This is just a drawing board thread. Not a “We are currently deving this in” thread. When the idea is finished hashed out If it sounds like a good idea to a dev Then someone will probably get to it After they have finished with anything they think more important.
Or if they get bored/ agravated with a current project and want to beat out something different.
Most likely though, someone, probably not even a “core” dev, comes along and knocks this into a mod, or it just never happens.
This is a real risk, but the point of a thread like this is precisely to reach some kind of ageement about what the new thing should look like before expending that kind of effort. The outcome of this thread is basically “keep it the way it is”. Other potential valuable outcomes are, “make some minor fixes to the existing implementation”, “adjust the design and make sure future changes move in that new direction” or “throw it all out and start over”.
I do have to point out the counterargument though, which is that neglecting your foundations can lead to even more work in the future because you’ve built so much new content or functionality on top of the old stuff, and then you have to overhaul all the new stuff and the old stuff before you can make any forward progress. Partitioning the various actions the player can perform into skills is definitely one of those foundational things that we would prefer to overhal sooner rather than later to avoid invalidating parts of the ever-growing mountain of json data that makes up the content of the game. Again though, the current state is, “keep it the way that it is”.
I vote for small arms, long arms, archery, misc ranged, and marksman skills. Worked well enough for fallout.
The doxygen (http://dev.narc.ro/cataclysm/doxygen/Effects_Skill_Rifle.html) says all it effects is reload time, aim speed, getting it out and pouring it away. Auxy in the IRC let me know you need weapon skill to attach gun mods.
Now that crossbows no longer use archery, they should probably have the archery skill requirement to craft them removed, or at least reduced. A crossbow has a secondary skill requirement of Archery 3 to craft, and a steel crossbow bolt needs a whopping Archery 5. This should probably be changed to requiring a mix of fabrication and mechanics instead.
This was also a concern of mine with using any character with a crossbow. I’ve been taking 2 in rifles at char creation and when I first start, I debug away the 2 in archery and put the points in rifles(when i use the BioPrepper). I was thinking some of the skills to craft where archery, and now that it levels rifles instead, what’s going to happen. Should the crossbow stay with that and become stronger(or is it strong enough to warrant needing archery as well?). I understand that a crossbow is a bow on a rifle body pretty much, so it makes sense to need the skill, but from a game play perspective, if there isn’t too much of an advantage why not just use a relex recurve bow(or whatever) instead.
Watching Kevin and Coolthulhu go at it in these suggestion threads is the reason why I come to this forum! Kidding.
So, Coolthulhu wants to reduce the number of skills based on his own opinion that there are too many. Kevin wants to flesh out the system even more for the sake of realism and because replacing the current system is a lot of work. Both of you guys have good ideas.
Here’s my opion: sorry Coolthulhu, but I just don’t know if merging the skills into “small guns” and “big guns” like Fallout: New Vegas is the solution, nor is taking away any of the 8 ranged skills already in the game. Each ranged skill category should represent true understanding and knowledge of a certain type of weapon, down to the components themselves, recoil patterns, and techniques. Having a high skill level in them means that you should be proficient in the operation, maintenance, and modification of those specific weapons. It’s not realistic to merge these together, and C:DDA is aiming to be realistic.
The number of skills should remain the way they are because it represents the reality that, yes, there are many types of guns out there and they are all operated differently from each other. It’s reasonable to assume that as a person’s familiarity grows with a type of weapon, that they can operate weapons like it more easily—you get used to reloading it, aiming it, clearing jams quickly, and also your stance and grip of the gun itself will evolve as your skill grows. You adopt techniques from trial and error to more easily handle a weapon at different ranges of engagement. It’s not simple—you can take classes to learn these techniques, and they teach them to you in the military.
You want to merge rifles and shotguns together as the same skill group, or perhaps merging them all into small guns and big guns. This isn’t realistic. I can tell you, having fired them, that rifles and shotguns are not similar in any way other than you hold them with two hands, aim, and pull the trigger. You don’t operate a bolt on a shotgun, you don’t load magazines into one (with some exceptions), the recoil of firing one is much different, the weight and length of the weapon is different (depending on the weapon type), the internal mechanisms are different, and the iron sights are different. Conversely, you don’t load shells into a rifle, you don’t pump a rifle, you hold a rifle in a different grip, and there are different methods to, for example, clearing a jam. My point is that these two types of guns deserve to have their own skills associated with their general use, because they are different enough to justify having them separate. Same thing for the other 6 skills.
Yes, it’s true, a certain level of skill with using firearms carries over to other firearms—the subconscious muscle memory associated with aiming and shooting. We have this system represented in the game already as the Marksmanship skill (none of the Fallout games even have a marksmanship skill, by the way). So, for example, if you’re used to shooting a rifle, you SHOULD be able to switch from a rifle to a shotgun and be reasonably accurate if you have a high Marksmanship skill, but every other aspect of operating the shotgun—like reloading it and maintaining it—will be foreign to you, though to be fair it isn’t very difficult in comparison to a rifle.
Coolthulhu, you want to balance out all, or at least some, of the weapon types so that they aren’t overshadowed by Rifles. That is understandable from a video-game perspective where everything has to be balanced to encourage different modes of play, but as for me, I think rifles SHOULD be the best weapons in the game. This is how it is in reality, and just look to our militaries for proof; all of our modern military forces use assault rifles as their go-to weapon because it is simply better in more situations than any other weapon. Other types of weapons are situational, and pistols are always a backup; it’s rare to see a soldier use a shotgun or any other weapon unless they KNOW that they are going to be in a situation that better calls for one over an assault rifle (discounting special units like machinegunners, designated marksmen, snipers, etc). Assault rifles are the end-game weapon in reality, and so they should be the end-game weapon in the game too. Calling for the weaker guns to be balanced to contend with the stronger ones is just missing the point of this game: to be realistic.
Now, this isn’t to say that there isn’t some balancing to do. I think that rifles DO over-perform at least a bit, because of the whole “accuracy is always better” meta going on. Once they figure out how to fix the aiming acquirement problem, I think it will give more reason to forego your AK or your bolt-action and pick up a Skorpion instead.
Also, as an off topic, I would love to see ranged abilities that are performed with the same vein as melee moves. Maybe things like a quick-shot, holding your breath, putting the gun directly to a zombie’s skull before firing, spray-n-pray to hit several targets in front of you with a machine gun, shooting and moving at the same time—risky and versatile moves that would be possible with certain types of weapons to help differentiate them a bit. Oh, and having a system where your character becomes more familiar with an individual weapon would be cool, as everyone realistic does prefer certain guns over others, even if they’re the same type.
[spoiler= @Neon][quote=“Neonwarrior, post:48, topic:14077”]Watching Kevin and Coolthulhu go at it in these suggestion threads is the reason why I come to this forum! Kidding.[/quote]
I enjoy debates, just as long as they don’t get heated, the alternating viewpoints are quite interesting to see.
So, Coolthulhu wants to reduce the number of skills based on his own opinion that there are too many. Kevin wants to flesh out the system even more for the sake of realism and because replacing the current system is a lot of work. Both of you guys have good ideas.Um... I think you are mistaken. Kevin hasn't stated a specific viewpoint yet that I've noticed, except for the general and that you have to think carefully about the whole before making any rash decisions one way or another, else you risk abandoning the game's roots and getting something where the whole is not meshed well.
Here's my opinion: sorry Coolthulhu, but I just don't know if merging the skills into "small guns" and "big guns" like Fallout: New Vegas is the solution, nor is taking away any of the 8 ranged skills already in the game. Each ranged skill category should represent true understanding and knowledge of a certain type of weapon, down to the components themselves, recoil patterns, and techniques. Having a high skill level in them means that you should be proficient in the operation, maintenance, and modification of those specific weapons. It's not realistic to merge these together, and C:DDA is aiming to be realistic.If your going to get that involved in learning the specifics of a weapon you might as well make it weapon specific. THIS smg, THAT AR-15, MY Remington .22. You have to be careful about getting TOO realistic, because then your spending half your play time shitting in the woods and fixing micro-tears in your clothing where tree branches caught.
SMG’s are pistols that shoot fast. They are a rifle without any range. there is not a different mechanism specific to smgs
The real gun groups are: pistol, shotgun, rifle, sniper/marksmen, launcher, heavy/mounted and misc. Anything else borrows from 1 or more of these. Although even that can be changed up because like all things in the real world, there is no ‘perfect’ categorizing system because categorizing has sharp black-and-white sorting style.
Shotguns would fold into rifles except they have a different chambering system, slower shot that requires leading a fast target (the art of skeet shooting) So they get their own category.
Pistols, are really only small rifles, but actually require a different stance, draw style, foot placement, recoil management (training) etc… but the mechanism is the same, unless you look at revolvers, which are simple and straightforward in concept. So they get their own category.
sniper/marksmanship could really be held as more of an art of math and instinct then a weapon style & understanding. Sniper style weapons don’t function any differently, they just require far more training to use at the ranges they were intended for. Anything in regards to this could be called ‘applied ballistics’ except CDDA doesn’t support those kinds of ranges anyways, so is a mute point and marksmanship skill is fine.
launchers are a clear separate category, except for some variance within, and some bizarre weapons that fall in-between categories
All said in done its a balance between game-play, realism(or better yet, intuitiveness), coding time, file space, and CPU drain.
The number of skills should remain the way they are because it represents the reality that, yes, there are many types of guns out there and they are all operated differently from each other. -snip- It’s not simple—you can take classes to learn these techniques, and they teach them to you in the military.
again there is ALOT of overlap between categories, and with the way they scale, it could be put down to ‘general gun knowledge’ just fine. At short range, there is nothing complicated.
Firing the weapon comes down to stance/bracing, gaging distance, proper aim, and recoil control.
Maintaining the weapon mostly comes down to oiling and scrubbing, with advanced care requiring machine-work and part replacement. With as much overlap as there is, no weapon specific knowledge should be needed, except for measurements.
You want to merge rifles and shotguns together as the same skill group, or perhaps merging them all into small guns and big guns. -snip-
no comment, aside from whats already been said
Same thing for the other 6 skills.
Eh, SMG’s id like to see get collapsed into a combo of rifle and pistol.
Yes, it's true, a certain level of skill with using firearms carries over to other firearms-snip-^ exactly this, there is TOO much carry over to validate them to *all* get their own separate category for training.
but every other aspect of operating the shotgun—like reloading it and maintaining it—will be foreign to you, though to be fair it isn't very difficult in comparison to a rifle.What? what kind of alien tech weapons are we using here? The barrel sizes are different, the mechanisms etc.. but its hardly a 'foreign concept' lazer rifles and plasma I can see having this, but all the advanced maintenance would fall into the already bloated fab skill. Fab shows much too much vagueness to be able to hold an argument for MORE specific gun categories.
Coolthulhu, you want to balance out all, or at least some, of the weapon types so that they aren't overshadowed by Rifles. That is understandable from a video-game perspective where everything has to be balanced to encourage different modes of play, but as for me, I think rifles SHOULD be the best weapons in the game-snip-.All good here, 100% agreement, with the exception of more 'advanced' weapons. I had this same disagreement with Kevin over gun ranges before conceding that game balance was more important.
Assault rifles are the end-game weapon in reality, and so they should be the end-game weapon in the game too.Nope. Assault rifles are an all-stage weapon. more advanced weapons/variants with military upgrades and the like, sure, endgame.
the point of this game: to be realistic.THIS. This right HERE, is your key mistake. This game ≠ realistic. It draws from realism for intuitiveness. Kevin has a LIST of things he WILL NOT put into the game because they prioritize realism over game-play. This is not a valid argument to make.
Now, this isn't to say that there isn't some balancing to do. I think that rifles DO over-perform at least a bit, because of the whole "accuracy is always better" meta going on. Once they figure out how to fix the aiming acquirement problem, I think it will give more reason to forgo your AK or your bolt-action and pick up a Scorpion instead.
Ughhh, did you have to say it like that? Your going to make me have to go back over there and argue against smgs again. Such cringe. Smgs should be good crowd control weapons, and low-skill anti-dodge weapons when ammo is not precious, or less important than immediate survival. A niche gun in a survival game, nothing more.
Also, as an off topic, I would love to see ranged abilities that are performed with the same vein as melee moves. Maybe things like a quick-shot, holding your breath, putting the gun directly to a zombie's skull before firing, spray-n-pray to hit several targets in front of you with a machine gun, shooting and moving at the same time—risky and versatile moves that would be possible with certain types of weapons to help differentiate them a bit. Oh, and having a system where your character becomes more familiar with an individual weapon would be cool, as everyone realistic does prefer certain guns over others, even if they're the same type.
Eh there is various aim methods, but I would love to see a 'point-blank usage, and run&gun, and a better way to spray&pray. Gun comfort/favoritism would be nice too, but I’m not pushing for it in a survival style game. would be more of a liability in such a situation.
[/spoiler]
Can new kids comment as well?
Cutting all realism discussions aside and talking raw game design, if a player finds an SMG early on, and uses it for enough time to get some early leveles in, he will be predisposed to continue using SMGs. Current accuracy math even maxed doesn’t allow precise fire at true ranges, and early game firearms are all over the place anyway, so he’d be reticent to go back and risk life and limb to train rifles or pistols. Even if he is forced by ammo restrictions to go into another skill set, it may feel like wasted time when he shot the SMG apart from whatever tiny Marksmanship bonus he raised. So let’s take a look back then.
A skill system in a long-term, free-form sandbox game like CDDA has to fulfill two design goals, variety and mastery. Variety relates to making sure the game doesn’t allow the to pidgeonhole himself out of fear or a feeling of familiarity. If he sees a new shiny thing, he should be thinking ‘yay, can’t wait to use this’, not ‘this is going into the shit pile’. Mastery relates to the late-game enjoyability of the game and the roleplaying aspect, of allowing the player to feel he succeeds in challenging tasks because of his character’s specific skills.
So turning back to CDDA, the ranged weapon system tries to do both of these things but falls short.
Cross-classing/variety is handled by Marksmanship. If you decide to switch guns, you’re somewhat confident that you’re not losing out too much, thanks to Marksmanship, but it’s not a skill you care about, it’s a superfluous passive buff somewhere in the background that the player has no control over and which doesn’t have any hard influence. You don’t know if you’re shooting better because of marksmanship or because of your gun skill going up.
The mastery is handled by their proper weapon skills, but this in turn puts the pressure on specialisation and leads to players dedicating themselves to a particular branch. This wouldn’t be an issue if the cut-off point was later on in the game, but players often choose from the get go a specific class either because they know they can get certain weapons easier or because they know the end-game meta and what they’ll want to use. That journey is long, and a skilled rifle player might be enticed to use that grenade launcher sitting in his car for some ops, but his skill is 0 and doesn’t want to blow himself up accidentally. So mastery ends up as less of a ‘success by doing’ and more of a ‘success by abstaining’.
So what’s my take? Put most of the large bonuses in the current Marksmanship (renamed smtg@Ranged Weapons), the ones that physically allow you to shoot further and better, so no matter what gun you pick up, you will be at least competent with it. Then create 3-4 subcategories to cover the rest and that pertain to weapon-specifics and have the subcategories significantly boost a particular aspect of the playstyle of the gun-class. So if we have say, ‘small arms’, that particular skill would increase reload rates and accuracy on the move for pistols and SMGs, while ‘longarms’ would increase accuracy and steadyness gain for rifles/shotguns. The subgroups are at your discretion, but ‘Small Arms’, ‘Long arms’, ‘Heavy weapons’ and ‘Exotic’ should suffice. Even if it will seem ‘weird’ putting Bows next to the A7, it will play well to create a more cohesive class, and cut out the competition between each weapon class to be ‘competitive’. (See why everyone goes Rifle)
Voila, you can switch to that slinged MP5 from your Mosin without fear that you should have trained that skill on ants beforehand, and when you do make a spectacular shot with said Mosin, you know it is because you have shot a lot of Long Arms.
Games that went that way left the player with comfrotably choosing a primary and secondary, instead of the ‘I ONLY SHOOT PISTOLS BECAUSE THIS IS A PISTOL CHARACTER’ we have had so far. The same concept can be applied to melee weapons if for internal consistency. Melee giving main bonuses, with Unarmed/Armed/Throwing/Dodging as subcategories buffing their respective playstyle. (though i personally dislike the concept of Dodge as a skill but eh)
I am starting to see a pattern of desire for cross-weapons skill at lower levels where most training is not weapon specific.
Perhaps marksmanship should be more important, or train faster at lower levels?
Or some sort of bleed-over training mechanic could be inserted, having a ‘max bleed-over skill leveling’ cap so that becoming level 10 rifle means a 3~4 shotgun, and 1~2 pistol on its own
with the highly variable skill rust options making a robust enough system may be a small challenge. But something to tame the outrage of lvl 10 rifles, 0 skill with rifled shotgun w/slugs and 0 skill w/ pistol. Despite obvious crossover skills involved in each.
This could also be used in crafting for things where the item being crafted wants not only a core skill, but has multiple required skills, without forcing leveling of required skills unless they deserve it.
So you can craft a bow which core skill is fab… or is it survival?, with required skill archery. Have bleed-over training off for archery in that recipe.
But with say, something involving fab & mechanics skills there would be adjustable bleed-over
probably best to make it optional:
item Xp total%
additional bleedover%
where xp total bleedover would steal xp from core skill
and 'additional bleedover gives 100% to core skill and a lesser percent to required skill (unless max cap is already hit)
Other than differentiation of bonuses provided by weapon-specific skills (which is a good idea), and arbitrarily changing around the domains of weapon-specific skills (which has already been discussed), what you’re describing is roughly how the system works now. All the “how well you aim” bonii come from marksmanship already.
I’ll certainly acknowledge a lot of people seem to share this impression, so if be very happy to hear suggestions about how to make that clearer, but it’s quite frustrating to keep reading suggestions that say the existing system has problems, but then go on to propose that same system as the solution.
[quote=“Kevin Granade, post:52, topic:14077”]Other than differentiation of bonuses provided by weapon-specific skills (which is a good idea), and arbitrarily changing around the domains of weapon-specific skills (which has already been discussed), what you’re describing is roughly how the system works now. All the “how well you aim” bonii come from marksmanship already.
I’ll certainly acknowledge a lot of people seem to share this impression, so if be very happy to hear suggestions about how to make that clearer, but it’s quite frustrating to keep reading suggestions that say the existing system has problems, but then go on to propose that same system as the solution.[/quote]
is this aimed at my comment, or everyone in general?
The differentiation of skill Xp alloted bit (sounds better than bleed-over mechanic) is definately at my comment.
Mmm The bit about marksmanship faster leveling at start was redundant of current…but everything else was merely referencing the current system and saying Xp allotment mechanic should theoretically do X with this. not recommending doing what it already does.
Other than that just some bits about ‘everyone seems to think X’
Sorry if I sounded like I was adding my voice to the complaints bin, I have posted recently arguing for moderation on the call for minimizing ranged skills while still agreeing that SOME minimizing would be nice. Mostly arguing against the continued existence of SMG which irks me for reasons I don’t fully understand.
The previous post however was only intended as… wouldn’t mechanic (Xp alocation) resolve alot of these complaints with minimal negative repercussions and several beneficial ones?
Consequently it would also resolve my unexplainable hatred of SMGs current status as a rapid fire pistol without giving any experience to pistols or (assault)rifles.
sigh Why are you so right ALL the time? Every time I go to respond to you each additional paragraph has more trouble than the last not just being… …
dang it you were right, my bad I had this wonderful seeming idea, but despite all the thought I put into it as I wrote, it still wasn’t any better than what you already had.
I’ll try to keep my ideas better noted as ‘food for thought’ then actual suggestions in the future, since thats what I actually intend of them anyways. Haven’t ever straight up suggested anything intending for anyone to attempt to implement as suggested.
[spoiler= @Litppunk][quote=“Litppunk, post:49, topic:14077”]Um… I think you are mistaken. Kevin hasn’t stated a specific viewpoint yet that I’ve noticed, except for the general <take note: if we change this, it will be so deep in the game it will effect much, so if it is important we should do it sooner rather than latter> and that you have to think carefully about the whole before making any rash decisions one way or another, else you risk abandoning the game’s roots and getting something where the whole is not meshed well.[/quote]
Kevin quoted someone in this thread who said that “further work would extend the system, not shrink it,” which leads me to believe Kevin does indeed want to flesh out the system more. Or maybe he made a mistake with his quote. Right here:
[quote=“Kevin Granade, post:24, topic:14077”][quote=“Alec White, post:22, topic:14077”]If it is that much reality based, why not make skills for each of the edge cases, and not so edge cases like cross bows?
[/skill]
For practical reasons, proliferation of skills does have a cost in terms of gameplay, realism, and development effort. Its good enough right now, but further work would extend the system, not shrink it.
E.g. I wouldn’t be opposed to adding another tier of stats specifically for weapons to represent familiarity with the specific weapon, it just hasn’t been a priority.[/quote][/quote]
If your going to get that involved in learning the specifics of a weapon you might as well make it weapon specific. THIS smg, THAT AR-15, MY Remington .22. You have to be careful about getting TOO realistic, because then your spending half your play time shitting in the woods and fixing micro-tears in your clothing where tree branches caught.SMG’s are pistols that shoot fast. They are a rifle without any range. there is not a different mechanism specific to smgs
The real gun groups are: pistol, shotgun, rifle, sniper/marksmen, launcher, heavy/mounted and misc. Anything else borrows from 1 or more of these. Although even that can be changed up because like all things in the real world, there is no ‘perfect’ categorizing system because categorizing has sharp black-and-white sorting style.
Shotguns would fold into rifles except they have a different chambering system, slower shot that requires leading a fast target (the art of skeet shooting) So they get their own category.
Pistols, are really only small rifles, but actually require a different stance, draw style, foot placement, recoil management (training) etc… but the mechanism is the same, unless you look at revolvers, which are simple and straightforward in concept. So they get their own category.
sniper/marksmanship could really be held as more of an art of math and instinct then a weapon style & understanding. Sniper style weapons don’t function any differently, they just require far more training to use at the ranges they were intended for. Anything in regards to this could be called ‘applied ballistics’ except CDDA doesn’t support those kinds of ranges anyways, so is a mute point and marksmanship skill is fine.
launchers are a clear separate category, except for some variance within, and some bizarre weapons that fall in-between categories
All said in done its a balance between game-play, realism(or better yet, intuitiveness), coding time, file space, and CPU drain.
The number of skills should remain the way they are because it represents the reality that, yes, there are many types of guns out there and they are all operated differently from each other. -snip- It’s not simple—you can take classes to learn these techniques, and they teach them to you in the military.
again there is ALOT of overlap between categories, and with the way they scale, it could be put down to ‘general gun knowledge’ just fine. At short range, there is nothing complicated.
Firing the weapon comes down to stance/bracing, gaging distance, proper aim, and recoil control.Maintaining the weapon mostly comes down to oiling and scrubbing, with advanced care requiring machine-work and part replacement. With as much overlap as there is, no weapon specific knowledge should be needed, except for measurements.
I was more referring to the knowledge of each type of weapon rather than each individual one. And I was only mentioning the maintenance of weapons as an example of specific gun knowledge in
reality—the way the skills would actually work in the game, I think, is just in their operation. Things like reload speed, recoil control, the speed at which you can clear a jam—those are the effects of the ranged weapon skills I want to see.
Eh, SMG's id like to see get collapsed into a combo of rifle and pistol.
If SMGs are a combination of rifle and pistol, that means they need their own category. The difference I think comes down more to how you hold and fire an SMG compared to a pistol, especially when using burst fire. Perhaps if a pistol has a burst function, it should use the SMG skill instead—and when firing an SMG in single fire mode, it should use the pistol skill?
Yes, it's true, a certain level of skill with using firearms carries over to other firearms-snip- ^ exactly this, there is TOO much carry over to validate them to *all* get their own separate category for training.Except the gun skills shouldn't carry over. Only marksmanship should carry over—the gun skills don't affect accuracy, that's what the marksmanship skill is for. Like I said, the individual familiarity with the separate weapons should affect their reload speed and other functions of using a weapon not directly related to skillfully shooting them. I believe it IS validated to have as many ranged skills that we do, even if the effects of the ranged skills need to be tweaked for one reason or another.
What? what kind of alien tech weapons are we using here? The barrel sizes are different, the mechanisms etc.. but its hardly a 'foreign concept' lazer rifles and plasma I can see having this, but all the advanced maintenance would fall into the already bloated fab skill. Fab shows much too much vagueness to be able to hold an argument for MORE specific gun categories.If your skill in a weapon type is 0, I'm going to assume you're so completely green to it that it might as well BE an alien weapon. At least it will be when it comes to how it works, how to reload it, and how to insert shells if we're talking about a shotgun; have you ever watched videos on Youtube of people teaching their kids how to reload a shotgun? Half the time they enter the shells facing the wrong way, or they forget to pump the shotgun. That is what I'm talking about here—the weapon skills represent every other aspect of using and handling a weapon not directly related to shooting, which is what the marksmanship skill is for, which DOES carry over to other weapon types.
Nope. Assault rifles are an all-stage weapon. more advanced weapons/variants with military upgrades and the like, sure, endgame.The fact that assault rifles are an all-stage weapon MAKES them end-game weapons. You use them for almost every scenario imaginable, and they're the type of gun you're always on the lookout for because of how good they are. I'm not saying there aren't better guns than an AK-47 or M16, but certainly the best guns in the game are mostly assault rifles—especially with upgrades. No point lugging around a .50 sniper rifle when an assault rifle with a scope does the same job for less weight, you know? Of course, exceptions exist, but for 99% of your encounters, I can't think of a better weapon to carry than the appropriate assault rifle.
THIS. This right HERE, is your key mistake. This game ≠ realistic. It draws from realism for intuitiveness. Kevin has a LIST of things he WILL NOT put into the game because they prioritize realism over game-play. This is not a valid argument to make.Realism is a development foundation, as said by Kevin here:
Sounds to me like realism is a priority, at least where guns and gun skills are concerned.
Ughhh, did you have to say it like that?
Uh, sorry?
Your going to make me have to go back over there and argue against smgs again. Such cringe. Smgs should be good crowd control weapons, and low-skill anti-dodge weapons when ammo is not precious, or less important than immediate survival. A niche gun in a survival game, nothing more.
I think SMGs should basically just be considered as full-auto pistols. An assault rifle will always be more accurate than an SMG and do more damage than an SMG, but an SMG doesn’t weigh as much on account of being smaller and only being loaded with pistol ammunition. There’s adequate reason to use SMGs if weight and volume are a concern, or if you only have pistol ammo, but you want the ability to burst-fire a Hulk to death if need be without having to lug a big ol’ AK around. Here’s hoping we can eventually dual-wield SMGs like Alice in the Resident Evil movies.
Yeah most of what I said changes completely in the face that kevin is looking to increase everything in time not shrink. Including SMGs… I still don’t understand where that pet peeve came from.
The realism quote I will argue though. What I said is true, but you are also right. Bathroom breaks and other such things were ruled out because it would make gameplay tedious just to satisfy realism. It draws mechanics from realism, but the aim is not to be hyper-realistic, just as realistic as we can get without excess tedium as I understand it.
Some of that read back more… abrasive and aggressive than I had originally intended as well. My apologies on that.
That’s not a word. That’s a pseudo-Latin abomination.
My bad, “bonuses”. I’ll be sure to remember that.