UFO:Alien Invasion
General => Discussion => Topic started by: Captain Bipto on May 07, 2008, 11:04:00 am
-
I see from the wiki and ingame text dual wielding of pistols is alluded to. Is this function available beyond just using two pistols (not in tandem but one pistol at a time?)
-
shotgun cowboys! ;)
-
shotgun cowboys! ;)
That doesn't help >:(
I'm confused about it too ???
-
Yeah I see the alien mooks running around sometimes with two pistols but I haven't seen them shoot both at the same time. This would be a cool feature to have!
-
You can have a pistol in each hand, (I last played 2.2, so I may be outdated, or just plain wrong) but it doesn't help you any. You can pick which one to fire, but there's no fire both option, hence the uselessness, better to have different one handed weapons (One handed, and one handed fire of course)
-
The only advantage I can see is that you do not have to reload as often. This is what I did in x-com (where you could not shoot at the same time BUT could dual wield just about anything), I would load up on pistols for my scouts. Course now I just use SMGs.
-
I always carry the extra rounds (Due to haveing plenty space) but I hardly ever reload more than once, if that. So I don't think it's helps at all. I think there's plans, but there are better straegies atm (Again, I haven't tried 2.2.1 yet, too big a download to justify what the changelog tells me)
-
I suppose thats true. Like I said I use SMGs for my scouts and the Medic is too busy holding a medic kit for it to matter for him. Even with gunfighting enabled I doubt people would do it with anything weaker than a laser pistol (though perhaps machine pistols).
-
There is a proposal that any actor wielding two identical one handed weapons to simultaneously fire/swing both. Note that this has not been placed on any TODO list that i've seen, so it might not be something the devs are too excited about. As a matter of fact, it shouldn't be in the text until it exists, but there's a lot of that in the game. Nonetheless, anybody can code it and submit a patch if you like the idea that much.
-
Shooting two pistols simultaneously is really quite unrealistic. It can be done, but with terrible accuracy. The reality of firing a handgun is that they're fairly inaccurate, and a carefully aimed, single-weapon shot is many times more likely to hit the target than single-hand-firing two weapons without careful aim. It's a TV thing that is totally unrealistic. I've never seen any police officer, soldier, or special forces in footage wielding two pistols or even carrying a sidearm on each hip. Backup weapons are a different story.
-
Shooting two pistols simultaneously is really quite unrealistic. It can be done, but with terrible accuracy. The reality of firing a handgun is that they're fairly inaccurate, and a carefully aimed, single-weapon shot is many times more likely to hit the target than single-hand-firing two weapons without careful aim. It's a TV thing that is totally unrealistic. I've never seen any police officer, soldier, or special forces in footage wielding two pistols or even carrying a sidearm on each hip. Backup weapons are a different story.
This is quite true, as far as I know. I used to have a job in law enforcement myself, and from what I saw working that job I have to agree.
There is, however, an advantage to one-handed weapons, and this already works in the game: I've had units with large, heavy weapons that take a lot of TU to fire come around a corner and find an alien, then not quite have enough TU to fire and run back to cover. The pistols are very quick, and it takes less TU to simply pull one from the holster and shoot it then for a soldier to try to swing a big, clunky heavy-duty weapon around and aim it to fire. This also has some realism IMO, and it's already implemented and works in the game.
-
A major reason irl people don't use two weapons at once, legalities. In most countries it is illegal to weild two firearms at once.
But yes, having fired guns, ranging from handguns to semi-autos, I can say that even with a weak pistol, I'd use one for accuracy, unless it was against a crowd, and I was firing indescriminately.
-
I dont know how it is with other countries, but if you have a weapon wielding permission you can have as much as you bought in Poland. Still its very impractical- more ammo consumption with much much less accuracy. Waste of money IMHO.
On the other hand laser weapon has no recoil, so it in fact should be usefu...
-
Jagger, are you serious? There is a situation where it is legal to fire one, but not two weapons? Wow.
I imagine, aiming with two (even recoil-less) weapons at the same time is damn near impossible. So, penalty to accuracy in dual mode?
Do we really need it? I'd vote to keep this fire mode pretty low on dev priority list.
-
I can think of some situations where dual-wielding weapons could be feasible/useful, considering the accuracy penalty. Covering a door from the side, perhaps 2-3 spaces away, with reaction fire, should an alien come barging through. I don't think it should be restricted to identical weapons, but similarly-classed weapons: pistols with pistols, rifles with rifles, RPGs with RPGs (though that would probably only make sense for a barn broadside that needs breaking).
I would, offhand, throw out that dual-firing options could bridge similar single-fire modes from both weapons into one option, costing 75% of each bridged mode (i.e. firing a single shot from one costing 8 and the other costing 6 together would cost 11, with an accuracy penalty).
I think the dual-wielding concept, however, does need to be addressed for the late-game, with the inclusion of powered armors. From the looks of things, human infantry armor may reach the point of having multiple weapon systems installed for simultaneous use, with computer targeting and recoil management to make accuracy manageable. Now, loading four primary weapons onto such a powered-infantry suit might be unreasonable, from a believability and codeability standpoint, but two would be explainable. Some method of firing two compatible weapons together would be needed.
-
Dual-wielding RL's - now that is badass!
-
It would be a fun gameplay concept, but because later in the game you need a tank to scratch an alien, this becomes pretty useless.
Tbh I don't like the fact that the aliens are so hard to kill having so much armor and resilience. OK, it's ok to have one or two types of very strong and resilient aliens, like the lobsterman in TFTD :D, but otherwise it's frustrating to waste a full magazine of ammo to kill any alien.
That's why sidearms and pistols become so useless even after the 1st missions.
-
Dual wielded laser pistols works. Totally feasible due to the lack of recoil. Your aim obviously wouldn't be as good as if you were using a single pistol, but the degredation wouldn't be such that you couldn't plausibly hit anything.
-
And, on the same track, double wielding laser rifles or heavy lasers would still suffer more diminished accuracy due to the weight of swinging two large weapons around. On that idea, perhaps there needs to be some accuracy modifier for all weapons, single- or dual-wielded, based on weight versus the user's strength, with a modifier for each weapon based on recoil? Offhand, I'm also thinking something along the lines of 150% increase to that value for dual-wielding a 2-hand secondary, and a 200% increase for 2-hand primaries.
Would have to be careful about what can be dual-wielded with what; I would assume an assault rifle and machine gun would be sufficiently compatible that a soldier could fire full auto on both simultaneously, but I don't think you could fire a ball shot from a Heavy Plasma with any other fire mode from any other plasma weapons, even if the other HP's modes worked. Also, a 3-round burst from an Assault Rifle probably wouldn't work with a 3-round burst from a Plasma Rifle due to the projectile speed differences and such...
-
I am starting to get a feeling that we are getting WAY to sophisticated for a feature that will be used very infrequently. Aside from Terminator, very few humans should have a need to fire assault rifles one-handed. As an oddity, I might *once* load a freakishly strong soldier with a MG in each hand, just to watch him stroll down the field. Maybe rename him "Arnie".
Oh, and reloading while holding two assault weapons - that ought to be a hoot. Same goes for selecting fire modes. Seriously, is all this worh it?
-
Yes.
-
Oh, and reloading while holding two assault weapons - that ought to be a hoot. Same goes for selecting fire modes. Seriously, is all this worh it?
Well, no, since it's not possible. Only one-handed weapons can be dual-wielded. If you place a two-handed item into a troop's hands and then add a one-handed item, only the one-handed item will be useable, and you can't ever hold two two-handed items. Which is exactly how we want it.
Regards,
Winter
-
Baseless affirmations aside, I think this is an important issue to address, or at least consider and/or debate if there are any plans farther along to implement powered armor suits which provide sufficient strength and targeting assistance as to allow the use of two primary weapons. This may also be pertinent to later-game alien 2x2 units, and possibly human 2x2s.
Also, paired Laser Pistols have already been mentioned as a feasible use, and if there are any weapons that can be paired, there will be some demand for a system flexible enough to allow paired use for all weapons, even if it is disadvantageous to the point of unusability in most of those cases.
2-handed weapons are not necessarily a requirement in most cases, but more of a suggestion for if you want to hit anything. If 2-handed weapons can never be used together, then there may be need of a new, "1.5" hand class, for SMGs and other weapons that can be held, aimed, and fired with one hand, but have enough recoil to need a second hand for accuracy.
-
Two-handed side-arm firing is not accurate at all. No police or military force on earth does it. It's pure movie-fiction. Yes, one could handle the double recoil. Yes, it's possible to hit something. Just very unlikely. So far, this game does a good job of remaining true to the way weapons and tactics really work. Anyone who's fired a handgun knows that it's sufficiently difficult to hit another person at 7 meters with two hands and eye-level aiming.
I will defer happily to the developers. To the rest, I say, "Please no cowboy-movie rootin' tootin' shootin' dual pistols from the hip." It doesn't work.
-
The appalling lack of accuracy is true for weapons that feature recoil, not so much for those that do not, so it should be possible to dual wield certain firearms.
-
The appalling lack of accuracy is true for weapons that feature recoil, not so much for those that do not, so it should be possible to dual wield certain firearms.
Except that dual-wielded weapons would lack line-of-sight aiming. If you're lining up each weapon to fire, you're losing time by switching. If you're not lining up to eye-aim, you're not aiming.
-
As I mentioned earlier, dual wielded weapons obviously would not have comparable accuracy to one of these weapons being used singularly, precisely because you're firing both weapons without properly aligning them. However, the accuracy on recoiless weapons should be good enough so that the increased firepower serves to compensate for the reduction of precision, thus making the practice viable if situational.
-
As I mentioned earlier, dual wielded weapons obviously would not have comparable accuracy to one of these weapons being used singularly, precisely because you're firing both weapons without properly aligning them. However, the accuracy on recoiless weapons should be good enough so that the increased firepower serves to compensate for the reduction of precision, thus making the practice viable if situational.
Talking specifically about the laser pistol, you still wouldn't be able to see where you were aiming the infrared laser beam without looking through the pistol scope or other vision enhancer. Aiki-Knight is entirely correct -- the lack of recoil doesn't compensate for the fact that you'll have accuracy considerably lower than an ordinary handgun of any variety due to lack of line-of-sight aiming and lack of a two-handed grip, accuracy which is already pretty poor due to you firing a handgun and not a rifle. And now you're now using two hands to fire two handguns suboptimally when you could be using them to fire a laser rifle optimally, thereby eliminating the only battlefield advantage pistols have over rifles, which is that they can be fired one-handed.
Regards,
Winter
-
You could attach red laser pointers on pistols for good accuracy, so then you know what and where you'll shoot.
-
Though, in this game most of the fighting is very close-quarters, generally less than a city block in area. An example from an X-COM game, Apocalypse: With the exception of the end-game, where indiscriminately trashing enemy structures from the inside out was about as much of a mission objective as shooting the aliens, I found a use for auto-fire dual pistols in eliminating brainsuckers and hyperworms when they got too close, generally the 1-4 space range. To be honest, opening up with a pair of SMGs at that range would be preferable to a single one, or just about any other single- or two-handed weapon. Laser pistols would probably be useful somewhat farther out due to recoil, probably 5-8 or so spaces, though not quite as devastating. Of course, accuracy would suffer greatly outside these ranges, perhaps a single formula could handle this. I'm not pushing for a 2-hand blastfest all-action all-the-time, but a more sensible way to keep this as an option while keeping it plausibly balanced.
-
Tbh I don't like much the idea of dual pistols, but I don't want this feature removed.
However, a professional soldier part of an elite organization will probably never dual wield pistols. That's cool if you make a game with cowboys and outlaws, or maybe gangsters. It's a cool thing you see in action movies.
A professional soldier will always preffer the accuracy of a single pistol instead of twice the damage but inaccurate. You can't really aim using 2 pistols, unless you have 2 independent heads or something :)
-
Talking specifically about the laser pistol, you still wouldn't be able to see where you were aiming the infrared laser beam without looking through the pistol scope or other vision enhancer. Aiki-Knight is entirely correct -- the lack of recoil doesn't compensate for the fact that you'll have accuracy considerably lower than an ordinary handgun of any variety due to lack of line-of-sight aiming and lack of a two-handed grip, accuracy which is already pretty poor due to you firing a handgun and not a rifle. And now you're now using two hands to fire two handguns suboptimally when you could be using them to fire a laser rifle optimally, thereby eliminating the only battlefield advantage pistols have over rifles, which is that they can be fired one-handed.
According to the game mechanics he is not, unless there is a tremendous degredation of accuracy; the firepower provided by two simutaneously firing laser pistols is superior to that of one laser rifle. That said, despite the lack of perfect LoS aiming, at least passable accuracy should be possible by aligning the two pistols simutaneously in front of one's eyes. I've used light guns at range in this manner (roughly typical of average engagement ranges in urban combat), and while my ability to hit especially small targets was not the best, man sized targets were typically not a problem.
-
Yes, there's no need to remove the feature; I just humbly suggest that two-handed firing is usually more trouble than help. Even if a sidearm were truly one-hand-only operated, it's just not accurate to shoot them together. Yes, you could shoot two at once, and a decent shooter could hit a target, but really, even an expert shooter wouldn't. Yes, this game has close-quarters combat, but most police shootouts occur within 7 meters. That's right, 7 meters. Close enough to qualify as close combat? Yet no police officer wields two weapons simultaneously, because it's already hard enough to win close-quarters shootouts with the accuracy bonus of a single, eye-level aimed sidearm in the hands of a well-trained police officer (I've never heard of special forces dual-wielding sidearms, either. I'm no expert on special forces, but can anyone substantiate otherwise?). After all, it's not who fires the most shots, but rather who brings rounds on target the quickest. One well-placed shot to the centre of body mass or between the eyes is going to win over a hail of bullets roughly on target (if even that), especially against enemies who are heavily armored.
The only application I think think of for wielding dual pistols is when no larger weapons (or ammo) are available, and one needs to lay down cover fire at short range. Otherwise, a single rifle in infinitely superior to dual pistols. More power, and just WAY more accuracy.
Of course, we're forgetting this: how many truly ambidextrous shooters are there out there? Should special forces operators spend all their time honing their dual-pistol-wielding skills just in case? Most shooters are side-biased. I'm a right-hand shooter. Could I do it left-side? Maybe. Do it well, in the stress of close-quarters combat? I seriously doubt it. No, actually, I know I couldn't.
-
Yes, there's no need to remove the feature; I just humbly suggest that two-handed firing is usually more trouble than help. Even if a sidearm were truly one-hand-only operated, it's just not accurate to shoot them together. Yes, you could shoot two at once, and a decent shooter could hit a target, but really, even an expert shooter wouldn't. Yes, this game has close-quarters combat, but most police shootouts occur within 7 meters. That's right, 7 meters. Close enough to qualify as close combat? Yet no police officer wields two weapons simultaneously, because it's already hard enough to win close-quarters shootouts with the accuracy bonus of a single, eye-level aimed sidearm in the hands of a well-trained police officer (I've never heard of special forces dual-wielding sidearms, either. I'm no expert on special forces, but can anyone substantiate otherwise?). After all, it's not who fires the most shots, but rather who brings rounds on target the quickest. One well-placed shot to the centre of body mass or between the eyes is going to win over a hail of bullets roughly on target (if even that), especially against enemies who are heavily armored.
I completely agree with you in so far as weapons with signifigant recoil are concerned, but in the absence of that, dual wielding with appreciable accuracy, and thus plausibility, becomes possible.
The only application I think think of for wielding dual pistols is when no larger weapons (or ammo) are available, and one needs to lay down cover fire at short range. Otherwise, a single rifle in infinitely superior to dual pistols. More power, and just WAY more accuracy.
Specifically concerning dual laser pistols versus a single laser rifle, the former features a lot more firepower. While the accuracy of dual wielded laser pistols is clearly inferior to that of a single laser rifle this discrepancy would not be such that dual wielding would not have a situational use for close quarters/urban combat.
-
According to the game mechanics he is not, unless there is a tremendous degredation of accuracy; the firepower provided by two simutaneously firing laser pistols is superior to that of one laser rifle. That said, despite the lack of perfect LoS aiming, at least passable accuracy should be possible by aligning the two pistols simutaneously in front of one's eyes. I've used light guns at range in this manner (roughly typical of average engagement ranges in urban combat), and while my ability to hit especially small targets was not the best, man sized targets were typically not a problem.
Then that's nothing more than a balancing error and the weapons in question need to be reworked to make the rifle appreciably superior to dual pistols.
Regards,
Winter
-
I don't see how using 2 pistols with alot of accuracy loss will be better than using any other rifle or pistol in a normal fashion, unless you come up with some very powerful close range pistols. I wouldn't waste a soldier wearing 2 pistols just for the cool factor. He'll probably get killed while being cool.
But, I would suggest making dualwielding kerrblades or other melee weapons viable.
-
Then that's nothing more than a balancing error and the weapons in question need to be reworked to make the rifle appreciably superior to dual pistols.
The rifle would be superior anyways at medium/long ranges with existing stats, assuming a realistic degredation of accuracy with respect to dual wielded laser pistols. Dual pistols would have only a situational close range application.
-
Twin pistols being more effective that a rifle, even at close range, is counter to logic.
If that were the case, then instead of the pistol the production shops would be creating weapons that were 2 laser-pistol focusing arrays in the same case, even if the resulting weapon were of similar size to the SMG. All the power of 2 pistols, without any loss of accuracy. It could even be lighter than the pistols, as it may only need a single power pack (albeit one that would be drained twice as fast)
-
Well to be completely honest, the damage values of the laser weapons are admittedly silly, given that they do more damage than plasma weaponry contrary to design intentions (and what reality might suggest).
Anyways, there might be technical issues and limitations which prevent the synergy of dual focusing arrays in that manner. Not being accomplished in laser physics, I won't pretend to know what those are, but it is a possibility.
-
I have been thinking when would it be in place to wield two pistols? Only answer I have come up with is two entrances to the room you are in, which you can both see and thus react faster to suppress your enemy. In general cqb-style barrel aim does not help much when you have two pistols to aim into same general direction. First shots may go close to the target, but after that it's lottery. Considering that barrel aim reduces the accurate fire distance, plus possible other factors making it more difficult, I'd say it would be very difficult to hit an target over ten meters away. Again: first shots.
I'd rather see that depending on the strenght of the soldier he could aim single handedly heavier weapon (such as rifle or shotgun - try it, it is possible), while doing something else with other hand. Reloading, taking a grenade, using something... Strenght/weight issue would of course affect the accuracy. And again: first shot. Second would be impossible to aim effectively. So, put simply, imo something in other hand should reduce accuracy of the first shot and exponentially after that. Though MP5 can be fired in bursts when supporting it only to your shoulder and the fire is still relatively accurate. Though nothing compared to when other hand is supporting.
-
Bah. You're over-analyzing this. It's a game!
If someone wants to dual-wield, let him. Heck, even JA2 had dual-wielding!
-
I recently played Fallout 2 again, and you can actually wield 2 Sniper rifles (one in each hand)
and shoot twice during one combat round. I found this unrealistic because I normally picture one
sniper rifle being wielded with both hands at least, so if we talk about realism, sometimes
even commercial games did make bad design decisions. You could fire both sniper rifles in one
round :-)
By the way, not wanting to digress but there could be a new fire mode "fire both pistols
at same target" which could result in one "dual shot" at a slightly higher damage and hit
rate than firing only one.
-
I recently played Fallout 2 again, and you can actually wield 2 Sniper rifles (one in each hand)
and shoot twice during one combat round. I found this unrealistic because I normally picture one
sniper rifle being wielded with both hands at least, so if we talk about realism, sometimes
even commercial games did make bad design decisions. You could fire both sniper rifles in one
round :-)
By the way, not wanting to digress but there could be a new fire mode "fire both pistols
at same target" which could result in one "dual shot" at a slightly higher damage and hit
rate than firing only one.
What are you talking about? Fallout 2 gave you two weapon slots so you could switch between weapons since almost every gun had it's own ammo. Thus relying on one gun type was a bad idea due to the limited amount you could have at any time. I hear about this all the time and I have yet to see two shots go off at once at the cost of one shot AP. The character graphic clearly shows your guy put away one weapon and pull out the other. This function costs no AP therefore it's possible to go into a room and use your SMG to shoot down some people and then switch to the rocket launcher and shoot a rocket at the super mutant. Also note that AP is basically a measure of how fast your character is. One round is six seconds. Every six seconds (one round) you get your AP filled. With it maxed out you can take anywhere from 2-4 shots depending on character setup and the gun being used. With the 4 shot setup being hard to achieve and not as useful with precision based weapons as a two or three shot setup is. 4 bursts from an smg or 2 heavy damage accurate and aimed shots at your enemies eye? I see no problem in allowing a player to use two weapons at once for extra lead in the air. Some might prefer it to using snipers since sniper combat (also known as realistic and in slang terms SOCOM combat) is rather boring for some people.
It comes down to this.
- Allow players to play either way and appease two crowds. Give the devs more to work with in their designs and ideas.
- Allow players to play only one way and alienate yourself from one crowd appeasing only one. Give the devs less idea freedom.
Now, please state your reason for wanting to take away from the fanbase, possible modding community base, and gameplay.
Why is it that you wish to oppress people to thinking and playing like you do? Answer that question. Because that is EXACTLY what you are asking devs to do. You ask them to chop off their own hand for no good reason. This question is aimed at those who want SOCOM combat.
I agree with shev. It's easier to learn how to use your hand than it is to live without it. Give the option but in no way make it uber or mandatory to the point where it breaks the game.
-
Why is it that you wish to oppress people to thinking and playing like you do? Answer that question. Because that is EXACTLY what you are asking devs to do. You ask them to chop off their own hand for no good reason. This question is aimed at those who want SOCOM combat.
I agree with shev. It's easier to learn how to use your hand than it is to live without it. Give the option but in no way make it uber or mandatory to the point where it breaks the game.
Isn't that actually the thing: oppressing people? Trying to put the blame on others? Why wouldn't we all have right to say our opinion. I bet that the devs both listen us and our opinions and stick with their decisions they have decided to stick with.
-
- Allow players to play either way and appease two crowds. Give the devs more to work with in their designs and ideas. (Waste precious development time and resources on a completely useless feature)
OR
- Allow players to play only one way and alienate yourself from one crowd appeasing only one. Give the devs less idea freedom. (Let the developers get on with things rather than bowing to pressure for things we don't want or like)
Additions/translations mine, in red. No dual-wielding pistol mode is in the plans and, unless somebody joins the team for no other reason and with no greater prioriy than to waste code on this, no dual-wielding pistol mode will be added.
Regards,
Winter
-
Hmm!
I read the wiki about laser pistol, go research it right away and keep two Close Quarter Specialists fully supplied (and best armors too).
Results: not true dual shots. The primary gun shot twice, the secondary gun didnt. But I am satisfied with it. The magazine is also quite large, so sustained fire is not a worry.
Reasons?
1. Variety of options: in close combat a fast weapon is preferable. double its power is even more preferable. Laser pistol is a bit weak (about 3 shots an enemy in standard 2.2). with dual I may, MAY, be alive if met two aliens. No dual? no dice, I change to flamer or SMG.
2. Accuracy and Range: heh, with height my pistoleer can take pot shot at sniper-range enemies. SMG or Assault rifles cant. With that range my CQS no longer limited to close distance. SMG or Flamer or shotgun are just too myopic.
All in all I am satisfied with Laser pistols. If you guys can make two guns consume the same rate of charges it would be icing on the cake. If not, I am okay with it.
By the way, please dont remove the option. Whatever those period-Nazis think, dual wield is one of many pleasure in tactic combat games. I dual-ed in JA2 too. And Fallout 2 doesnt have dual, more is a pity (I know what the guy saw but that just is a visual thing, not dual)
-
if you have both pistol and stun rod in hand, your ranged reaction fire could be with pistol and your melee reaction "fire" could be with stun rod.
oh, well...
-
Well well.... i have been following the discussions in these 4 pages....
I thnk after all tat is said, we have lots of limitations wrt programming resources and stuff here.
Like i mentioned in a couple of other threads, lets keep ideas open.
That being said 1,
let developers focus on bugs squashing now....
Esp when quite a lot of features are being worked on, and pathfinding's still not perfect.
Right now, i personally as a soldier and an active reservist, feels that dual pistol is good. Though implementing it would be a bit more complicated.
And esp when at this stage where balancing is OFF any of us' mind. So, leave it as such first.
Esp the point on plasma, sniper rifles, heavy duty wpns, light pistols etc...... ok? Leave balancing to later.
For now, leave programmers some lag and space and PEACE to focus on wats more impt.
If u feel tat u wanna do the balancing, come on to the team and pick up the programming knowledge..... then propose ur values....... (After doing the testing on the field yourself....)
:P
Okie.... peace.
-
I don't see how using 2 pistols with alot of accuracy loss will be better than using any other rifle or pistol in a normal fashion, unless you come up with some very powerful close range pistols. I wouldn't waste a soldier wearing 2 pistols just for the cool factor. He'll probably get killed while being cool.
But, I would suggest making dualwielding kerrblades or other melee weapons viable.
I think this was missed. Dual wielding pistols may be stupid, but it seems perfectly reasonable to dual weield melee weapons. At which point if it was implemented with melee weapons it shouldn't be much more work (??) to implement for pistols (with much worse accuracy). Seems like a nice feature to keep in the back of the mind.
-
Actually, it's really difficult to dual wield any kind of deadly weapon without fairly specialized training. I wouldn't even try dual wielding a simple combat knife. In practical swordsmanship (as opposed to display arts), the off-hand weapon is usually intended mainly as a parrying tool, not a serious offensive threat (stabby weapons with blunt edges and lots of hand-guard do well in this role). Blunt weapons are different, you won't lose your primary hand by making a mistake with your off-hand (which is a real risk even for the genuinely ambidextrous with bladed weapons, let alone a powered device).
In the game, having a heavy/sniper/grenadier pull out a pistol or knife off-hand to deal with a sudden close combat situation without dropping the primary weapon is useful and reasonably realistic. Having an ambidextrous trooper carry two pistols with differing capabilities is also somewhat plausible if one has a much higher range/accuracy (laser pistol) and the other has far higher close combat damage per TU (Machine Pistol/MM Knife/plasma blade). But in most situations using a pistol you'd want your off hand free to open doors or grab things (or steady your aim). And since you can quickly draw and employ an off-hand weapon or device it doesn't really make much sense to have inferior ranged power just to save a couple of TU's that you could have saved by not running around so much.
-
I'll just say it again, in case it was buried back in this thread and missed - in the several years I worked in law enforcement, I didn't know of anyone in real life who wielded dual pistols, not even the same type of pistol, the same goes for cops I met from other departments all the way to federal agents and other people who I ran into. Some people who work those jobs in real life carry backup weapons, as well as sometimes knives or batons, but they never put two guns on their gunbelt ready to wield at the same time.
Honestly, it really is a "TV-slash-movie-slash-video game" type of thing.
Then again, this is a game...
-
I'll just say it again, in case it was buried back in this thread and missed - in the several years I worked in law enforcement, I didn't know of anyone in real life who wielded dual pistols, not even the same type of pistol, the same goes for cops I met from other departments all the way to federal agents and other people who I ran into. Some people who work those jobs in real life carry backup weapons, as well as sometimes knives or batons, but they never put two guns on their gunbelt ready to wield at the same time.
Honestly, it really is a "TV-slash-movie-slash-video game" type of thing.
Then again, this is a game...
Ooooo, agreed agreed!
In all aspects, if u really want to use dual wpns, the reason is higher fire power / supressing fire. In those cases, u would be better off, offloading your single wpn full load, reload quick and empty the magazine again.....rather than end up with well.... not so quick reloads.
And if u r going for a 'higher chance' of hitting, u be better off using 1 wpn. In most RPGs (like DnD), to even use 2 wpns properly, u need specialised skill like ambidexterious / 2 wpns wielding / offhand wpn wielding.
Unless our game intend to introduce more skills.... i say we keep things as it is? :)
-
That's my take. The supposed "fire rate" improvement is a myth, the distraction of keeping your off-hand pointed downrange (not even at the target, just away from yourself) and pulling both triggers at the same time off-sets any gain in raw number of shots fired. And since half the shots end up being completely unaimed (the way the human brain processes visual input makes it impossible to use both sights even if you don't have an eye dominance issue), all you get is a reduction in real firepower.
The reason dual-wielding is so popular in movies (and display arts) is because it is a literally superhuman skill that can be superficially simulated with minimal special effects. The human eye, hand, and nervous system do not make actual dual-wielding as possible as a casual glance at bilateral symmetry would suggest. Thus a person who appears to be doing it is "awesome" and "heroic".
Given the relatively poor state of much of the world's military posited at the outset of UFOAI, it might be plausible that there are PHALANX personnel who like to dual-wield, but probably simply to show that they can do it without hurting themselves (I emphasize that not hurting yourself when dual wielding does take significant skill), not because they gain any real advantage from doing so.
-
Aye. Dual-wielding ranged weapons is only good for 1 clip for suppressing fire, because when that clip runs out, your spending a lot of time re-loading (Putting down one gun to reload the other, then loading the second, picking up, getting atleast semi-comfortable), and during that long time your enemy is making their advance/putting focused fire on your team.
Dual-wielding melee weapons, on the other hand (badum, tish) is far more practical, but only in close combat against well-defended/skill opponents, when being able to slash twice in rapid succession is more important than one aimed/powerful slash. Like against aliens (Higher defense, stronger)
Unfortunatly, I dont think UFOAI plans on blocking/parrying/dodging melee.
Regardless of any comments said, I am still keeping both dual-wielding single-handed ranged and melee weapon animations on the list
-
Oh, we can discuss this on and on with hypothetical reasons that might be true as to whether or not dual-wielded pistols would be effective - meaning ideas and theories thought up with logic by people here who haven't actually tried it with two handguns in real life, but it won't change the fact that in real life it just isn't something I've seen done, and as I said I've worked a job in my past where I was exposed to what people really do and don't do.
As far as the game goes though, yes we could get away with it for UFO: AI simply because it's a game and it's allowed in video games and action films, and done quite a bit on the TV/Computer screen.
...But if anyone here is going to argue about it with ideas and their own "logic" without actually trying it for real on a firing range - to see if their ideas - theories really - really do or don't hold true as they thought them up, I can't give your arguments much credit, because they don't have it - they don't hold water, and I'll maintain my position.
I have no problem with it being added to the game, because games do such a thing all the time, but please don't try to argue about it being practical and effective in real life (Unless you get up from in front of your computer, go to a range with two handguns and actually try it).
Sorry, but some of the arguments I've seen on both sides of this debate have rather unusual logic and I doubt are really true or applicable, and I'd guess that some of these arguments come from people who don't even fire guns.
I'm not trying to be an A-Hole here, but some parts of this debate really make me shake my head...
Edit: Alright, I checked YouTube to see if anyone has actually tried and documented it - Yes, some guy actually fired two Desert Eagle pistols dual-wielded, you can search for "dual desert eagle" on that site, but please notice how the guy in the video almost completely looses control of the weapons and ends up looking clumsy (and a bit stupid).
-
Well, I've fired handguns other firearms, but I've never tried actually dual-wielding them because my experiments with toy weapons suggested that it would be a good way to lose a hand (or a friend). I have seen video of guys doing it for fun, but it was clearly just for fun, clearly not achieving a remarkable rate of fire or any kind of accuracy. I hadn't seen dual Desert Eagles before...that seems excessively stupid, but everyone has their own comfort range on that kind of thing.
Some people will try it, guys in theater do that kind of thing all the time (not everybody, and not everywhere, but at any given point in a war zone there probably is somebody doing something of that sort). And a few otherwise good, disciplined soldiers might even believe it gives them an edge. But that edge is purely emotional, and probably quite small. I don't think it really needs to be modeled in the game, particularly since it would distract from things that really do have higher priority. One of which would be modeling "throw your weapon over your head and fire an unaimed burst at a target you can't even see", a far more popular tactic in real life. Another would be ninpo-kawarami no jitsu! for giving your veterans a second chance if they got shot, or ninpo-bunshin! (somebody actually suggested this in the wiki, or something basically similar).
For now, I'm okay with sticking with what can be done without messing with the basic dynamics of the game. Though I did endorse the jetpack suggestion. But that was a jetpack. I mean...wouldn't you rather have a jetpack than be able to wield two pistols for a combined firepower lower than an easily available two-handed weapon?
Actually, the original X-com did have that, when soldiers went berserk from morale loss. Do we have that yet? I haven't noticed (it probably happened when my Firebird got shot down with the entire team).
-
Ooooo,
I am so SO SO glad Destructavator brought up some clips and discuss the impracticality of wielding dual wpns......
I am also very happy he mentioned that some of the folks here prob did not even fire a single shot from any guns before - trust me, dual firing would be MAD! (Rambo is INSANE to fire dual GPMG - General Purpose Machine Gun).
Why?
Here's some clips on various dual firing of wpns (Observe how clumsy, inefficient and how 'useful' it will translate.... lol)
Dual Pistols (Desert Eagle here) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q4zv2QGdos)
Dual Semi Autos (M249, quite close to our semi autos in UFOAI) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4nfZu8VqgQ&feature=related)
Dual AK47 (Somewhat like our Assaults wpns or M16s, just that it fires 7.92mm or was it 7.62mm lol) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFPll-GAHeo&NR=1)
Dual Shotguns (This is mad, good for killing ur buddies) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlfjliVLSRs)
More Dual Pistols (Notice where the shots land - EVERYWHERE BUT the target) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkqkAWo6sQY)
And for those who wan to see a more 'professional person' at work...
MP5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2lJWjq9CFc)
That person seemed more pro, and in a more controlled firing (See how he hunched under clean fatigue....)
-
could it be that some people forget about the weight of the gun and about the recoil?
afaik, basic newton mechanics goes like:
A = Fs
so, when you swing a hammer, you take a long swing with little force, it means that s is big and F is small.
when the hammer hits the head of the nail, s is going to be very small compared to the swing, and F is therefore going to be big.
when you shoot a gun, you need the force to punch the bullet into your opponent's body or into a brick wall or something similar.
and, to punch a bullet into a brick, which is the case with, say, ak-47 assault rifle, you need considerable power, and that impulse does not magically disappear but gets transferred through your weapon to your body.
and this is what is called recoil.
it is not going to be like shooting guns in quake while running and jumping.
and another newton mechanics thing is:
F = ma
if the gun is heavy, the recoil is easier to handle.
that is the reason why you might want your gun to be reasonably heavy compared to the bullet.
if you are not convinced you can imagine that instead of holding the gun and shooting the bullet you are holding the bullet and shooting the gun.
but, a heavy gun is more difficult to maneuver quickly, and if you imagine the opponent at one step distance from you taking a step to the side, you need to move your gun a lot more compared to the situation where the opponent is something like ten steps away.
and, in order to not only handle the recoil but also to maneuver the gun more quickly or to have better control while aiming, you might want to hold a gun with two hands even if it is a pistol.
and even if you are not holding a pistol with two hands you want the off-hand to help balance your movements.
the maneuvering benefit you get from holding a pistol with two hands should depend on the weight of the pistol and your strength.
if you are using a two-handed weapon like an assault rifle, you are holding it at two points that have some distance, giving you better leverage to control the gun.
again, it is not like in quake where you can turn and aim the gun at the same speed no matter what the weight of the gun is, say, no matter if it is a pistol or a rocket launcher.
if you feel like you are strong enough to dual wield some toy pistols for more fire power, then you would probably be better off if you increased caliber or used higher fire rate bursts or the like.
now, instead of dual wielding pistols, maybe we should suggest the following (and then quickly discard the suggestion as too complicated) for, e.g. reaction fire:
1) time units for responding to the event of an alien appearing in front of your soldier.
2) time units for aiming, which depends on the weight and length of the gun and how many hands the soldier is using to hold the gun and the soldier's strength, and also on how fast the alien is moving and in what direction (straightly towards the soldier or sideways).
3) time units to pull the trigger.
4) at this moment the alien gets shot.
5) and then you would get recoil and would not be able to do anything reasonable for some time units, because you got a punch to your body from, say, your assault rifle, the power of which could punch a lead bullet into a brick wall. it would be best if there would be a recoil animation where your soldier would look slightly disoriented.
as i see it, this whole discussion about dual wielding is an artifact of the shooting rules in the game that are the way they are for the sake of simplicity.
=========
now, i am sorry for getting bit off-topic, but as i pointed out earlier in this thread, when you are using, say, a pistol and a stun rod, then you might want to use a stun rod reaction for melee range and a pistol reaction otherwise.
and, afaik, you cannot arrange it that way in the game.
and where i am getting really off-topic is this:
like in jagged alliance you get an interrupt when you have an opportunity to respond to an opponent, i think it could also work in an ufo game.
actually what i would like to see most is that when an alien appears you get an interrupt and you can do whatever, provided you have saved the time units for the response in your previous round.
for example, you could crouch, or you could use a different weapon.
but, if you are fumbling around with your weapons for too long, the alien will get to shoot you first.
i feel this would create some positive gameplay tension as you wouldn't know how many time units you have for the response, but only have a rough estimate based on how slow weapon the alien is using.
no idea if this has any practical value as a suggestion to the game in no matter how distant future, but maybe it would be ok to discuss it in a separate thread to figure out if it could have some potential.
-
Giving these units the ability to dual-wield pistols would be dumb - this is my first thought. However, given the mechanics of the game, there is one situation where you would want to have two equipped and firing simultaneously, regardless of loss to accuracy, and this is in extremely close combat. With a horrendous penalty to accuracy imposed, as there would be in real life, I can still imagine dual firearms being worthwhile say if you open a closet door and there are two enemies inside. You're two tiles away from three enemies and you don't have a primary weapon. Yes, maybe then you would want to fire two guns at the same time.
Speaking of backup weapons, it would be neat if they could pull a secondary weapon for reaction fire, if you don't have enough TU to fire your main gun, but an enemy is approaching.
-
If you want higher DPS, then use a weapon with higher DPS. That's why in real life we have things like sub-machine guns, which fire pistol ammunition on full-auto. As it happens, we also have those in-game. So the reasons for dual-wielding in-game are pretty much what they are in real life...cause it's "awesome".
As for not having enough time to react with your currently equipped primary weapon, but having enough time to draw and use your sidearm...maybe that means it should take more time to draw a weapon. Because realistically, it's always faster to use the weapon you have out than to draw and use a different weapon. The only question is effectiveness. But for reaction fire, it's up to the player to decide which weapon is likely best suited to the situations likely to arise during the enemy turn.
-
Maybe have the soldier automatically pull a sidearm if your main weapon is out of ammo/out of order or if firing the main weapon costs too many TUs. May happen if primary fire costs 12 TUs while you have only 11, while getting laser pistol from holster and firing it costs either 9 or 11 TUs (did firing that thing cost 7 or 9 TUs?).
-
thats why you reserve TUs.
I dont why people are still trying to pursue dual-wielding ranged weapons. The head devs said no, I, the animator, says no, and so do dozens of other people. Can we get this topic closed?
-
thats why you reserve TUs.
I dont why people are still trying to pursue dual-wielding ranged weapons. The head devs said no, I, the animator, says no, and so do dozens of other people. Can we get this topic closed?
YES! Agreed! :D
5^
*Topic is Closed*