Actually i've made it so ranged weaponry is only slightly stronger than close combat(melee) weaponry, but it takes more to maintain, and while it is powerful it is very limited.
Aug 24 2011, 10:48 pm
In response to Danbriggs
|
|
Komuroto
 |
|
Jmurph wrote:
So you are looking for archaic firearms? Try flintlock, matchlock, arquebuss, blunderbuss, musket, wheellock, snaplock, caplock, snaphance, miquelet, Boyer rifle, and, my personal favorite, hand cannon. That's a good idea. Infantry will often come up with 'pet-names' for certain weapons based on how they perform or misperform. Terms like 'The Bastard' or rather unflattering names are sometimes common. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread80303/pg1 Also, if you look into Shadowrun a lot of weapon models are sort of given arbitrary model names, such as being named after gods or animals and such. Depends on what sorts of period the weapons are set in. | |
Komuroto wrote:
Actually i've made it so ranged weaponry is only slightly stronger than close combat(melee) weaponry, but it takes more to maintain, and while it is powerful it is very limited. BAD IDEA WARNING Guns have the range advantage, and if they have a power advantage, it completely unbalances everything. Even if it takes more to handle, people will have one strategy: Blow people away with guns until they get into melee range. Here's how I would do it. Gun: High Range, Low Damage. High Rate of Fire. Melee: Low Range, High Damage. Low Rate of Attack. Guns are fairly weak, but can knock of several shots before reloading. Melee is slower but stronger. The low damage balances the range factor and the higher rate of fire keeps it from being totally useless. Do you see my point here? | |
YES but i've given melee players abilities that ranged players can not access.
Also melee being much easier to train to higher levels. | |
Hmm, melee being easier is kind of counter intuitive. I mean most males from an agragarian or tribal background would have some close combat ability from growing up wrestling, sports, etc. But for the completely untrained, it is easier to teach them how to "point and shoot" then any significant hand to hand skills, which require greater physicality and (generally) more practice. Likewise, assuming good eyesight, it is much easier to train in sharpshooting than martial arts. By their nature, shooting is essentially just one's own skill while martial arts requires constant reaction and response to another's skill.
In terms of game balance, I am not sure why melee skills would be desirable even if easier to learn if ranged weaponry gives advantages of greater damage from distance. Even if it is a bit harder (and what does that even mean? Slower improvement?), it is a more useful investment. Players *will* find the optimal route and abuse it. I agree with balancing combat types to balance out with relative advantages. Realistically, melee combat should be more deadly but have the disadvantage of more personal risk. Range offers the safety of distance, but at much decreased effectiveness without significant training and experience (most bullets miss; people take cover and with adrenaline pumping and taking snap shots, it's often hard to hit anything. Combat is not a shooting range where you have unlimited time and no real pressure). For a game, it doesn't really matter as long as they balance out- so the suggestion on considering rate of attack, damage, range, etc. are good ones. | |