Hello all,
Just looking for some input. An RPG that I am making utilises guns which would normally require ammunition to work. Do people prefer that ammunition is implied (as in you do not need collect ammo), or is required (they do need to collect ammo, and run the risk of running out).
I'm not sure which way to go, as implied takes away some suspense, however it might add too much in the way of hassle...
Thoughts and considerations please!
ID:151759
 May 18 2009, 1:34 am
|
|
|
May 18 2009, 2:27 am
|
|
Mysame
 |
Ammo, of course. Otherwise people will run around, clicking their mouse buttons in every direction like blithering, unstoppable idiots.
|
Good point! It's a post-apoc adventure, so it might just add that little bit of spice needed to get the point across!
| |
Qable wrote:
Hello all, I would say either way is fine, with caveats. If you go with requiring ammo you make the game more realistic (which is fine). In doing so, however, take care to make it as seamless as possible. If the majority of combat is designed to be ranged, then ammo should be relatively plentiful and/or cheap. If guns are meant to be "oh wow, look what he has", then ammo should be hard to find and/or expensive. Alternatively, you can go with the "no ammo" option. If you go that route, take care to limit what people can do, and how often. Perhaps firing a weapon too often will overheat it, causing it to jam for a period of time. Perhaps there is a built in jam chance (this is post-apoc, after all, how well maintained are these weapons gonna be?). In the end, the difference between the two is negligible. Most players will be sure to keep enough ammo on hand that the net result is no difference. When using the ammo option you should keep ammo in clips, and have a reload sequence to change clips, belt, energy cell, etc. This is fundamentally no different than a jam or overheat option in that it accomplishes the same thing: restricting how many shots can be fired over a given period of time. To illustrate, let us assume you want no more than 10 shots over 10 seconds (just for illustration purposes). With ammo, you might limit a clip to 10 "shots" (shots being single fire for such weapons, bursts for burst weapons, etc), and reload takes 1 seconds. A "shot" takes .9 second. So, each clip is a 10 second period of fire and reload, allowing no more than 10 shots in those 10 seconds. With the jam/overheat option, every 10th shot in 9 seconds will cause a jam/overheat. It takes 1 second to clear the jam/overheat. Net effect: 10 shots or less in 10 seconds. To summarize: before deciding on ammo/no ammo, consider why you want ammo or no ammo in the first place. Ammunition in a game is really just a money sink. Any concept of limiting player capability is flawed due to the vary nature of players. The majority will keep enough ammo on hand to negate the option of running out of ammo. The only time ammunition will be a factor is with the occasional under-prepared or poor player. | |
I think getting rid of the need to track ammunition in favor of managing the use of the clip in any given encounter is better. Using the weapon in a tactical fashion and being more judicial with it because of reload times would probably work out better. As CriticalBotch was saying, most players are going to have enough ammo as is. Plus, with the inclusion of more casual players, someone trying to get somewhere might blow a lot of their ammo on someone just stopping in and severely mess them over for the next encounter.
| |
Good things to take into consideration.
I think what I will do is pilot both situations, and see what play test brings back. Thanks guys for the input. | |
None of you seem to realize that the ammo thing is sort of a degree of challenge for more hardcore players.
Having to find ammo and use it efficiently takes a larger degree of skill than when you have an unlimited supply and so you don't care how you're using it. You can then control the difficulty based on how hard it is to get ammo. | |
Naokohiro wrote:
None of you seem to realize that the ammo thing is sort of a degree of challenge for more hardcore players. It can always be added in at a later date in a "Hardcore" type mode play - that would actually be pretty awesome. | |
Qable wrote:
Hello all, I played a game recently called BulletWitch wherein reloading the gigantic, sweet-looking gun Alicia carried expended some of the magic she possessed for more effective spells. The ammunition flow was technically infinite, but spraying bullets everywhere with no regard to where you're aiming got you stuck with no bullets for uncomfortable periods of time while her magic replenished. Games like Rainbow Six and Left4Dead I find myself counting bullets and I typically end up with mass amounts of leftover ammunition at the end of the mission/campaign/what-have-you, and these types of systems lend more to the realism effect (sans things like the guys in Rainbow Six carrying upwards of 400 rounds on their person), while systems found in games like BulletWitch leave you to concentrate more on what you're shooting at without having to put *too* much thought into where your next round is going. I think the consideration goes more into the atmosphere as opposed to the genre, though, since being able to spray infinite shotgun rounds in a game that's supposed to have a horror/survival theme sorta defeats the "what if" tension where the player expects a slightly larger enemy with more health behind the next corner. Conversely, imagine playing a game like Gears of War where the Lancer only has 25 bullets in it. | |
They'll do that anyway. Ever play SS13? Admititedly, that mainly the /good/ players. The bad ones just use toolboxes. Keep in mind this is an RP game designed around co-op. (Worse than that is when you kill someone as traitor, get caught, then banned for griefing EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT!!! Well, anyway...)
| |