The part where you’re deriving it from what you would do, not what you can actually do in the game.
Guns with range 14 are not usable at that range, except for the stupidly accurate ones. Actual in-game ranges are closer to 5 or so, except for the last few levels of ranged skill, where they “explode” (because ranged formula is terrible).
Your ideas would make sense if the ranged accuracy formula did not have that division by range in it, but unfortunately it does, which makes maximum range meaningless except for pimped up “endgame” god characters.
Did you really just say your freedom is limited by the range of guns.
Degree of freedom. Mathematical/engineering term, used as a figure of speech here. Basically the same thing as “dimension”, except not spatial, but dimension in “space of guns”.
Currently gun ranges are mostly meaningless because you still need exceptional accuracy to reach even the bad max ranges. This means that even though max ranges exist, they are very strongly tied to real ranges, to the point where they don’t matter much.
So, in other words, degree of freedom to the system is lost: you can change the max range of guns all you want, but it won’t cause the guns to be usable at longer ranges in actual game.
And for the most part I have to wait and steady my aim the moment they get into max range
Now that’s a point. This could probably be fixed somehow without reworking the whole accuracy system.
Now, reworking accuracy system would be a great idea, but let’s just say it’s not up to me and not because I don’t want to do it (I do).[/quote]
I don’t… what the heck are you even saying. I don’t care what the formula is. I don’t… care how it works, m’dude. These two things have nothing to do with gameplay because yeah… range matters in gameplay weirdly enough. Who knew. And alright sure whatever the formula is bad but that just means someone should uh… change it, which is what I’d like. Weird, huh.
I don’t get what you’re arguing you seem to also hate the system which is what I was complaining about in the first place. Accuracy is bad. Range is weird. Damage is fairly low in most cases which sucks since ammunition is limited, and I know some smartass will go ‘no just find a gun store!’, it’s more limited than melee is and melee is only limited if you manage to break the weapon you use. Guns in gameplay terms should be distanced killing machines, even pistols for the most part. Because of their inherently limited nature compared to melee weapons which are insane. Like even with higher marksmanship and skill in the weapon you’re not much better off than a person using the same amount of points in a melee build, even if ammo was infinite. I mean shit zui quan and cenitpede style and stuff like that are insane.
Also it may be good idea to talk with Kevin about not to do self merging unless situation is critical or it is really necessary. Especially if changes can broke a lot of major things.
The benefit of guns in the real world is two things. 1) range… but this is highly variable, of course, and 2) near-zero physical requirements. That is, once you have the physical requirements to fire the gun, there is almost zero benefit in further physical development. This puts the 98-pound woman and the 300 pound linebacker on a (nearly) level playing field. What’s that saying about God making man and Colt making men equal?
In terms of damage, people today underestimate the real damage of historical melee weapons. Being shot is far more survivable than being on the receiving end of a good melee weapon without armor. (Of course, that also varies by the weapon - .50 cal makes for a bad day.) I’d take a brick of .22 before I’d take a swing with a real battle axe.
The benefit of guns in the real world is two things. 1) range… but this is highly variable, of course, and 2) near-zero physical requirements. That is, once you have the physical requirements to fire the gun, there is almost zero benefit in further physical development. This puts the 98-pound woman and the 300 pound linebacker on a (nearly) level playing field. What’s that saying about God making man and Colt making men equal?
In terms of damage, people today underestimate the real damage of historical melee weapons. Being shot is far more survivable than being on the receiving end of a good melee weapon without armor. (Of course, that also varies by the weapon - .50 cal makes for a bad day.) I’d take a brick of .22 before I’d take a swing with a real battle axe.[/quote]
Ok one, there’s more and less than that depending on a lot of things. And there’s benefit in further physical development and I don’t feel there’s been any large scale conflicts or studies enough to really determine whether modern special forces and extreme training are worth the benefits. Of course, being more physically fit allows you to make tighter shots and not allow recoil to destroy you. Allows you to wield larger weapons. I don’t think you’ve ever carried around an M240B, I have, and wew. Is it a beast. You think just anyone can be a sniper? Being an actual sniper takes time and effort and you need to be able to steady yourself for longer times than what people can think. Even moving a couple centimeters can throw your shot way off mark. Now of course this is with specialist weapons but of course it helps with handguns too. Again, recoil control. A stronger person can simply handle more recoil than a weaker person. Of course you could always say a 14 year old with an AK is just as good as a 25 year old with years of training and experience but I don’t think pitting them in a fair fight where they both are aware of what needs to be done and who is going after who will have the 14 year old winning in most cases.
Ok two this also varies a hell of a lot. Like. A hell of a lot. Like where you’re being hit more than what’s being used. In general if your torso gets penetrated with either a sword or even a 9mm you’re probably a casualty at that point. Almost the entirety of the torso is vital organs. Up top more vital than your stomach area but if you get your intestines punctured you can easily get serious infections. And if you’re talking realism after like a few shots with most guns or getting hit just a few times would mean you’re just doubling over from pain. People ignore that you don’t have to be instantly killed to be out of a fight or for a weapon to be useful. If I give you a shot to the chest with a .22 and you’re wearing no armor you’re probably still going to go down, my dude. That’s a punctured lung at best. Turns out humans in general are more fragile than you’d think. But not as much as I’d hope, because yes some people do get impeccably lucky and survive sometimes up to a dozen shots just fine, granted that’s also usually hits to the extremities. Also we weren’t necessarily talking about realism in this game, I was talking about in terms of gameplay use. Guns are useless to me in most cases in game and from at least looking around at the forums I’m seeing people with at least some similar complaints. I am trying them again to be sure and they’re somewhat better than I thought but still pretty subpar compared to martial arts or melee weapons.
he said after you are able to use the gun, as in you have all the physical fitness and strength and whatever to use the gun properly, then going BEYOND that doesn’t help as much. someone that can lift 200 pounds and someone that can lift 300 pounds will notice 0 to near-0 difference in a the kick a pistol has.
So when talking about how “useless” guns are, do you mean specifically firearms, or anything that works with marksmanship?
Pneumatic rifles and bows are pretty good at night (twice so for easy kills on shockers) and if combined with decent speed also provide a way to kill anything you don’t want to go into melee range with (hulks, corrosive Z’s, etc).
Oh, you’ll get no disagreement from me, there - I was making a very short statement, not a doctoral thesis. But the basic claim still stands, despite all you just said. Sure, there are edge cases (snipers are a great example), and there are OTHER benefits to physical development (being able to carry more for longer distances, for instance), but that doesn’t change the basic nature of the gun that’s already in hand. “This puts the 98-pound woman and the 300 pound linebacker on a (nearly) level playing field.” Note that I did say “nearly” - far far FAR closer than historical, physical-strength-requiring weapons.
Again, you’ll get no disagreement from me on that statement (and many of the other statements - I am WELL aware of the fragility of human life, and your statements about pain are mostly on, though there is sometimes a noticeable delay in the onset due to adrenaline), but the points that I made are untouched by the whole paragraph. As I originally pointed out, “people today underestimate the real damage of historical melee weapons”, and you’re still doing that. All that stuff you said about bullets in the torso being bad? Totally true… and I’d stand by my statement about the brick of .22 vs the battle axe. A single hit with a battle axe has a VERY good chance of killing you, either flat out or from blood loss in VERY short order. A hit with a .22, even a relatively short range, stands a good chance of lodging in muscle or fat or stopping when it hits bone, yes, even in the torso (.22 is very weak), and the blood loss from such little punctures is negligible compared to the vast opening created by any edged melee weapon, especially a heavy cutting one like a battle axe (or a two-handed sword, which could chop the limbs off of HORSES in one swing).
But even beyond the blood loss and pain issues, part of underestimating the damage of historical weapons is the actual functional DAMAGE, not just the likelihood of killing. Sure, VERY large caliber weapons can actually do real damage (again, .50 is a bad day), but puncture wounds (smaller caliber bullets, in particular), while very dangerous to the internal organs, don’t do much other damage (relatively speaking). The way large edged weapons kill is to open up vast areas of skin, resulting in tremendous blood loss, but also doing vast damage to the musculature underneath, resulting in actual incapacity, whatever the pain level. Warfare-level bludgeoning weapons shatter bones and pulp muscles, again resulting in actual incapacity in short order (yes, some hits from firearms of even medium caliber do this… but only some).
There is no “in and out” hit from a claymore. Even being run through by such a weapon (not the usual attack with one of those) is going to leave a much larger hole than all but the largest caliber man-portable firearms. Sure, in the right place, that doesn’t really matter (even a .22 can get lucky and hit the heart… a spear going into the same place is much more thorough, but the end result is the same), but in other places, it does matter, quite a lot. Going back to the brick of .22, sure, getting shot in the arms and legs multiple times by .22 fire would be bad, and might even result in bleeding out (and sure, the pain level would be high), but one good swing from a battle axe (or the larger swords) can take the that arm or leg CLEAN OFF, and bleeding out from that is a nigh-certainty (not to mention the obvious and immediate incapacity).
My point here is not that guns aren’t good, but that in comparison to a good melee weapon, their advantages aren’t in the deadliness department, they are primarily in the “stay out of reach” and “level the playing field” department.
As such, if guns can’t be used at a significant range, they are of MUCH more limited use.
Ok but you can use a gun way before you can lift 200 pounds. A 4 year old child can use a gun and they’ve accidentally fired guns many times. I don’t think they’re as effective as an adult or someone even mildly stronger, though, do you?
[quote=“Tamior, post:66, topic:13779”]So when talking about how “useless” guns are, do you mean specifically firearms, or anything that works with marksmanship?
Pneumatic rifles and bows are pretty good at night (twice so for easy kills on shockers) and if combined with decent speed also provide a way to kill anything you don’t want to go into melee range with (hulks, corrosive Z’s, etc).[/quote]
I haven’t gotten much experience in the way of all ranged weapons, I hate archery because it’s similarly low range and don’t bother making much stuff, so yeah. Mostly firearms that you pick up. They’re definitely not as bad as I thought they were, but they’re still worse than just being a melee character. I have limited resources and pretty much have to precisely aim to even get a fair chance of getting a hit, let alone a kill. And that sucks when they’re also loud and attract more zombies and also they’re moving towards you as you aim. I know I should run but again, I’m just better off not using the gun at this point.
dammit mvm900, are you trolling or something now? i said use the gun PROPERLY. a child/baby is not strong enough to use it PROPERLY. stop ignoring half my words.
Ok but you can use a gun way before you can lift 200 pounds. A 4 year old child can use a gun and they’ve accidentally fired guns many times. I don’t think they’re as effective as an adult or someone even mildly stronger, though, do you?[/quote]
That has more to do with mental capacity than physical capability. Seriously, once you can aim and fire a gun (some of which is practice, which is not a physical-capability requirement), there is little further improvement to be gained from physical capability.
Go look up some of the incidents of self-defense by physically disabled people. 250 pound thug vs 98 pound wheelchair-bound invalid. Invalid has gun… suddenly, the playing field is quite nearly level, of even in the invalid’s favor if the thug has no gun. Once you can use the gun (that is actually aim and fire it, not just manage to get it to go off), then further physical capability is useful only for carrying more ammo and changing locations.
(Again, some advanced uses, like long distance sniping or continuous use of a large-caliber automatic weapon, DO require more, but those are the rare exceptions.)
Let’s think of this another way. In boxing, the competitors are grouped into fairly small weight ranges, as competitiveness drops off VERY quickly with increasing size differential, and even in those weight categories, greater arm length is a STRONG advantage.
In shooting… um, yeah. Age categories largely divide people by experience, not capability, and little else matters.
The gun does the work. Aim and fire, neither of which has great physical requirements, and neither of which gains in any significant from greater physical capability, except in the most extreme of outliers.
And I second tarburst98 - that does seem like trolling, not good-faith argument.
Oh, you’ll get no disagreement from me, there - I was making a very short statement, not a doctoral thesis. But the basic claim still stands, despite all you just said. Sure, there are edge cases (snipers are a great example), and there are OTHER benefits to physical development (being able to carry more for longer distances, for instance), but that doesn’t change the basic nature of the gun that’s already in hand. “This puts the 98-pound woman and the 300 pound linebacker on a (nearly) level playing field.” Note that I did say “nearly” - far far FAR closer than historical, physical-strength-requiring weapons.
Again, you’ll get no disagreement from me on that statement (and many of the other statements - I am WELL aware of the fragility of human life, and your statements about pain are mostly on, though there is sometimes a noticeable delay in the onset due to adrenaline), but the points that I made are untouched by the whole paragraph. As I originally pointed out, “people today underestimate the real damage of historical melee weapons”, and you’re still doing that. All that stuff you said about bullets in the torso being bad? Totally true… and I’d stand by my statement about the brick of .22 vs the battle axe. A single hit with a battle axe has a VERY good chance of killing you, either flat out or from blood loss in VERY short order. A hit with a .22, even a relatively short range, stands a good chance of lodging in muscle or fat or stopping when it hits bone, yes, even in the torso (.22 is very weak), and the blood loss from such little punctures is negligible compared to the vast opening created by any edged melee weapon, especially a heavy cutting one like a battle axe (or a two-handed sword, which could chop the limbs off of HORSES in one swing).
But even beyond the blood loss and pain issues, part of underestimating the damage of historical weapons is the actual functional DAMAGE, not just the likelihood of killing. Sure, VERY large caliber weapons can actually do real damage (again, .50 is a bad day), but puncture wounds (smaller caliber bullets, in particular), while very dangerous to the internal organs, don’t do much other damage (relatively speaking). The way large edged weapons kill is to open up vast areas of skin, resulting in tremendous blood loss, but also doing vast damage to the musculature underneath, resulting in actual incapacity, whatever the pain level. Warfare-level bludgeoning weapons shatter bones and pulp muscles, again resulting in actual incapacity in short order (yes, some hits from firearms of even medium caliber do this… but only some).
There is no “in and out” hit from a claymore. Even being run through by such a weapon (not the usual attack with one of those) is going to leave a much larger hole than all but the largest caliber man-portable firearms. Sure, in the right place, that doesn’t really matter (even a .22 can get lucky and hit the heart… a spear going into the same place is much more thorough, but the end result is the same), but in other places, it does matter, quite a lot. Going back to the brick of .22, sure, getting shot in the arms and legs multiple times by .22 fire would be bad, and might even result in bleeding out (and sure, the pain level would be high), but one good swing from a battle axe (or the larger swords) can take the that arm or leg CLEAN OFF, and bleeding out from that is a nigh-certainty (not to mention the obvious and immediate incapacity).
My point here is not that guns aren’t good, but that in comparison to a good melee weapon, their advantages aren’t in the deadliness department, they are primarily in the “stay out of reach” and “level the playing field” department.
As such, if guns can’t be used at a significant range, they are of MUCH more limited use.[/quote]
Except the 300 pound linebacker can also use heavier weapons and can again control the weapon easier for the most part, but yes equalizer doesn’t mean equal. And not far closer than historical ‘physical strength requiring weapons’. Like I dunno if you’ve ever had a sword but they’re not really heavy. Like that’s not the point of a sword. You’re looking at 4 pounds give or take depending on a lot. Standard issue M4 Carbine weighs more than that. Now maybe the word you’re looking for is skill or technique because there’s a lot more to a sword than just swinging and stabbing, albeit of course you could always argue if training is worth it. And that’s just a sword. There’s lots of smaller implements, like daggers and the like.
I’m not doing that, at… all. I’d like to see where a single hit with a battleaxe will kill you. Blood loss takes a while even in the best of cases, like a major artery being cut you’re looking at about a minute to five. I’ve fired guns before and I’m ex-infantry. I can assure you I know the stopping power of ammunition. .22, while basically the weakest standard caliber you’ll find, it’s still the weakest bullet. Similarly, I bet you’d have trouble fighting the weakest MMA fighter in a league. And I’m gonna have to stop you with the whole cutting off legs of horses things because that’s the stuff that tends to be exaggerated. Like let’s look at the zwiehander, a particularly popular 2 handed german sword I’m sure you know lots about. What do you think it was used for? Well, regardless of what you think it was used for, they mostly seem to be used to cut the head off pikes. Bigger weapons weren’t really used to just be bigger because it turns out they’re also tiring regardless of how strong you are. And for the most part if you’re talking about medieval europe, only nobles will be the ones having any training or experience, and peasants for the most parts wielded spears. There’s tons and tons and tons of myths about the Katana too, like it being used to cut entire horses in half. Which is… debatable to say the absolute least, and silly to say the worst.
I’ve already spoken about damaging and incapacitating rather than just killing. And yeah, bullets do. There’s this thing called a hollow point. They expand and parts break off once they penetrate your body. They’re illegal in war due to that. It’s also incredibly hard to fix the wound and remove all the pieces. And even then you’re kind of missing the point. Firearms are accurate weapons of destruction, they don’t have to make big wounds. They just have to hit a vital area. And most ammunition will also shatter bones if it hits one. Not ‘some’. 9mm can easily take out the femur, which is basically the strongest bone in the human body. And .22 can also do that, albeit that’s just the bone and doesn’t take into consideration the flesh or anything being worn.
Claymores aren’t actually that big or great, they’re only on average about 5.5 pounds, a couple feet. What does ‘in and out’ even mean or have to do with this anyway. This is also your reminder that for the most part swords don’t have the weight to just cleave through limbs, by the way, you’d have to be significantly strong to do so or be really lucky. Otherwise you might just get stuck. Even some axes may have trouble in combat conditions.
Your point here is that you seem to think .22 is, because it’s the weakest easily available ammunition available, that it’s super weak and we only use guns because they’re easy to use and not deadly. When that’s not the case. Even BB rounds can kill. It only takes a metal projectile going 200 feet per second to really fracture bone. Now of course there are many variables but there’s always many variables. Battle axes require a lot of room to swing around and are fairly predictable etc etc. You’re debating the lethality of something and comparing it to absolute damage caused when that’s not what’s important, it’s where the damage is being caused. But none of this is really important because it detracts from the point, range is bad on firearms in game. And accuracy is also a problem. And lethality needs to be higher due to the inherently limited nature. We’re talking gameplay here.
Ok but you can use a gun way before you can lift 200 pounds. A 4 year old child can use a gun and they’ve accidentally fired guns many times. I don’t think they’re as effective as an adult or someone even mildly stronger, though, do you?[/quote]
That has more to do with mental capacity than physical capability. Seriously, once you can aim and fire a gun (some of which is practice, which is not a physical-capability requirement), there is little further improvement to be gained from physical capability.
Go look up some of the incidents of self-defense by physically disabled people. 250 pound thug vs 98 pound wheelchair-bound invalid. Invalid has gun… suddenly, the playing field is quite nearly level, of even in the invalid’s favor if the thug has no gun. Once you can use the gun (that is actually aim and fire it, not just manage to get it to go off), then further physical capability is useful only for carrying more ammo and changing locations.
(Again, some advanced uses, like long distance sniping or continuous use of a large-caliber automatic weapon, DO require more, but those are the rare exceptions.)
Let’s think of this another way. In boxing, the competitors are grouped into fairly small weight ranges, as competitiveness drops off VERY quickly with increasing size differential, and even in those weight categories, greater arm length is a STRONG advantage.
In shooting… um, yeah. Age categories largely divide people by experience, not capability, and little else matters.
The gun does the work. Aim and fire, neither of which has great physical requirements, and neither of which gains in any significant from greater physical capability, except in the most extreme of outliers.
And I second tarburst98 - that does seem like trolling, not good-faith argument.[/quote]
now you’re changing the goalposts. We were talking pure physical, can use the gun. Young girls can fire an AR15. Like not even teens. 8 year olds. I’m using children here as they’re probably the only realistic way to portray the weakness required without going ‘sickly old man’. But sure let’s talk about some 80 year old with a gun. Still don’t think they’d do as well as someone stronger and able to, you know hold the gun straight better. Guns are easy to use, and that’s the point, and can be mastered. You can just aim your gun in the general direction of someone and pull the trigger 50 times but you might not hit. That’s why most militaries focus on aiming, holding the gun perfectly still, which requires some physical strength and discipline. Because yes, anyone can fire a gun really. But they might not fair as well up against someone who is either trained or physically fit enough to aim the thing with any sense of precision.
Also you’re talking basically only handguns here when almost any weapon with fully automatic fire requires you to be in a certain stance or the thing is going to fire all over the place. And not even just those actually most guns other than handguns will just go all over the place if you’re just aiming and shooting. And handguns can benefit from being held properly too. Why do you think you see people holding a gun in such specific ways? It’s not just for show it’s to properly hold the weapon so it doesn’t fly over the place when you shoot. Shotguns and SMG’s and Rifles. I don’t think a disabled man can easily hold and fire a 7.62 hunting rifle. You’re only bringing up like cases where someone got mugged and they were fairly close of course. And that’s not what’s important anyway because we’re talking pure lethality. I feel like the point has been lost on all of you really.
That’s entrely my fault then. I don’t remember him saying it but either way irrelevant.
What do you mean ‘properly use’. What defines properly and what is required? Does anyone of a certain statistic have to do it or just be able to? Handguns are fairly light. Do they have to hit a target at a certain distance or just lift it up? And does it have to be all guns or just one class?
I fail to see how this is trolling since it’s, you know, directly relevant to the arguments you guys brought up. Especially since you’re the one being snarky about it.
Problem 2; What about pepper box guns? Guns that inherently are innacurate at even those ranges? What about shotguns that shoot more than a single projectile, does one pellet have to hit or does it all have to hit? And how big is the target? Human sized? I think this would require lots of testing with lots of different age groups and levels of fitness. IE: The problem.
Anyway ignoring all this because the point was quite simply that melee weapons deal more damage than bullets.
So what? That wasn’t what was being discussed and it’s just silly in general. It doesn’t matter. Because as we discussed placement matters more than the sheer damage. If I was able to detonate a nuclear device but somehow that could only hit and damage your foot, all the destructive potential still went off but it doesn’t matter because it hit somewhere so ineffectual. It doesn’t matter if a BB, traveling sufficiently fast, hits your head or a fire axe. The end result is you’re probably dead. Damage potential isn’t what was being discussed, range was. And the thread is about accuracy.
It really disturbs me when people try to realism something when, one, that thing being discussed makes something not very fun or balanced or two the thing being described as realistic is just wrong or misstated anyway.
Absolutely none of your factual information is news to me. And yes, the katana stuff in particular has been flaming ridiculous.
Yes, actually, I have held and swung swords, both historical and modern recreations (as in, “make a historical sword with modern steel”), and yes, they are light, but that’s not the point. A larger, stronger man with the same weapon has a HUGE advantage over his opponent, and if they are of similar skill, that size and strength advantage is almost certain to be decisive. A baseball bat is also not that heavy, but the physical strength of the batter is a HUGE part of how far the ball is going to go. And with the smaller implements (“daggers and the like”), one could argue that strength becomes even MORE important, not less.
As to the .22, I’m talking about good old fashioned .22, not .22 Long Rifle or any of the more serious calibers. When I was in high school, a guy fired a .22 pistol point blank into a teacher’s FACE, and it lodged in the sinus cavity. The teacher survived with a small scar in his face.
“You’re debating the lethality of something and comparing it to absolute damage caused when that’s not what’s important, it’s where the damage is being caused.” No, where the damage is caused is not the point - a sword through the eye or a bullet, either one is completely lethal. The question is, how accurate do you need to be to kill your opponent?
If I shoot you in the arm, odds are, unless I’m using something very large, it’s going to make for an unpleasant day, but you’ll be fine, unless I happen to hit a major artery. You might even end up with a broken bone… and if you don’t get one of those two things, odds are, you are not out of the fight. Sure, afterwards, you will be considered a casualty, but during the fight, you go on fighting with almost no reduction in combat capability (this is based on actual battlefield research, by the way - most wounds on the modern battlefield either incapacitate or do not have any significant impact on your fighting ability in the immediate term).
If I hit you in the arm with a mace, large sword, or axe, you will need medical attention in short order to avoid death. The odds of hitting that major artery are MUCH larger when I’m slicing your arm open to the bone. Even with modern medicine, you stand a decent chance of losing that limb, if you live at all.
THAT is what I’m talking about. Bullets to surgical damage (yes, that’s an overstatement, and much less true as the size of the bullet goes up), while historical melee combat weapons do systemic damage. If we’re talking same-location strike, there are VERY few places in the body where I’d prefer a hit with a battlefield melee weapon of any kind over being shot with almost any caliber of rifle - perhaps in the chest with a bludgeoning weapon or small slashing weapon. Perhaps.
Even modern prison and other criminal situation research and policies recognize this issue. Inside of 15 feet (even from a prone position), a strong man with a knife and the will to use it is a VERY dangerous opponent, even to someone with a gun. Sure, he may die of the wounds you gave him, but, barring very good shot placement (central nervous system or a good hit to a hip), you’ll be stone dead, and he’ll walk away and die later, assuming he doesn’t get medical attention quickly enough.
The advantages of the firearm is range and non-dependency on human strength to operate.
[quote author=mvm900 link=topic=14523.msg301958#msg301958 date=149936707
now you’re changing the goalposts. We were talking pure physical, can use the gun. Young girls can fire an AR15. Like not even teens. 8 year olds. I’m using children here as they’re probably the only realistic way to portray the weakness required without going ‘sickly old man’. But sure let’s talk about some 80 year old with a gun. Still don’t think they’d do as well as someone stronger and able to, you know hold the gun straight better. Guns are easy to use, and that’s the point, and can be mastered. You can just aim your gun in the general direction of someone and pull the trigger 50 times but you might not hit. That’s why most militaries focus on aiming, holding the gun perfectly still, which requires some physical strength and discipline. Because yes, anyone can fire a gun really. But they might not fair as well up against someone who is either trained or physically fit enough to aim the thing with any sense of precision.
Also you’re talking basically only handguns here when almost any weapon with fully automatic fire requires you to be in a certain stance or the thing is going to fire all over the place. And not even just those actually most guns other than handguns will just go all over the place if you’re just aiming and shooting. And handguns can benefit from being held properly too. Why do you think you see people holding a gun in such specific ways? It’s not just for show it’s to properly hold the weapon so it doesn’t fly over the place when you shoot. Shotguns and SMG’s and Rifles. I don’t think a disabled man can easily hold and fire a 7.62 hunting rifle. You’re only bringing up like cases where someone got mugged and they were fairly close of course. And that’s not what’s important anyway because we’re talking pure lethality. I feel like the point has been lost on all of you really.
[/quote]
99% of the stuff you are talking about is TRAINING (you even use the word quite a bit). In firearm combat from fixed positions, the 100 pound weakling with proper training and the 300 pound linebacker with proper training are on a level playing field. THAT is the point. Beyond a very low minimum, further physical strength is of near-zero benefit.
Compare that to all other forms of physical combat, where strength is vital, and more strength is better up to a ridiculous upper limit. Even crossbows benefit from strength - the stronger the user, the faster the reload time (as, under the covers, the crossbow is still just storing the energy produced by human muscle).
The same happens in archery contests too.
Body size and weight doesn’t matter(within reason), years of experience and training do.[/quote]
That’s ONLY because of the modern compound bow, but even then, at longer ranges, shorter firing times, or prolonged fire, greater strength would still grant a sizable advantage. A stronger archer could use a stronger bow (longer range), pull faster (more shots in the same amount of time), or pull more times (prolonged fire - though this is also mitigated somewhat by the compound bow).
But I will admit that for reasonably short distances (and not worrying about penetration of armor), the “upper bound” on the benefits of strength in archery are lower than other forms of historical physical combat (both bows and crossbows, for different reasons).
This whole sub-topic was the result of my response to this: “Guns in gameplay terms should be distanced killing machines, even pistols for the most part. snip Like even with higher marksmanship and skill in the weapon you’re not much better off than a person using the same amount of points in a melee build”
I was pointing out that “ranged killing machines” was really not very accurate, due the issues I was mentioning with damage. Yes, RANGED, but in terms of massive damage, no, pistols should not be dishing massive damage compared to a dedicated melee build, and even rifles should primarily beat out melee to due to “rate of fire” (you can fire much faster with a burst weapon than you can place serious hits in melee, which is certainly accurate), not individual hits.