Can we please have accurate Weapons please?

[Harpo]

There are some really good discussion going on in some threads where there are multiple viewpoints on a subject. Yum! However, some discussion tend to go more towards the "what is plausible in a post-apocalyptic world" rather than if the topic is a good feature and even if there's a way to implement it to a reasonable cost. Few discussions seem to try and enhance the idea and mold it to fit the game and the fans as much as possible.

I really love when you post an idea and someone's like "I like that, but I'd do it like this instead so you get these pros or get rid of these cons..." and you see how your idea is... well, optimized, in the thread. Even good discussions of pros and cons of different ideas is probably far more helpful to the game devs than what's plausible or not.

I think they are going to set the rough brush strokes pretty early on and decide what is plausible or not. Then they have to plow through endless discussions on plausibility here to find the really yummy stuff.

[Woolfe]

Agreed...

I actually find the different directions really interesting and often see something that makes me think "Thats cool".

But there certainly is a lot to sift through... Probably a fulltime job for someone

[Harpo]

Yeah, and I wish we could have focused a little bit more on how to implement it in a way that makes it efficient and cheap. They will have to put a price on most ideas and if we can help them by giving ideas of how to realize the idea, then it would be much easier for them I think.

If you just post the idea and get backing, they will have to figure out how to do it and there are always multiple ways of doing it. With a short design and development cycle they might be forced to go with the first way to implement it - which might not be the cheapest one. Having it priced too high it might stop it from being implemented at all.

Now, I'm not saying we do a better job than they do, but being a software developer myself I know how you can find better and better ways of implementing an idea if you brainstorm for a while and run it by a couple of colleagues. A week later the idea has suddenly become half as expensive to implement =)

If we brainstorm, they can pick up where we left off.

[Smash]

I'd much rather realism be forgone for interesting combat mechanics. Honestly I think Fallout 1/2 got it pretty right, you could be accurate ranged, auto ranged, heavy ranged, melee or unarmed specialist. Each had their place and could be chosen depending on the style of game you wanted to play. Weapons also had progression.

People can get locked down in ultra-realism and I worry for a game that has 2 groups lying behind cover 1/2 a click away from each other trying to pick the others off with snipers because anything else would be suicide. Seems fairly boring to me.

[Drool]

People can get locked down in ultra-realism and I worry for a game that has 2 groups lying behind cover 1/2 a click away from each other trying to pick the others off with snipers because anything else would be suicide. Seems fairly boring to me.

Now I'm picturing Police Squad...

[Harpo]

I'd much rather realism be forgone for interesting combat mechanics. Honestly I think Fallout 1/2 got it pretty right, you could be accurate ranged, auto ranged, heavy ranged, melee or unarmed specialist. Each had their place and could be chosen depending on the style of game you wanted to play. Weapons also had progression.

People can get locked down in ultra-realism and I worry for a game that has 2 groups lying behind cover 1/2 a click away from each other trying to pick the others off with snipers because anything else would be suicide. Seems fairly boring to me.

Yeah. That's what I absolutely hated about Fallout Tactics combat, because that's what it usually ended up in. I'm rooting for as much diversity as possible. I do however think that a lot of the ideas that have their base in realism suggest enhancements to the combat system that would actually increase the fun! Not all, but a lot. I especially like the ones that does one or more of the following:

a) encourages diversity in the equipment (both weapons and armor)
b) puts more emphasis on close combat
c) increases the number of tactical decisions you can make without making the combat more complex or add to micro-management.
d) works to reduce the risk of weapons becoming useless to the point where they are absolutely obsolete

Side-note on d): I don't like things like having no rewards for using the SMG once you have an assault rifle. They didn't manufacture the SMG because it is cheaper than the assault rifle and they wan't to satisfy a low-price customer segment. They manufacture it because it actually have some advantages over assault rifles. Same goes for pistols and many other weapons. I hate to end up with a squad of rangers with heavy machine guns only, and only because you're not rewarded for having any other type of weapon. Unrealistic or not - that's just silly in my eyes. Xcom Enemy Unknown had one way of dealing with this and that was to make heavy weapons heavy and expensive in terms of action points to fire.

[_Quinn]

While I don't like the idea of "more" emphasis on close combat -- Wasteland started far too many combats with the PCs at arm's length from the monsters -- I do like the idea that one class of weapon isn't uniformly better than the next. I don't think I'd like a minimum range, but an accuracy penalty on longarms at melee (14 or fewer feet, in Wasteland) ranges would give you reason to have SMGs in town. Faster weapon switching would make back-up weapons (pistols and knives) worth having. (Imagine if in Wasteland, you could switch to a pistol or knife (or other small weapon) and attack with it in the same turn.)

One way to emphasize melee combat that wouldn't make it seem insanely overpowered would be for certain monsters to be more substantially more resistant to gunfire than, say, knifing. (This is true, for instance, of modern body armors.) Conversely, some creatures would be able to ignore knives and chainsaws ("cyborgs with metal mesh armor") but not some other form of attack (lasers). IIRC, Fallout's armors all had different effectiveness against different attack forms. The key here is to make this information well-known, both in the world and to the player (during combat), so that it doesn't feel arbitrary.

And if the setting is going to continue with random hypertech, flechette rifles would be ranged 'knife' attacks... and to take a cue from the first post in this thread, maybe so would arrows.

[krellen]

I do like the idea that one class of weapon isn't uniformly better than the next.

I don't like this idea. Assault rifles are better than most other arms in almost all situations. I don't see any value in trying to encourage players to keep using bolt-action rifles and SMGs until end-game; it would feel clunky and random.

Wasteland had a clear progression of weaponry, predicated on availability - pistols were readily available, rifles could be bought early on once you'd earned some cash, SMGs started to be loot from enemies a bit later but were never available for sale*, then you started finding assault rifles in stashes and on a few rare enemies - again, never available in a store unless you sold it to them* - and finally energy weapons from the deepest old-tech areas.

All that said - melee weapons never went out of style, and it was always worthwhile to have either a dedicated meleer or two or a backup melee weapon for all your Rangers. Not only was melee ruthlessly deadly - with some of the highest damage weapons in the game being melee - but it also awarded double experience: a great way to level up replacements.

I don't see a great need for systems on top of this to encourage weapon diversity.

Besides, everyone's going to have at least one chainsaw-wielding maniac Ranger, just for the awesome factor.

*Black Market excepted, but the Black Market was in an area not readily available until you'd already found sufficient supplies of each anyway.

[Harpo]

I do like the idea that one class of weapon isn't uniformly better than the next.

I don't like this idea. Assault rifles are better than most other arms in almost all situations. I don't see any value in trying to encourage players to keep using bolt-action rifles and SMGs until end-game; it would feel clunky and random.

Bolt action rifles are still very popular since the design allows for larger calibers (which in the game should translate both into more damage inflicted but foremost better penetration against high armor enemies, robots and vehicles*). Most modern day sniper rifles are bolt action rifles, for the caliber reason and since they offer top of the line accuracy. This is also easy to translate in to the game, is it not?

Sub-machine guns performs much better in close combat quarters which is why they are the weapon of choice for most police and special forces. The MP5 being a perfect example. Other than that I would agree that they are inferior to assault rifles. This is a bit trickier to translate in to the game, especially since we don't know the exact combat system yet.

Wasteland had a clear progression of weaponry, predicated on availability - pistols were readily available, rifles could be bought early on once you'd earned some cash, SMGs started to be loot from enemies a bit later but were never available for sale*, then you started finding assault rifles in stashes and on a few rare enemies - again, never available in a store unless you sold it to them* - and finally energy weapons from the deepest old-tech areas.

The availability of weapons you describe sounds great. In fact, it's not the progression (in terms of availability to the player) that bugs me. It is when the developer feels a need to 'power up' each level of weapons to a degree where it is over the top and neither realistic nor fun in the game. You might find weapons you really like, but the developer tells you that no matter their efficiency in real life, in this game you're not rewarded for using this type of weapon anymore and therefore they are degraded. Mainly so that the jump to the next tier of weapons becomes more obvious. It's also the fact that each tier of weapon has to outperform the last tier in every aspect - even if it makes no sense whatsoever - that bugs me.

All that said - melee weapons never went out of style, and it was always worthwhile to have either a dedicated meleer or two or a backup melee weapon for all your Rangers. Not only was melee ruthlessly deadly - with some of the highest damage weapons in the game being melee - but it also awarded double experience: a great way to level up replacements.

This is absolutely sufficient in my book. Hopefully they will keep this system - or something similar.

I don't see a great need for systems on top of this to encourage weapon diversity.

I don't see how there's no room for improvements. At least not when it is aimed at increasing the level of fun in the game. Weapon diversity is fun.

Besides, everyone's going to have at least one chainsaw-wielding maniac Ranger, just for the awesome factor.

If they keep weapons like these. Chainsaws and such. I must certainly WILL have a chainsaw-wielding maniac ranger - that's for sure!

[Comrade Nightmare]

I don't like this idea. Assault rifles are better than most other arms in almost all situations. I don't see any value in trying to encourage players to keep using bolt-action rifles and SMGs until end-game; it would feel clunky and random.

This kind of random garbage that you often tend to spew is causing me and probably anyone who has ever held a single firearm in their hands a massive anal bleeding. Please, read a goddamn book.

[krellen]

I don't like this idea. Assault rifles are better than most other arms in almost all situations. I don't see any value in trying to encourage players to keep using bolt-action rifles and SMGs until end-game; it would feel clunky and random.

This kind of random garbage that you often tend to spew is causing me and probably anyone who has ever held a single firearm in their hands a massive anal bleeding. Please, read a goddamn book.

Dude, I asked the soldiers here directly whether they would ever want anything but an assault rifle. Other than expressing some desire for a pistol as backup - for reasons completely unrelated to anything in this thread - they said no.

[Harpo]

Dude, I asked the soldiers here directly whether they would ever want anything but an assault rifle. Other than expressing some desire for a pistol as backup - for reasons completely unrelated to anything in this thread - they said no.

Of course they did *anal bleeding* . Military forces need a weapon which works well at range and with which they can lay down suppressive fire. They are seldom forced to go inside and they are not supposed to fight in hand-to-hand combat. They are supposed to kill before it reaches hand-to-hand combat.

Ask special forces or other police forces which weapon they prefer instead. They are forced to use them inside and are also forced to engage in close combat (they can't really arrest and restrain someone at a 200 feet distance now can they?).

You're obviously only getting a single viewpoint described out of a subjective standpoint based on the application of their weapon. If you ask a hunter which weapon he prefers he's not likely gonna say an assault rifle. He's probably going to say something like "Assault rifle? You can't hit sh*t with that garbage, and what am I gonna do with the automatic setting? Kill a herd of moose? One shot shot is all I need boy if it's accurate enough."

You probably get my point but if you ask "which is the best weapon in the world" you are obviously going to get different answers depending on who you ask.

[_Quinn]

Dude, I asked the soldiers here directly whether they would ever want anything but an assault rifle. Other than expressing some desire for a pistol as backup - for reasons completely unrelated to anything in this thread - they said no.

And when our PCs, the Desert Rangers, are being soldiers, they'll use soldier-type weapons: assault rifles and grenades. When they're being commandos, they'll use commando-type weapons: shotguns, SMGs, sniper rifles, knives, assault rifles, grenades -- and whatever else might be appropriate for the situation, including anti-tank missiles and energy weapons.

Heck, even the US Army is moving away from the M-16 and to the M-4 because the M-16's better accuracy, range, and stopping power doesn't matter as much as the M-4 being smaller and lighter, at least for the kind of combat they're seeing right now. (And if size and weight matter, it follows that for some situations, SMGs could be optimal.) For that matter, the Marines (and certain Army divisions) have adopt the designated marksman role at the squad level, so it should be a viable option in the party (fireteam).

In short, to declare assault rifles uniformly and unquestionably the best category of firearms is to decrease the tactical depth of the game in a way that isn't warranted. Are they the default go-to choice? Sure. That's only sensible. But if the other weapons are always worse, it's worrisome: either they've been nerfed or the game doesn't have the tactical depth to permit them to shine. Neither seems like a good idea.

[Harpo]

Considering some comments made here I can't really understand why weapons other than assault rifles are even manufactured!*

*Yes, it was sarcasm

[krellen]

Considering some comments made here I can't really understand why weapons other than assault rifles are even manufactured!*

In descending order: legality, expense, personal preference. Though like I said, pistols are still completely relevant, though not because of "close combat" and "tight space". It's mostly because "they can be fired one-handed" and "drawing a pistol is faster than reloading a rifle".

[Harpo]

Oh, that you read - but not the ones that had some legitimate reasons for why assault weapons aren't the only weapon of choice. I bet that one's harder to answer. By the way, I thought you didn't read my posts, being non-constructive and not in line with your opinions and all that

Edit: I just read some about preferred SWAT equipment and it says like this:
"Common sub-machine guns used by SWAT teams include the 9mm and 10mm Heckler & Koch MP5, Heckler & Koch UMP, and 5.7x28mm FN P90."

Now, tell me if that is out of legality, cost, effectiveness or personal references that they don't use only assault rifles (because the do use assault rifles as well).

[krellen]

Oh, that you read - but not the ones that had some legitimate reasons for why assault weapons aren't the only weapon of choice. I bet that one's harder to answer.

I just did answer it; assault weapons aren't the weapon of choice because of legality, expense, and personal preference.

[Harpo]

Oh, that you read - but not the ones that had some legitimate reasons for why assault weapons aren't the only weapon of choice. I bet that one's harder to answer.

I just did answer it; assault weapons aren't the weapon of choice because of legality, expense, and personal preference.

Yeah. I bet the SWAT guys couldn't throw in enough lunch money to afford them some more assault rifles. They just have to settle with MP5. UMP and the P90.

[krellen]

Yeah. I bet the SWAT guys couldn't throw in enough lunch money to afford them some more assault rifles. They just have to settle with MP5. UMP and the P90.

That would be legality. Most police forces are not considered military and are not allowed by law to have military-grade weaponry. Even SWATs.

And it's not like there aren't SWATs that do use assault rifles.

[Harpo]

SWAT teams do have assault rifles as well. They are actually packing the M4 - same as the military. They use it for extended penetration and long range accuracy. So the legality argument does not bite.

On a side-note they are also using a series of other assault rifles as well.

Edit: We Have been focusing a lot on SMGs and pistols. I would like to discuss heavy stuff as well. Let me begin by telling my experience. I was in the military as a squad leader in an armored anti-tank division. In a group of 8 we each had a carbine, and the group had 1 7.62mm heavy machine gun, 1 grenade launcher and 4 RPGs.

The machine gun took 2 people to operate. The shooter and the loader. It was too heavy to shoot standing. You could barely aim it standing up. You could squat if you were providing suppessing fire with no actual hope of hitting anything. You would do so from your hip. The preferred way of shooting it was when it was deployed. Normally you would lay down.
The loader was carrying a 10kg ammo case with loaded belt and an extra barrel, which would have been too heavy for the shooter to carry. He would reload the machine gun and replace the barrel every 250 fired shot to prevent it from getting too hot and start to deform (melt). After carrying it around in battle for a day the had to end each burst while squatting by pointing the machine gun down so that the recoil would help the shooter to stand up

How are these normally portrayed in games? As the natural upgrade to the assault rifle. Same reloading time. You can fire it on thevspot without deploying it and you are always shooting it standing to keep yourself mobile. If this was the case your military buddy would have said the weapon of choice was a heavy machine gun.