[quote author=Flare link=topic=8782.msg200815#msg200815 date=1418536330]
You clearly know what Granade meant. Being uncharitable and strawmanning a person’s argument instead of interpreting it in the strongest possible interpretation is just a big waste of everyone’s time as he or someone else has to correct you in the assumptions you have made on the person’s behalf.
I apologize if I did indeed oversimplify the argument. The way I see it in game is that when i’m ready to raise my skills in a firearm I just take out my MP5 and spray the area with an excessive amount of 9mm until I’m satisfied or out of ammunition. Boom, skill ups.
This works whether i’m 5 feet from a wall or shooting at a tree line at the edge of my vision. I just feel like it’s too easily cheesed. Just my opinion really on how the mechanic works as-is. I’m a fan of the slower progressions so not being able to train on just anything appeals to me a bit more, but I understand the arguments.
[quote=“KA101, post:10, topic:8284”]Fallout (the originals) got it right: after the apocalypse, bullets are too valuable to waste on shooting without a known target. You’re making an attempt to fire the gun at a definite point, and in that sense every shot, even if not at a (potential) hostile, is good experience, whether you’re blasting the wall, a target of some sort, a zombie, a jabberwock, or a fungal tower.
There’s a reason the trope “Exactly What I Aimed At” exists.[/quote]
My thoughts have been a bit scattered on the subject and I admit I didn’t clarify my stance before blurting out that post.
I feel shooting and hitting a creature to gain skill would be better than aiming at a fixed point, like at a tree or can or something along those lines. An argument could be made that melee forces you to do this already as hitting inanimate objects don’t allow for skill gains. Maybe that’s not quite the same but in my mind I feel like it is?