General > Discussion

Weapons Categories

(1/6) > >>

SpaceWombat:
Ok here are my opinions on that:

I think the logical categories would be as follows

Melee (knife, kerrblades, fists...)
[throwing] (for grenades) (wich category are they in anyway right now? explosives?)
Pistols (one handed/ "secondary" weapons)
Rifles (assault, shotgun, sniper, MG)
Artillery/Explosives (rocket launcher, grenade launcher...)

While it is totally different to fight someone physically with your fists or a knife compared to a pistol duel it is quite similar to shoot with a shotgun or an assault rifle.
Snipers could be in the rifle category as well because modern assault rifles are mostly available in assault as well as in sniper implementations and there is no real difference at long ranges. If you are bad at 300m with an assault rifle you are definitely worse with a sniper at 700m. If you can handle an assault rifle at longer ranges quiet well you have everything you need (ballistic theory) to handle a sniper. Then only range is the problem.
I know that focuses much of the weaponry into the rifle category but I think that is more closely to reality. Maybe a submachinegun/shotgun/"close quarters battle" category would be a good idea as well.

The current category distinction is simply unlogical to me.  ???

What are your thoughts about this?

tobbe:
Categories are ok for me. This way you pervent, that a single soldier becomes a specialist for snipers (great at ranged fire) and at the same time MGs (great for heavy, close combar use)...you habe to specialise. And that adds some strategical decisions. regardless of any realistic considerations.

SpaceWombat:
That is true. The more categories the better. But on the other hand I feel uncomfortable with a soldier who trains knifes and at the same time becomes good at submachineguns...

How about this:

Melee
Pistols
Submachineguns/close quarter (shotgun, mp)
Assault
Heavy (MGs, suppression fire, heavy laser...)
Sniper
Artillery/Explosives

Sniper and Assault could still be one category while these two types vary in long range accuracy and short range effectiveness (burst fire with assault on short range but less accurate on long distance).
Depends on the code for aiming.
Considering your specialisation argument a Mac10 is handled other than a G3 wich is normally used other than a MG which is used for suppression fire/cover fire of course thus requirering different skills.

tobbe:
I actually have no clue about the diffrences of using a Mac10, a G3 or any other firearms...

So you suggest to split the "close combat" skill into several categoreis...sure, one could do that and your arguments are sound...but to keep the gameplay simple, just one category is sufficent for me...right now, i almost never use any close combat weapons...

SpaceWombat:
Me neither, I just sometimes equip my rocket launcher guy with a secondary weapon. The difference in using different types of firearms is the handling and according the abilities. While most rifles work nearly the same way the difference between pistols and rifles and in some situations machine guns (although I would say not in the way they are used in ufo:ai, here they are heavy weight assault rifles) work a little different.
I found it a lot easier to hit something with an assault rifle on 200-300m than to hit something with a pistol on 10-15m. The reason as I think is that with a pistol the "angle stability" is lower. It is particularly more difficult to point a small gun in the exact direction of the target (and the ballistic curve is also totally different due to the relatively short projectile with high fractional resistance).
My strongest disagreement still is the melee + pistols category. It just does not look right to mix boxing/kung fu/mafia style razor treatment with firearms. While one requires physical strength and swiftness the other one is quiete the opposite - avoid a trembling hand, stay cool and lower hard breathing.

If you are used to the categories as implemented now and do not have that much of a fable for "realism" (we know it will never be realistic  ;) ) that is of course no problem.
But for some people it looks a bit curious. Just wanted to hear some opinions and if this might change in a future release though. I always found that a more "realistic" expression of this fight was always part of ufo games. And since this is a modern version why not try to raise complexity a bit?  ;D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page