Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Wasteland Discussion' started by Surf Solar, Aug 27, 2013.
Oh god, how terrible. A game actually attempting to balance combat instead of allowing everyone to quickscope everything with sniper rifles.
Seriously, did inXile collectively rape your dog or something?
Oh god, how terrible. A fan actually attempting to want realism instead of allowing everyone to add whatever with games.
Seriously, did Surf Solar rape your dog or something?
See, that's a non argument. To me as well it's quite silly that a weapon shouldn't fire at a certain range. I think it'd be more prudent to simply make a person perhaps slower, if they are too close. Perhaps disallow them from firing if they are hit with a melee weapon. Perhaps reduce the chance to hit the closer they are. Or perhaps, require a set up time before firing that stops you from firing and moving quickly. Things like that.
Realism is a non-argument. Every game is an abstraction of reality, every combat system an abstraction of actual combat. Unless you describe what kind of system you want and why it is more realistic than what is proposed, feel free to do so.
On subject, Surf Solar is apparently arguing that quickscoping should be in the game. I prefer Wasteland 2's approach, since it's based on something very realistic: sniper rifles aren't used for close range combat. They aren't suited for it. To use a Dragunov in close combat you'd have to use it without iron sights or remove the scope in combat, thus making it useless as a marksman's rifle. Some sniper rifles don't even feature iron sights.
I really don't see why inXile attempting to introduce distinct weapon roles in accordance with reality is bad. If anything's unrealistic, it's the insistence that rifles designed, built, and used exclusively for long range combat should be perfectly usable in close quarters. Leave quickscoping to CoD kiddies.
Taking away choice from the player was always such a good thing, right!
Instead of simply adding a malus for aiming, making new target aquisitions harder in close range etc - hey, let's just completely remove it for the sake of "balance"!
Can't wait to see more of such funny stuff.
I also love how you go for the "realism!" strawmen, but yeah I forgot, in real life the sniper rifles of some soldiers have built in mechanisms that don't allow the wielder to pull the trigger if an enemy is at close range..
And no one said they should be "perfectly usable" in close quarters enviroments.
I see you're in one of your funny moods again. I don't see how that's taking choice away from the player. Sniper rifles are unusable in close combat. How is giving weapons their proper niches and reflecting how weapons behave in real life bad, pray tell?
Not to mention, you're obviously just cherry picking updates and previews just to find things to complain about. Out of nearly 4,000 words, you pick 20 just so that you can attack inXile.
Just because hipfiring that damn thing is nigh impossible to hit anything with it when the enemy is standing right infront of you doesn't mean that the guy with the rifle shouldn't even be allowed to attack. Why not give us the chance to take that risky turn, instead of completely removing it? Ah yes, "balance".
You keep repeating that "reflect how weapons behave in real life". So again, I can't pull the trigger of that darn gun if my enemy is standing infront of me in reality?
Solare hates everything shown about w2, so why should anyone care what he writes?
No, you get shot in the face while you wrestle with a meter long rifle trying to get an aim at a guy with a submachine gun. That's one of several reasons you don't see military marksmen bunny hopping around the battlefield quickscoping terrorists.
Seriously, you're complaining for the sake of complaining. OH GOD MAH SNIPER CAN'T USE HIS RIFLE IN CLOSE QUARTERS DUMBING DOWN DUMBING DOWN. Your bitching is even more ridiculous when you consider the fact that the problem is solved by taking a few steps back and firing from a distance. Y'know, the article says that, in the bit "too close."
Again with this - so let me get this straight. In a few posts before you write
And now you keep repeating how realistic InXiles approach is?
I thought a turn of turn-based game is very short amount of time.
It would be far shorter than a minute. while move your face to look enemy nearby, the enemy can swing their weapon.
scope has disadvantage of narrowing sight.
it is convenience to catch enemy at long range, also inconvenience catch enemy quickly at short range.
Yes, because bitching that something is "not realistic" is meaningless unless you explain how it's supposedly unrealistic and how your proposed solution is somehow more realistic and improves gameplay in a better way.
There is no gameplay benefit to allowing Rangers to quickscope their way to victory. If anything's realistic, it would be giving the enemy a high bonus to accuracy, since, realistically, they would just grab the flailing end of the over a meter long rifle and shoot you in the face.
Simply disallowing the use of a sniper rifle when the opponent is too close is more beneficial, since it reinforces the role of the rifle, emphasizes keeping your marksmen at a distance and gives reason to carry backup weapons in case of close combat. It also provides balance against other weapons, since the sniper rifles, with their high penetration, would effectively rule out other weapons in the field, which is about as divorced from reality and fun gameplay as it gets.
Seriously, your complaints make no sense.
If you blame to give disadventage to scope why don't you blame FO1 and FO2? if my memory is correct, scoped hunting rifle and sniper rifle has same disadventage.
You mostly couldn't hit shit due to the scoped weapon perk in close ranges, but atleast you had the option to try so. But since this is apparently "nonsensical" as a wise man pointed out in this thread...
Well, Fallout 1 and 2 obviously are harbors of the kiddy shooter age, and invented quickscoping, then. Bunnyhopping too. Because that's relevant.
Is it really that sniper rifles don't work at all below a certain range or is there a big malus to accuracy? That's not entirely from the wordings of the article in my opinion.
I'd prefer the malus, it still does reflect the role of the weapon and accounts for the fact that there's nothing keeping you from firing the thing from your hip, no matter how inaccurate that might be.
Similar to the scoped hunting rifle in Fallout 2.
I think that is what Surf means.
If you want to utilize argumentum ad absurdum, then at least make sure your facts are in order. Fallout and Fallout 2 have plenty of problems with its gameplay. Weapons have no defined niches, aiming penalties for scoped weapons are easily offset by reasonably high skills, to the point of using them in close combat with ease, and there's very little balance among weapons. Hell, shotguns outclass assault rifles.
You would also do well not to put stuff in other people's mouths. The point was that arguing for sniper rifles to be available for use regardless of distance to the enemy, even if they're in your character's face, is essentially arguing for quickscoping a'la Call of Duty, instead of noting that maybe, just maybe, it's done to make this weapon class more distinct.
And you can use them on shorter distances with penalties, you just can't use them if the enemy's too close to your character. But don't let facts get in the way of your tangent.
They don't work if the enemy is too close. Fargo wasn't specific about it, but the example used was the enemy being right next to you. You have to take a couple of steps back to be able to use it.
It's really no problem, Solar's just having one of his days I guess, taking a completely irrelevant point and complaining.
but it has more something to do with the size of the weapon I guess.
I mean it doesn't matter much in very narrow situations if its a sniper or assault rifle, you will always have issues.
You can simply jump 4:30
Would be interesting if assault rifles and even more so sniper rifles had to deal with high penalties if the target is extremely close to you or if you're in a narrow area. How to do that in the game? No clue!
Thing is, in Jagged Alliance 2 you had sniper rifles, assault rifles, machine pistols and hand guns. At some point you replaced hand guns with machine pistols which have been replaced by assault rifles. What made Sniper weapons not overpowered was the fact that they required a lot of action points to use them so you would fire at best one shoot per round, sometimes two depending on the range and target. But accurate shots would always require more then half of the points you had. It never felt like it was overpowered but nothing stoped you from shooting a target that was directly in front of you. The problem was only, that you had usually not enough points for a second shoot most of the time. Thats why It was usefull to keep machinepistols in the inventory if you had a sniper rifle.
So even if you could hit targets that have been very close it was still not replacing any of the other weapons that have been more suited for close combat. I also dont know why its so important anyway. If you now kill that target in front of you with one shoot from your sniper, or if you always just switch to your pistol or machinepistol now. I never really liked arbitrary rules like those.
The problem was that sniper rifles were stupidly overpowered and had no penalties in close combat in vanilla J.A.2. I remember storming buildings with snipers, because one shot to the head was usually all that was needed.
I wasn't trying to say that Fallout 1 or 2 didn't have issues with balancing. I think this is besides the point.
The scope of choice in designing sniper rifles is either quickscoping or no firing untill the target is at a minimum distance?
I thought the range, slowness, and few shots was what made sniper rifles distinct, and that this arbitrary restriction is unnecessary.
You simply can not say that this arbitrary little change is all that holds the game back from having characters able to kill anything up to medium range with a sniper rifle while running.
Arguing that without it, a top down tactical rpg, has a distinct action fps feature, as seriously as you do is absurd. You can't seriously say that "It's really no problem, Solar's just having one of his days I guess, taking a completely irrelevant point and complaining."
So the game already has what I suggested? I don't quite see how that is a point in your favor.
I really like how you remove some of Surf Solar's arguments in his quote here.