fodev.net
15.08.2009 - 23.06.2013
"Wasteland is harsh"
Home Forum Help Login Register
  • November 27, 2024, 02:21:35 am
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Play WikiBoy BugTracker Developer's blog
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8

Author Topic: Introduce Minimum Range to Weapons  (Read 15479 times)

Parowooz

  • Maximum Pain
  • Offline
Re: Introduce Minimum Range to Weapons
« Reply #75 on: August 21, 2010, 04:43:24 am »

Are you trying to tell me that you would risk lives of your men just to clear the building on the wasteland? Those buildings are just old, pre-war, almost destroyed piles of bricks. I would use a minigun for that kind of job to just blast throught the whole building, killing everyone inside. But, oh wait. Buildings are indestructible! That's not realistic, even thought - you didn't mention that. What else is unrealistic? Let's see:
-miniguns with only burst option - you can't shoot for any period of time using any amounts of ammo you want
-people don't die from starvation or lack of water
-travelling is incredibly fast
-bullets don't kill you in single shots! (or at least hurt you badly)
-you respawn after dying(!) (critical)
-you can craft high-tech guns from the infinite amounts of iron found in old mines

and so on, and so on...

After the long list of unrealistic things in this game, yours appear:
-guns have no minimum range

Considering how the WHOLE game has very little to do with real-life situations your suggestion to make the game more realistic is incredibly stupid, out of place and guess what: IT'S NOT REALISTIC in terms of in-game realism.


All this suggestion was meant just to nerf minigunners because some wannabe-Avatar fan tried to beat highly skilled soldier with minigun, using only sticks and rocks (like in the movie, yep).
« Last Edit: August 21, 2010, 04:46:21 am by Parowooz »
Logged
Developers, developers, developers, developers...
Re: Introduce Minimum Range to Weapons
« Reply #76 on: August 21, 2010, 06:12:09 am »

See Total Influence -> Guns have a minimum range which sucks ass. If a player is right in front of you your m16 can't hit him, only your pistol, melee weapon, or shotgun. LAME.
http://tionline.ru/ Main Website in Russian -> Playable in English with very rude Russian players (LOL)
Youtube videos:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=total+influence+&aq=f

I personally think it just doesn't work. In RL no matter how close I am to you I can shoot you. But if a Rocket Launcher had a min range it might work, but defy the purpose of "Kamakazi."
Logged
Owner of FOnline 2258! A true Fallout inspired adventure!
http://bit.ly/3syLeTp
http://www.fonline2258.com

avv

  • Offline
Re: Introduce Minimum Range to Weapons
« Reply #77 on: August 21, 2010, 09:39:25 am »

Quote from: Parowooz
Considering how the WHOLE game has very little to do with real-life situations your suggestion to make the game more realistic is incredibly stupid, out of place and guess what: IT'S NOT REALISTIC in terms of in-game realism.

Wrong. Even if the game has many features which aren't realistic it doesn't mean that a suggestion close to realism automatically sucks. Otherwise it would be completely okay to suggest - according to your logic - that we could salvage electricity out of stones. I mean screw the realism, the rest of the game isn't realism so let's just implement this. But if the stones were changed to old batteries the suggestion would suck - according to you - since it's more realistic  :o

See Total Influence -> Guns have a minimum range which sucks ass. If a player is right in front of you your m16 can't hit him, only your pistol, melee weapon, or shotgun. LAME.

Who's talking about not being able to shoot completely? So far it's only been accuracy penalty. The motivation of this thread was to implement more tactical factors to be utilized by players. This way combat will become more interesting, challenging and more reliant on player's cleverness instead of his char's.
Logged
Based on evidence collected from various sources by trustworthy attendees it is undisputed veritability that the land ravaged by atomic warfare which caused extreme change of the ecosystem and environmental hazards can be considered unpleasant, rugged and unforgiving.
Re: Introduce Minimum Range to Weapons
« Reply #78 on: August 21, 2010, 02:17:29 pm »

All this suggestion was meant just to nerf minigunners because some wannabe-Avatar fan tried to beat highly skilled soldier with minigun, using only sticks and rocks (like in the movie, yep).

Except it isn't a highly skilled soldier at all period. It's some dude in a wasteland with a machine gun. The only people close to being "soldiers" by any traditional sense of the word would be in the Enclave, BoS, or NCR everyone else is technically just a guy with a gun in a desert. The methods to train actual soldiers for the most part faded away in a nuclear fire so what you're left with is a country full of guns and people, that doesn't make them soldiers though.

Soldiers have a training regime which includes among other things unarmed and bayonet drills with a rifle training in almost all cases (you know, minus clerks and medical technicans and other noncombat trades) precisely because the scenario of being disarmed can happen. You can be rushed and grappled by someone quick enough. You can have omeone pull a knife on you while you're struggling impotently to get that enemy in your firing arc, while he's actively stuggling against you. You can have your throat cut effortlessly in that time ending your struggle quickly. Meanwhile character builds typically feature 200+ ranks in their primary weapon skill and minimal in anything else - fallout characters are talented gunmen for the most part who lack the well rounded repetoire of skills to deal with that reality of combat.

I'm not suggesting minigunners die instantly in mellee combat, I'm suggesting that the difficulty of fighting in close quarters with a large weapon, not just minguns, but all the big guns and, hell, rifles among the small guns and energy weapons while we're at it be reflected through serious accuracy penalties at close range.

Why? Because it adds another dynamic to the game and dynamic combat in games is what makes them fun. If it doesn't work out then simply change it back later it's not worth not testing something that could be fun for everyone because some people are afraid crying "Don't nerf me bro". It's not a nerf, lets face it minigunners own and will own people most of the time even with this change in effect, seriously how often do you run into mellee range just to burst someone?

Machine guns and rifles are not and should not be treated as magical swiss army knives ideal for every situation - they're not. And reflectin that in game would add an interesting new dynamic to the game that's worth considering.
Logged

avv

  • Offline
Re: Introduce Minimum Range to Weapons
« Reply #79 on: August 21, 2010, 02:50:07 pm »

Why? Because it adds another dynamic to the game and dynamic combat in games is what makes them fun. If it doesn't work out then simply change it back later it's not worth not testing something that could be fun for everyone because some people are afraid crying "Don't nerf me bro". It's not a nerf, lets face it minigunners own and will own people most of the time even with this change in effect, seriously how often do you run into mellee range just to burst someone?

I can already see what kind of problems it could cause if implemented without supporting features. A melee dude or a close range gun dude gets near big gunner, big gunner just starts running as long as he wants until he gains little more distance due to micromanagement. Then he bursts, if the melee dude didn't die, big gunner starts running again. This is called kiting, you can see it in WoW and starcraft and it looks extremely stupid. It's caused by instant acceleration to maximum speed movement and instant weapon readyness. Instead of planning your actions beforehand the game encourages constant movement, like fonline does now in some cases.

So TwistedIndoctrine if we ever get distance modifiers, we also need to rework moving a little. So that you just can't get away from unfit position immediately by running. Many players already hate the real time because it's not strategic enough and relies too much on reflexes. This is partially caused by the excessive running.
Logged
Based on evidence collected from various sources by trustworthy attendees it is undisputed veritability that the land ravaged by atomic warfare which caused extreme change of the ecosystem and environmental hazards can be considered unpleasant, rugged and unforgiving.
Re: Introduce Minimum Range to Weapons
« Reply #80 on: August 21, 2010, 03:26:10 pm »

Agreed.
Logged

Gatling

  • Violent Pacifist.
  • Offline
Re: Introduce Minimum Range to Weapons
« Reply #81 on: August 21, 2010, 08:36:54 pm »

...seriously how often do you run into mellee range just to burst someone?

All the time if I can help it, actually.  Then again, I'm not BG, either.  Though during my time in PVP, I know for a fact that BGers do it, too.  Not everyone, of course.  With support, they have no need because they do not worry so much about having to do all the damage.

However, I have seen often they will try to stand beside you to burst, if they have any say in the matter and the situation calls for it. Which is often.  And it only makes sense with the present mechanics.  I do like this idea in partial, as mechanics DO need more in them to vary them.  Right now, besides the weapon choice, there is not much else that varies the combat.  You run, move, and either snipe or burst.  Everyone generally hits 95%, most wear some kickass armor (especially those that have plenty of it and don't mind risking one offhandedly), and many take drugs and perks to further fortify themselves.


Right now, it looks like cardboard cutouts running everywhere.   >:(

Logged
And now...
"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon."- Rorschach
"It's what people know about themselves inside... that makes them afraid." -The Stranger
Re: Introduce Minimum Range to Weapons
« Reply #82 on: August 22, 2010, 12:10:26 am »

+100
Logged
"The eternal Tao is many paths to the same goal...."
~The player of Shih L'ung
Re: Introduce Minimum Range to Weapons
« Reply #83 on: August 23, 2010, 03:04:01 pm »

I dont like realism when gameplay or balance suffers out of it. But the sheer lack of penalities for weapons in close range make the game far too easy. If someone is next to me in RL with a Knife or a sword in striking range, these 2 things are far superior to any bullet except into the head... Thats Real Life fact every Kendoka or HtH expert can tell you. Both would die or just the gunner.

In this game you get an advantage of using the biggest and meanest gun, because there are no downsides... running up close with all AP makes it possible to have at least one burst...

I just came along with the Van Buren idea of RT Combat which says that RT combat is a hybrid like i suggested before. A Turn is 6 seconds, and rather you use up all your AP or not they ll get replenished after the 6 seconds.. this gives an advantage to those who stand still and aim, and discourages rushing next to someone and killing him at point blank range.. also the AP left after the round influence running speed of the next 6 seconds.. i really like that idea
Logged
Re: Introduce Minimum Range to Weapons
« Reply #84 on: August 23, 2010, 03:18:09 pm »

I just came along with the Van Buren idea of RT Combat which says that RT combat is a hybrid like i suggested before. A Turn is 6 seconds, and rather you use up all your AP or not they ll get replenished after the 6 seconds.. this gives an advantage to those who stand still and aim, and discourages rushing next to someone and killing him at point blank range.. also the AP left after the round influence running speed of the next 6 seconds.. i really like that idea
It called rounds, I suggested it before, but someone disliked it.
However 6 seconds is too much.
Neverwinter Nights and Icewind Dales and other D&Ds using 6-second rounds.
But I more like SW: KOTOR's 3-second rounds, because game looks less like "Strike and then stare 5 seconds on victim with stupid face." And 6 seconds is too much for game as FOnline.
With round system sequence can be implemented in RT easily, by taking actions with highest sequence in advantage and first-to-do, like if you had more sequence than your target and you shoot each other, you'll shoot 1st, and only he'll do that after.
Logged
Re: Introduce Minimum Range to Weapons
« Reply #85 on: August 23, 2010, 04:11:59 pm »

4 Second rounds would be perfect... you have to be a very fast clicker to just stand arround because there are still animations which have to be done :) 4-5 seconds Real Time rounds would fit in perfectly
Logged

avv

  • Offline
Re: Introduce Minimum Range to Weapons
« Reply #86 on: August 23, 2010, 04:20:44 pm »

Neverwinter Nights and Icewind Dales and other D&Ds using 6-second rounds.

I always found icewind dale fights very chaotic.

Quote
But I more like SW: KOTOR's 3-second rounds, because game looks less like "Strike and then stare 5 seconds on victim with stupid face." And 6 seconds is too much for game as FOnline.

3 Seconds could be too little because in fonline you might have a squad and there's got to be enough time to type some messages about what's going on in combat. Currently proper teamplay requires 3rd party communication programs.

Besides that "strike and stare" could be changed to aiming or enlonged shooting animations. If all aps were invested in shooting, a big gunner would shoot short bursts for the whole 6 seconds.

What I still don't understand is that are the turns 6 seconds per person one at time or is there a global clock during which everyone spends his aps in 6 seconds and then it resets?
Logged
Based on evidence collected from various sources by trustworthy attendees it is undisputed veritability that the land ravaged by atomic warfare which caused extreme change of the ecosystem and environmental hazards can be considered unpleasant, rugged and unforgiving.
Re: Introduce Minimum Range to Weapons
« Reply #87 on: August 24, 2010, 07:52:05 pm »

"shoot him with your minigun!"
"I can't sir"
"Why not?!"
"He's too close, I might get too many bullets in him... Plus I just washed this uniform, I don't wanna get him all over it"

...

Fuck minimum range.
Logged

Michaelh139

  • Goin for 900,000...
  • Offline
Re: Introduce Minimum Range to Weapons
« Reply #88 on: August 24, 2010, 07:57:32 pm »

"shoot him with your minigun!"
"I can't sir"
"Why not?!"
"He's too close, I might get too many bullets in him... Plus I just washed this uniform, I don't wanna get him all over it"

...

Fuck minimum range.
the minigun is 5 times bigger than a P90 and 472438745 bigger/longer etc than a knife so if some guyis right up on you you honestly think you'll be able to shoot him?  Especially if he goes past the barrel?

Inappropriate speech removed. Watch your tongue, Michel.

~Surf
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 08:04:05 pm by Surf Solar »
Logged
Whenever I say something, imagine \"In my opinion"/ being in the front of every sentence.
Re: Introduce Minimum Range to Weapons
« Reply #89 on: August 25, 2010, 10:10:06 pm »

the minigun is 5 times bigger than a P90 and 472438745 bigger/longer etc than a knife so if some guyis right up on you you honestly think you'll be able to shoot him?  Especially if he goes past the barrel?

Inappropriate speech removed. Watch your tongue, Michel.

~Surf

First, who is going to dodge 120 rounds from a minigun. Second, even if someone is right next to you with a knife, YOU HAVE A MINIGUN. One step backwards and he is toast. Better yet, if we are talking realism, anyone could just smash that big metal gun into his face, knock him out and kill him that way. Plus, if you look on the screen and stand right next to someone with a minigun its not THAT big. You just like to make it seem that way because of the obvious bias in your argument.
I could understand a minimum range of 1 square... that would be the only thing that makes sense because the minigun does actually creep over to the square in front of the player..
But besides that, you try rushing a guy with a minigun, you can say goodbye to your legs, arms and face WELL before you actually get close to him.

Didn't your mother  ever tell you? "Never bring a knife to a gun fight"
I don't care if you guys have hard ons for melee fighting, guns will always be superior in pvp.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8
 

Page created in 0.18 seconds with 21 queries.