Hello, hello...I'm Stevanyss.

I have a volley of queries for you developer folks, or really anyone who knows.  Note the word "knows."  I don't welcome speculation in these instances, unless there are unfinished things which are planned to be a certain way, if you get my meaning.  Now, the answers are quite relevant to me, as I find the new game is lacking in comparison to its modern-day predecessor, and I see no acceptable shooters being released in the near-future.  And you know, I find it a bit surprising that I was unable to find the answers I was looking for, unless I simply missed them or didn't look hard enough.

And now I'll try and get to the point(s).  Keep in mind, any comments that may be dissing you developers of various positions are there with the idea of constructive criticism behind them.  I seek to open up to you new perspectives, that you might see their merit and improve yourselves, and therefore the products of your labors...

...Now, I beg your forgiveness in advance if I'm too verbose, as I often think I am...

- 1.  Alright.  Firstly, I've searched and searched, both on your web site and on these forums, and I've found nothing regarding the actual performance of any of the weapons.  That's of utmost importance to me, as I find that the weapons in the unaltered game are more than lacking, with the exception of the Voss.

What I suppose I mean to ask, exactly, is, ehhh...how will the weapons perform in comparison to the weapons in the unaltered game, mostly in regard to accuracy and recoil, standing, kneeling, prone, and while moving?  I find that all of the unaltered weapons are incredibly disappointing in the realm of accuracy, again with the exception of the Voss, and, now that I think of it, the support machine guns as well.  It seems to me that if I were gently strafing to one side or walking cautiously forward, I'd still be able to place my shot in such a way that it'd hit my opponent in the face, especially if I was looking through my scope.

And, associated with all this, and since I've just mentioned support weapons, I think I should ask if the First Strike support weapons be as silly as the ones available in the unaltered game.  By "silly," of course, I mean that they become more accurate as they fire.  Which makes absolutely no sense, and is ridiculous.  I almost completley prefer one of those for either sniper or assault rifle for that very quality.

Also of perhaps equal concern is the quality of the unaltered game's pistols;  I find they're grossly inaccurate even at close range, though again, primarily while moving.  Does it not make sense that a smaller weapon would be more easily controlled in the hands of a trained soldier, and therefore more accurate in terms of the game, especially at its optimum range (close ranger)?  I certainly think so.

On a similar note...I read in my search something about someone wanting "no weapon to be better than another" or something to that effect.  While I think this is a good doctrine, I should like to inquire if you all are taking proper measures to see that each individual weapon does in fact (and I say this because often developers seem to think they're doing such when they're really not...or perhaps they're just crazy) have its unique strengths and weaknesses, which would mean that individual players would prefer one particular weapon over another because it's more suitable to that player's play style (example:  I like precision, so I would take a slower, precise weapon, such as a sniper rifle, to a powerhouse that has trouble hitting the broad side of an AT-AT...though I have my exceptions).  Specialization is something that falls under this, as well, in which I mean that a support weapon should be able to put out a lot of fire power with little accuracy in order to keep the enemies' heads down, snipers should simply be snipers and therefore have very precise primary weapons, and assault would have a more medium-range weapon that can very seldom (and as a result of chance) perform effectively at long ranger.  I think this issue of "balance of weapons" in this sort of sense, for lack of a better way to put it, is my chief concern...

- 2.  Moving on...One thing I've noticed from periodically visiting the site and checking out the news is that you guys are modelling and skinning a lot of of stuff...and much of this stuff, to me, seems to be capable of serving little or no purpose.

There seems to be an incredible amount of weapons.  Now, that could actually be a good thing, if you could modify the unlock system so that higher-ranking people would have access to more weapons (which makes sense.  Raw Stormtrooper gets a standard E11, and as he climbs the ranks, he gets a little more freedom in what he chooses to arm himself with).  But since I've read that you apparently can't do that, it seems...pointless.  I've scrolled through screenshot after screenshot of weapon models, some of which seem like they're out-of-place, as if you've forgotten the genre the unaltered game is.  Perhaps a good example of that is the Ryyk blade I saw recenlty...I was totally like, "WTF?!!!?"  Unless there's a class whose model is a Wookiee, or perhaps a Wookiee faction, it might make sense that they'd carry a Ryyk blade in place of the knife (which I would imagine for both Empire and Rebellion would be a vibro-dagger).  Even then, though, it seems to be wasted effort.  Then I saw that WED Treadwell droid, and I couldn't imaging what it was  good for.  The sentry droid and the remote I could see as being replacements for the Accipiter drones, but a Treadwell...a utility droid...what war-time function could it possibly serve, and more relevantly, what role parallel to the Battlefield 2142 main game could it possibly fill?  Unless it's a sort of background thing, which again, seems like wasted effort.

However, things like the E-Webb emplacement make more sense, as, in the E-Webb's case, I imagine it'd replace the Rorsch Mk-S8 Rail Gun emplacement.  A worthwhile endeavor.

- 3.  Query three is short, I promise, because I realize now that it kind of goes with the first one:  Basically, replace "weapons" with "vehicles."  I'd like to know how the vehicles are going to perform in comparison with the 2142 vehicles.  Especially walkers.  Those things are so incredibly overpowering, and I certainly hope you folks won't do something like give the AT-ST anti-infantry, vehicle, and anti-air capacity equal to the walkers'.  It's good to have a variety of vehicle types, but if there's one vehicle that not only has the most armor and hitpoints, but also has unmatched killing capacity versus every unit type in the game, there's a problem.

Also sort of under this category is the question of the aircraft.  If memory serves, pretty much every aircraft in the Star Wars universe is capable of vertical take off and landing, as the gunships are in the unaltered game, but I wish to know if they'll manuever in the same way as the gunships.  It'd be very annoying if my TIE Fighter, as I was rolling it left, became stuck on its back because it thinks that, like the present gunships, it has permanent vertical thrust, which causes it to like to get stuck on its back if you roll it too far in either direction.

I'm also interested in how the different aircraft will vary in their "performance roles."  What I mean is the types of questions like, "what advantages and disadvantages does the TIE Interceptor have in relation to the standard TIE Fighter?"...You know..that sort of thing.

That's it for now, I believe.  I think I had one other thing I wanted to ask, but in my elaborating the previous queries, that final one has slipped from memory.  It'll come back to me eventually.  Anyway, I look forward to your answers.

- Stevanyss \steh-VAN-iss\ or \STEH-vuh-niss\

"I was glad to find that mercy is a lie;  I'd rather be an honest man." - RYN-371