Throw out hardcoded miss chances?

[duck]

Been thinking about this one for a while. Does anyone actually like random RNG misses? The tension of clickshooting a target that's moving and shooting back at you adds a pretty wide margin of mechanical inaccuracy already. I don't really like that you can't reasonably shoot at people beyond 5 tiles and expect to hit.

The default accuracy formula is: you get 130% accuracy unaimed, and lose 15 every tile the bullet moves. That's 115% point blank, 100% at two tiles, 85% at 3, 70% at 4, 55% at 5, 40% at 6, 25% at 7 tiles. You can only see 7 tiles in any direction. That's bullets.

Lasers/tasers have been buffed so that they only lose 10% every tile. So. 120% at 1, 110% at 2, 100% at 3, 90% at 4, 80% at 5, 70% at 6, 60% at 7.

If you take the time to aim, add 30% accuracy to all percents.

But thinking more on it. Bulletguns already have an inaccuracy mechanic compared to lasers-- recoil. Your screen shakes everywhere and you can't see anything, which doooes mess up your aim. Lasers don't do that. After that, it's your aim, and after that, it's hardcoded RNG misschances. Oh, and then there's armor.

Soo. Does anyone actually like shooting and hitting someone and then missing because numbers? Would anyone be opposed to scrapping the system altogether?

I think it's detrimental. It removes the value of cover (because you can't hit someone without being up close) and reduces the value of player aim. Because you hit without hitting. It doesn't really add anything to the game besides a sense of pointless frustration. In my opinion, anyway.

[LetzShake]

I agree with this mostly . While I think Gunplay shouldn't be an important part of the game, since it's not all that often that guns are used by one armed person against another armed person, I think this would also counter the bad RP of dumbasses rushing a person with a gun thinking they can shove them down before they get their head blown off.

I think the way to balance this is to make aim matter. The 'hostage' mechanic should increase your accuracy since you're clearly aiming at the person, compared to 'hip firing' without it.

[Kane]

It's also quite embarrassing to have a supposedly gun-savvy character be unable to hit a target less than five tiles away, due to bad luck.

[Erik Tiber]

Throwing out hardcoded miss chances can also be easily justified as reflecting the futuristic nature of the setting. Simply state that the various firearms are smartguns, with gyroscopes inside them which stabilize the gun's aim. All the guns (except bartender's shotgun obviously) could be gyrostabilized, meaning that the weapon doesn't shoot at where the gun is pointed at the instance of firing, but rather at the weighted average of where it has been pointing for the past quarter of a second. I have no idea what sight would go well with a taser, because its ergonomics are different from a rifle so a reflex sight would probably not work (can a gun expert correct me if I'm wrong?). However, for weapons like the energy carbines and laser rifle, the weapon could also come with a reflex sight, and lasers such as the energy carbine's kill mode and the laser rifle could also come with adaoptive-optic mirrors that let the gun automatically adjust the angle of the beam by one or two degrees, further stabilizing the gun. The location of the reticule on the sight would take into account this adjustment and would thus also be stabilized, making it much easier to use the sight by reducing jitter.

When I read about that idea, it seemed like a nice little detail to add in. Of course this would just boil down to "Its Assisted Aiming System helps steady the gun and can slightly adjust the angle of the beam of the gun for increased accuracy" because nobody really cares about the details.

[Farcry11]

See, one problem I have with the "smart gun" idea is that it'd give people who shouldn't have firearms training a good excuse to be all badass and shootbang. Which is a problem we have with "adrenaline" already.

But it is a good idea at it's base. Just needs a little tweaking (maybe gunlocks, or certain knowledge required to calibrate the gyro systems?)

[Erik Tiber]

See, one problem I have with the "smart gun" idea is that it'd give people who shouldn't have firearms training a good excuse to be all badass and shootbang. Which is a problem we have with "adrenaline" already.

But it is a good idea at it's base. Just needs a little tweaking (maybe gunlocks, or certain knowledge required to calibrate the gyro systems?)

Eh, I don't think it would. Most people who want to powergame would do so already and wouldn't need this excuse.

We can just say that the smart gun won't help them if they don't even have any training with firearms. They might not be used to the gun balancing itself. They might not know how to turn on aim assist. For laser weaponry (including energy guns on kill), they'd probably be firing the weapon without proper eye protection that could make them start seeing spots, or might hold it incorrectly and burn themselves.

[Guest]

I'm all for buffing energy weaponry to be highly accurate, fast, yet low damaging.

I'm also all for making ballistic weaponry extremely lethal, yet very unreliable and inaccurate to use.

In this system, we get noticeable tradeoffs for using X weapon in Y situation, X being the independent variable, and Y being the resultant of the situation.

We should never make weaponry that offsets the noticable balance between conventional weaponry and energy weaponry.

Also, can we have tachyon beams yet?