It translates as "Enough".

Thanks for the information, but I'm not sure this bit is entirely relevant haha.

[Darth Bane's new canon]

As someone put it earlier, "cannon really doesn't mean anything to true fans, most fans ignore a lot of what is and isn't 'cannon'". For me, EVERY piece of EU material, for better or worse, is MY cannon and the crap that Disney spawns is part of DISNEY cannon.

 

I'm glad we have an artillery expert on hand to discuss cannons! However, as for caNon...

[Practical or For Show?]

Who is to say that a hybrid warship cannot defeat a dedicated one?

 

If you have better technology, a bigger budget for production, and more efficient systems... could you not build a warship which is superior in all aspects?

 

I'm a huge fan of the Venator because it looks ******. Star Wars science really isn't accurate enough to allow a stable comparison of two vessels from different eras unless an author specifically dives into the details of such an engagement.

 

If you've got a bigger power generator, you can put out stronger shields and devote more juice to the guns. Thus, you will smack down someone who has less juice to play with and has to sacrifice more shielding/firepower.

 

In the realm of high-powered energy weapons, most armor is a joke. It's like slapping a band-aid on an arterial cut. You might buy a few seconds, but that's it.

 

For an interesting aside, I was recently playing some SW: Empire at War using a lovingly created mod called Phoenix Rising. For fans of the RTS genre, it's nigh-unbeatable in terms of rendering the GCW era starships and fighters down to the individual turbolaser battery. I tested out my bomber theory for kicks, and you really can't beat a swarm of proton torpedoes for absolutely wrecking capitol ships and frigates. In terms of cost/benefit, fast bomber squadrons (XG-1 Star Wings, for example. These were a favorite of our buddy Thrawn) are the ultimate antidote to those expensive deathtraps they call "Star Destroyers".

[Discrepancies in the "Nature of the Force"]

NOTE: BOLD typeface indicates my responses

Oh....how the Prequel Haters are going to jump all over this answer, as accurate as it's going to be.

 

A Force User's affinity for the Force is defined by the number of Midichlorians found in their blood. It is through this microscopic lifeform that the very connection to the Force is possible. Everyone has them in their blood, but Force Sensitives, or those who can physically touch and manipulate the Force, have higher levels of them in their blood. At the age of nine, young Anakin Skywalker measured over 20,000 Midichlorians in a single drop of blood, which was unheard of at that time. Darth Sidious' midichlorian count is purported to be MUCH higher than that.

 

So, hypothetical here... if you inject midichlorians into your blood, will you heighten your affinity for the Force? Since the Old Republic Jedi make little to no mention of them (correct me if I'm wrong here) can we assume that they had not been discovered back then? If so, when was this discovery made?

We're keepers of the Peace, not soldiers. - Mace Windu

 

For over a thousand generations, the Jedi Knights were the Guardians of Peace and Justice in the Old Republic. Before the Dark Times. Before the Empire. - Obi Wan "Ben" Kenobi

I've heard this quite a bit... let's examine Master Windu's quote.

 

If the Jedi are NOT soldiers... why do they jump in line to fight as SOLDIERS for the Old Republic? Quibble over the vernacular if you will, but the people flying starfighters, leading troops, and slashing stuff to pieces with lightsabers are most definitely fighting a war... which, by definition, is what soldiers do.

 

So is Mace Windu;

a. Confused as to what soldiers are?

b. Unsure of how peace relates to war (namely the part where soldiers end the war, thus restoring peace)

c. A liar

Jedi don't measure themselves, at least not by their body counts. The Jedi have always been Guardians of Peace and Justice in the galaxy and are supposed to be selfless servants of the Force. Violence is a last resort for the true Jedi. The "measure" of a Jedi, if you will, is in their exposure to and resistance of the Dark Side of the Force. There is a term the Jedi used frequently: Solah. Translated it means it is enough, and so it is with a Jedi.

I am very confused. Here is why...

1. Jedi serve the Force -- How? Is the Force God? Does it give commands?

2. Violence is the last resort of any reasonable man, including any well trained soldier!

3. Jedi are better the more Dark Side badness they resist? If so, shouldn't they seek challenging situations to test their self mastery and resistance to those nasty feelings of fear, anger, and hatred?

4. What the heck is enough? What did the Jedi use that term for? Ordering wine? (Thank you, but Solah!)

If a Jedi ignites his lightsaber, he must be ready to take a life. If he is not so prepared, he must keep his weapon at his side.-Master Odan-Urr

I agree. The old adage goes; if you threaten someone, be prepared to carry out that threat. A lightsaber is an implicit threat, merely by being present the Jedi suggest the possibility of overwhelming violence. There is literally no use for a lightsaber aside from violence (I've heard the "it's a meditation focus bit before... they didn't buy that at the airport with my grenade launcher and I'm not buying it here either)

[Darth Bane's new canon]

The Star Wars universe was everything pre-disney purchase, where Thrawn is a genious and Luke hooked up with an assassin who was WAY out of his league. Now any future SW material is part of the DISNEY universe, where talking mice have pet dogs any animals do housework for people with decent singing abilities.

Oh man, I can't wait to see Goofy become the new Jar Jar Binks... with a lightsaber! Ho-ho boy, if you LOVED the prequels for their quirky humour, awesome child actors, and amazing dialogue sequences you are not going to want to miss the latest from Disney!

 

Er, wait a second... Leland Chee is still in charge of the Star Wars canon (as a member of the Lucasfilm Story Group, jointly established by Lucas and Disney to unify, codify, and oversee future additions to the canon). I guess that means that pretty much nothing has changed, except that the current materiel after Ep VI is going to be rewritten completely.

 

Let's be honest, there was some really bad stuff in there. There was also some good stuff, too. I trust the people in charge of the canon (they're just glorified fans, who grew up with Star Wars) and think that we'll finally see a unified version of the events after Ep VI that doesn't have us cringing at the Emperor and Luke fighting ten different times inconclusively (which really seems anticlimactic after the DS2 duel).

 

Plus, you folks will get to argue about Luke, the Emperor, and friends ALL OVER AGAIN to see who's the most powerful. 'Ain't that an exciting prospect...

[New Rumor Suggests Star Wars: Episode 7's Villain…]

Not to rain on the rumour parade... but Jedi Hunters?

 

If the same source is to be believed, Luke Skywalker is also "outnumbered, tired, and has spent the last 30 years trying to prevent the Sith's resurrection".

 

So what Jedi are these 3 dudes hunting? The last time there were Jedi to hunt, was fifty years before this film is supposed to be set. That would make those Jedi hunters roughly ninety (assuming they were of fighting age during the Clone Wars).

 

Otherwise, did they hunt down Luke's NJO (or it's new canon equivalent)?

[I just want to sit back and enjoy the story...]

What I'm hearing is 'why is there a game in my movie?' Which is a fairly odd question about an mmo.

 

It's more of "why do parts of this game feel more like homework than fun?"

[Practical or For Show?]

That was after the entire flotilla of battleships broke through the shields on the command tower, allowing a group of bombers to take down the shield generator taking down the shields completely. A moot point I feel.

 

The Death Star is not a battleship, not sure why you brought that up.

 

Anyway I disagree, deflector shields can withstand heavy salvos of laser fire - that is their purpose, if we had developed near bullet-proof metal a comparison could then be made. But the fact remains that if a modern day battleship is attacked by a single fighter-craft, the damage is going to be infinitely more devastating. I say infinitely because a single fighter-craft attacking a Star Wars battleship will do zero damage. Only overwhelming firepower can drop shields.

 

Yes, proton torpedoes can bypass shields, but bombers are not deployed en masse, and suffer from being slow moving targets, so they are far from the perfect solution. Without mentioning that many larger battleships (such as the Executor, and the Invincible) have particle shields, almost negating the impact of physical projectiles completely.

 

Then of course we should consider the actual impact proton torpedoes can do, some hull damage perhaps, nothing that is going to cripple a battleship unless it comes under prolonged fire - unless it has major structural weaknesses which are either rare or well protected. In such a case its going to take time to weather the vessel time.

 

Time which can either be used by the battleship to take out the relatively flimsy fighters, or destroy the carrier, a carrier which is likely going to have weak shields and/or firepower due to favoring cargo space over reactors.

 

I'm certainly not denying the benefits of carriers and starfighters, but I think against a sturdy battleship with decent point-defense cannons, and its own starfighter complements the effectiveness is certainly diminished.

 

P.S. On another note however. ISD shield generators, sticking right out on-top of the bridge as easy an target as ever. Certainly not practical, and doesn't look that attractive either, any ideas here? Seems kinda dumb to me.

 

EDIT: Excellent analysis Silenceo, I agree with you completely.

 

I'm crushed with work right now and have maybe 5 min to write this up, so let's just say that I'll look into that but my gut feeling is that multi-role fighers like the B-Wing or X-WIng are capable of presenting a threat to capital ships and that a carrier will present a more flexible and powerful combat option than an individual battleship.

 

HOWEVER, warships are not deployed in a vacuum! So assessing the individual case doesn't seem to be the most efficient. This conversation may be more suited for one of your Kaggaths, but I think the core analysis will come down to this:

 

As a warmongering maniac in the Star Wars Universe is confronted with the choice of spending his ill-gotten credits on one weapons platform or another. Does he choose to purchase an equal value of carriers and their fighter wings, or does he purchase battleships with it?

[Non-force users vs. Force Users]

The Fetts are the most overrated characters in star wars, in my opinion.

Ask Mace Windu how awesome Jango Fett is.

 

You deserve a medal for that, my good sir.

[Practical or For Show?]

But fighters don't have the capabilities to take down a dedicated battleship alone, so such a battleship can easily fend off fighters long enough to cripple the carrier and have corvettes/fighters etc. clean up the rest.

 

You sure about that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW_hGOFukMQ This may change your mind...

 

Oh, and there was that snub fighter that destroyed a battle station with a proton torpedo. What was that again? Oh yeah, the Death Star.

 

Now I know little about actual real-world warfare but I'd hazard a guess and say that aircraft would definitely be far more effective given that in modern warfare we lack deflector shields, and aircraft can therefore do massive damage.

 

EDIT: Noting that most battleships in Star Wars come with decent fighter complements as well.

We also lack proton torpedoes and energy weapons (for now... mwa hahaha!) The offensive capabilities of Star Wars fighters/bombers certainly match the defensive capabilities of deflector shields.

 

As LadyKulvax pointed out, there are always bombers. However, those are designed more for ground attack, etc. There are heavy fighters/hybrid designs such as the venerable X-Wing and ARC-170 which offer a mix of dogfighting abilities and heavy firepower (i.e. proton 'effing torpedoes, not to be messed with).

 

And before you mention that proton torpedoes are rare and expensive, yes they are. But I'm willing to wager they're still cheaper than a battleship!

[Practical or For Show?]

ARC 170 reminds me of the F-14 Tomcat (My favorite aircraft ever). A multi seat, rather heavy attack fighter that can do almost anything, and do it well. I like it well enough I guess, but the X-wing is far superior imo. Also, I think it would be a nice ship against the more fearsome heavy CIS fighters, but against large numbers I think it is pretty weak and easily swarmed even in groups. Also, from what I've seen it has less durability than I'd like, not like it isn't durable just not up to my standards.

 

ETA-2's I'm less familiar with though, it (likely on purpose) reminds me of the A-wing though I'd say I like the A-wing more especially with its superior armaments. The ETA-2 is a little too underarmed for my tastes. It can dance, but it has no bite.

 

The Tomcat? Really, bro?

 

How about the F/A-18 Super Hornet? Different loadouts facilitate air-to-air, air-to-ground, recon, etc. Superior avionics, durability, and awesome maneuverability. That airframe rocked! (Maybe it's the Navy man in me being biased, but still.)

 

On another note...

 

Carriers are pretty much always going to dominate non-carriers in the capital ship arena. We saw this beginning in World War 2, and for good reason. The ability to project force far beyond the range of your own guns is a game changer. We don't always see the most logical tactics used in Star Wars space battles, but fighters and bombers are inherently offensive tools and lend a tremendous advantage in combat.

 

They're small and difficult to target at long range, allowing them to close in and start wreaking havoc. They can double as a defensive screen to fend off incoming vessels, and provide vast situational awareness via long range reconnaissance.

 

What are the advantages of a dedicated battleship?

 

Practically none. Fighters will always be faster than capital ships, so no matter how long range a ship's guns are a carrier can always stand off behind an asteroid field, planetary body, etc. and grind down the battleship while remaining sheltered. A battleship needs to split its energy between firepower and shielding, whereas a carrier can instead focus primarily on shielding, and even ignore engine/thrust to a large degree while weathering out enemy fighter/ship attacks if need be.

 

Fighters can be replaced rapidly, without the need to place the carrier in drydock or conduct lengthy repairs. If a battleship sustains heavy damage in battle (which is inevitable given the way it engages the enemy) it is far more likely to require more extensive repairs and be out of action.

 

Lastly, a carrier can divide its fighter forces between offense and defense, or between multiple targets. This allows a greater range of flexibility in combat, whereas a battleship can only be in one place at a time.

[I just want to sit back and enjoy the story...]

Welcome to MMOs, gameplay is subject to change. I played WoW for 8 years, along with Lotro and these days, swtor, and I can assure you this is typical of the game development process. Bloat is chiseled down, abilities streamlined, bugs fixed, stats re-tuned, redundant abilities removed often to be replaced by equally redundant abilities, etc. It's normal in an MMO game because when you have hundreds of thousands of people playing the same game at the same time everything has to be balanced within reasonable fairness. That's an ongoing process, sadly.

 

 

 

I get the feeling you don't play many MMOs. Again, this is typical of an MMO. If this frustrates you, it isn't just SWTOR, it's the entire genre that is not for you. I'm sorry, but it's the way these games are, if there were a suitable alternative that appealed to the vast majority of the playerbase while keeping the leveling grind from approaching Warp 9 or Ludicrous Speed, rest assured it would be industry standard by now.

 

 

 

Then it's not the game for you.

 

 

 

Mass Effect is not a massively multiplayer online RPG. It doesn't require the constant fine-tuning, content pacing, balancing, and on-going tweaking that a game as massive as SWTOR requires. This game has to appeal to hundreds of thousands of players all at the same time. You can't please them all, but you can certainly please most of them, and as far as MMOs go, swtor is quite popular.

 

That said, might I make some suggestions to streamline your leveling experience? Stop doing sidequests. Just ignore them. They're tedious and dull. Do your class story, the main planet arc (picked up at the space port or orbital station), and the main objectives for the bonus series. Skip the sidequests and fluff. Do flashpoints or warzones instead, and buy the legacy XP boosts or minor XP boosts off the GTN--or both! My first two or three playthroughs were great, completionist and all, but these days I can't do the sidequests anymore. Doing this will see you completing content at level, minimum, but more likely you'll grossly over level your content until your high 40s where it starts to even out and you've gotten bored of flashpoints lol.

 

But yeah, I'm not trying to put down what you're saying or anything, I totally get it, I'm just trying to say that this game is mostly industry standard as far as mechanics are concerned. Balancing a single player sandbox game--something you might see a handful of people play together at a LAN party or something--is vastly different from balancing an MMO. Pacing content behind packs of mobs, level, story progression, etc is standard. If it were asy to bypass all those mooks far more people would complain that leveling is too fast and/or too easy than people complaining about the tedium of killing mobs now.

 

An MMO is an entirely different beast from Mass Effect, Dragon Age, KOTOR, and other games. Those games are bugtested and released, and often glaring character build/class/type imbalances are picked up and exploited by the gaming community from the start. That would never fly in an MMO, and that's exactly why your inquisitor's skill tree has been reset (perhaps several times) and your rotation changed. Single player sandbox games rarely get this kind of attention, even though they probably desperately need it.

 

I get what you're saying, and I suppose I was unfortunately aware of it even before I posted this. I think it just upsets me that BioWare was willing to shell out tons of money and pull out all the stops on certain aspects of the game (voice acting, original score, etc.) and yet in so many ways was too nervous to try anything really new.

 

Instead they simply mimicked WoW's formula for an MMO and threw their hat into the ring. It felt awfully half-hearted, as if they were simply reskinning that formula. Blizzard owns that genre, it's just stupid to try and beat them at their own game. I just wish BioWare had played more to their strengths, and focused on telling a good story that had exciting gameplay and worried about balancing the books after creating a great game.

 

I find it a tad bit insulting that they pad all the really cool content (the stories, climactic scenes and encounters, epic moments, etc.) behind mountains of repetitive encounters basically to just drag out the gameplay and maximize the subscription model.

[I just want to sit back and enjoy the story...]

As for addressing concerns about re-learning talent builds and rotations, might I suggest noxxic.com?

 

I got it mostly figured out after a bit of playing, but this site looks helpful as far as gearing up and fine tuning. Thanks!