Ranged Weapon Balance

[Uneron]

Granted, this may be realistic, but in terms of game play we might need to forego that a little bit and make it more of a curve. Pistols could be easier to wield by unskilled users (as they are) but a lot weaker, say 5-6 shots to put a zombie down (at low skill). Heavier calibres would require more skill and practice to use at all effectively, but would be more like 1-2 shots by a skilled user.

I think that’s a great idea. Gameplay and Balance are always more important then Realism in my book.

[kevin.granade]

[quote=“ChristopherWalken, post:60, topic:4938”]I assume there would be exceptions to that rule?

Eg. Sawn offs[/quote]
Not so much an exception, they just work differently. Shotguns have an inherently VERY high accuracy due to their spread, it’s not as much as people tend to think (e.g. hitting multiple enemies), but you effectively have a projectile the size of a baseball or softball (depending on range) instead of the size of your thumb (at most).
In practice, a sawn-off shotgun would have an advantage due to it’s very high accuracy allowing minimal aiming before firing. In x-com terms, you’d pretty much always be making “snap shots” with a shotgun except at very long range, and even then you genrally wouldn’t be taking a very long time to aim like you would with a rifle.
In addition, a sawn-off shotgun would be physically lighter and smaller than an un-sawn-off, leading to faster handling in general.

[i2amroy]

I think that’s a great idea. Gameplay and Balance are always more important then Realism in my book.

Generally I’ll take realism whenever possible unless it’s actually being an extreme curve breaker. There’s a reason why guns are the most common type of weapon in real life, and I would personally prefer realistic stats over gamey changes to them that contradict how they work in real life.

Really a lot of our balance problems in-game come from different guns being measured in a different scale when they were created, resulting in inconsistencies.

[hazerddex]

all this talk of zombie this zombie that can we give some of the other creatures some love?
example
i’m surprised that the giant flies are not actually eating zombies, using them to reproduce ever hear of the human bot fly <- if you have not please don’t look it up its pure nightmare fuel. lets just say they kinda hunt humans specifically humans >_<. also we have spiders where are the scorpions? giant mantis? man eating birds. mutant creatures made by sciences.

[Inadequate]

That is a good point, but I’m not entirely sure it is relevant to the ranged weapon rebalancing thread.

[hazerddex]

That is a good point, but I’m not entirely sure it is relevant to the ranged weapon rebalancing thread.

hmm maybe ill make another thread on it…

[Binky]

[quote=“i2amroy, post:63, topic:4938”]Generally I’ll take realism whenever possible unless it’s actually being an extreme curve breaker. There’s a reason why guns are the most common type of weapon in real life, and I would personally prefer realistic stats over gamey changes to them that contradict how they work in real life.

Really a lot of our balance problems in-game come from different guns being measured in a different scale when they were created, resulting in inconsistencies.[/quote]

I would usually agree that realism is really important, but we’re talking about a game that involves electric shocking zombies, nether-creatures, jabberwockies and all sorts of mythical creatures. Zombies (of most fiction) for instance, aren’t going to be bothered by any small arms projectile which doesn’t brain them. That’d be tedious for gameplay as you don’t want to have loads of useless shots/misses (it’s incredibly unfulfilled for the player) so I feel a compromise needs to be reached where guns are weaker but allow you to still deal some damage.

Obviously when NPCs come into the mix that’ll be difficult, because humans are incredibly weak to guns.

Therefore, if we don’t want to sacrifice the number of guns and ammo laying around for realism purposes (I sort of agree) then the only other thing is to have guns artificially weaker. This doesn’t mean that they need to be nerfed into oblivion, but I feel there should be some reason to choose better guns over lesser guns.

[Uneron]

[quote=“Uneron, post:61, topic:4938”]I think that’s a great idea. Gameplay and Balance are always more important then Realism in my book.

Generally I’ll take realism whenever possible unless it’s actually being an extreme curve breaker. There’s a reason why guns are the most common type of weapon in real life, and I would personally prefer realistic stats over gamey changes to them that contradict how they work in real life.[/quote]
Problem is, that way you are creating a simulator instead of a game. That can be fun too as many simulators and Dwarf Fortress attest, but I don’t think that’s the direction for DDA to take. Like Binky pointed out: There is already lots of stuff in the game, that is not at all realistic. Minor compromises when it comes to realism for greater fun and balance are an obvious choice.

[Inadequate]

Gamifying stuff is fine, but ranged weaponry is inherently superior to melee weaponry in real life, and no amount of rebalancing should change that. A gun and ammo for it may be as hard to find as you feel appropriate, but when it comes down to shooting an enemy versus stabbing him, shooting should always be a superior option.

[Binky]

Gamifying stuff is fine, but ranged weaponry is inherently superior to melee weaponry in real life, and no amount of rebalancing should change that. A gun and ammo for it may be as hard to find as you feel appropriate, but when it comes down to shooting an enemy versus stabbing him, shooting should always be a superior option.

To a point yes, but there are limiting factors on that. In real life you have problems with sound, maintenance and reloading/fumbling as well as all sorts of associated problems with breakages and whatever. We can’t do those in game currently (other than sound), and some may well be annoying.

In a game about mythical monsters some may well be more suited to decapitation than being shot by a pistol, similarly, some monsters may be able to close off small wounds but not larger ones. This is just to say that I don’t think that ‘realism’ really needs to be a defining factor when we’re discussing shooting nether-creatures and triffids.

[Uneron]

It is also far more straight forward to bash someones head in with a club then reloading and hitting properly with a gun. Hell, I personally wouldn’t even know where to start.

[Iosyn]

It is also far more straight forward to bash someones head in with a club then reloading and hitting properly with a gun. Hell, I personally wouldn’t even know where to start.

Generally it depends on the firearm in question but it’s actually extremely simple even for the uninitiated to grasp in a few hours at most.

Of course, such a user wouldn’t know how to field strip it, clean it properly, clear a jam in a reasonable time period or even lead targets and account for wind. Then we get into things like they wouldn’t know the basic rules of marksmanship or correct firing positions and end up with shitty aim over any distance as a result but in an emergency they could still probably fire the thing.

[i2amroy]

I guess I should slightly redefine my statement, since it seems like it’s been taken slightly different then intended. My true goal is ‘consistency within the cataclysm world’, which at the moment is defined as ‘the real world with a few exceptions’.

For example the reason why guns hurt zombies isn’t for a gamey or balance reason, it’s because cataclysm zombies aren’t the same as zombies of most fiction. Cataclysm zombies operate with ooze that utilizes the same systems as when the creature was alive. Do enough damage to those systems and the ooze shuts down for a brief period as it repairs/changes those systems, at which point it awakens again (revives). There’s an internally consistent logic behind it. Similarly the reason shocker zombies exist is due to the ooze utilizing the previously installed bionics present within the zombies, and jabberwocks (as their description explains) aren’t mythical creatures at all, but are simply an amalgamation of a number of corpses that have melded as the ooze revived them. Similarly triffids and fungaloids, while being fantastical creatures, still operate using real world mechanisms that can be found in real life plants if you look.

Each thing is consistent within the cataclysm world and that is the ‘realism’ part that we strive towards. (Yes, nether creatures bend the rules, since that is part of their definition as nether creatures, and they occupy the one small spot where currently most realism may be thrown out the window.)

You mention things like fumbling, reloading, maintenance as things that we can’t do, but the thing is that all of those exact things are currently on the dev list, just waiting to be picked up. We can do them, it’s just a matter of implementation, not one of inability.

Edit: fixed some autocorrect stupids.

[Sirbab]

snip

I… love you right now, this was never explained to me before, and now it makes so much more sense. That’s rather cool actually.

[Binky]

I didn’t know that either and it does make things clearer.

Regardless of that though, there still is the problem that pretty much any gun is as good as any other. You can get a decent pistol and never need to upgrade/change tactics(or weapons) currently.

Granted in reality this makes sense in a lot of ways, but one of the core parts of any RPG/RL game is a sense of progression which we don’t really have.

[keldoclock]

I think much of that is due to the lack of armored enemies, and the lack of a sophisticated cover system.

For the purpose of killing zombies, one gun IS as good as any other, but I think that with combat vs NPCs and other smart enemies, this will not be the case.

There ought to be some way for terrain to affect ranged combat- blocking sight (reducing chance to hit) and/or blocking the projectile itself. Hiding behind a bush would be only good for reducing to-hit, while something like a window should protect a person considerably.

Then there would be value in having higher and more powerful calibers or automatic/burstfire guns, as these would be less affected by terrain.

Compared to the melee system, our ranged combat is actually very simple and boring.

[i2amroy]

I’ll agree with that. Guns do need to feel different, and it’s as much a fault of the system that they are operating in as it is with the guns themselves.

Regarding cover there is a small cover system in place, though it’s very rudimentary and has much room for improvement. (Right now each tile the bullet passes through has a chance to absorb the bullet, weakening or stopping it completely.)

[kevin.granade]

I outlined in moderate detail several things that I’ll be changing about how guns work back on page 3 of this very thread that address the things you’re complaining about. You might want to refer to that, because that’s at least the starting point for how ranged weapon handling is going to work in the future.

[Funk]

I think there should be more weapon spawns, just with little or no ammo there.
mostly places where some one tried to make a stand and died leaving only a few shell cases and a zombie holding the now empty gun.

Sure given time you can make of scavenge the ammo but it stops the massive power boost from happing.

Even if zombies are dead, large tissue damage should help you slow them down, a shot gun slug to the leg will drop any one zombie or not, its just the zombie will crawl after you.

[FunsizeNinja123]

I don’t even want to explain why that can’t happen.