Guns

[anubite]

How should guns be handled in this game? Will their rate of fire be less "realistic" (much faster than once a minute)? Or could we consider giving them bayonets with an alternative attacking mode while in close range? Could they be considered a "side arm" as in, you use a rifle of some sort, but resort to using a melee weapon after firing it a finite number of times in combat (because its reload speed is fairly long?).

Edited December 12, 2012 by anubite

[Sacred_Path]

I could definitely see guns as a one-shot sidearm for front liners. *cough* Darklands *cough*. I'm all for long reload time and high damage (same as crossbows). A high velocity metal ball hitting you in the abdomen should drain stamina quite a bit. And no I don't care if the penetration power of a longbow is actually similar to that of a crossbow, it's about balance.

 

Since guns are supposed to be so effective against mages though... I expect some limitations. Maybe ammunition is rare/ expensive. Maybe mages tend to attack in packs lest they be picked off like rabbits one by one.

[Alexjh]

I would definitly go with guns as a tradeoff weapon - a high damage weapon with a reload time that means in standard combat you are more or less dead once your shots are used up. Definitly would work on the assumption that you use guns as an opening volley before switching into something more practical, or save your guns for shots against high value targets or to finish fights quickly when someone is in trouble.

 

I wouldn't say it has to be necessarily a minute reload, but certainly at least fast as a crossbow which in turn should be slower than bows.

[Diagoras]

Considering the ridiculous speed multiplier which is usually given to crossbow reloading, and the ridiculous accuracy modifier that is given to bows, I'm not sure realistic muzzle-loading speeds make sense, And this is ignoring D&D's even more preposterous takes - I mean, look at multishot! I think appeals to realism with firearms ring hollow unless they're applied uniformly across all weapons, or the same "awesome modifier" is applied to all weapons.

 

Since firearms were used as primary weapons by some military units (including knights!) at the time P:E is roughly analogous too, I'd be surprised if that wasn't an option. Reloading speed enhancements are totally possible, ranging from paper cartridges and breechloading weapons, to double-barreled weapons or revolving barrel/cylinder pepperboxes. Another approach, of course, is the always dependable "carry a bunch of guns with you" favored by Imperial Reiters of the 16th century.

 

If we're using realism to inform our decisions (as it appears Obsidian is), guns were favored for their fantastic armor penetration abilities at range. Note that compared to many melee weapons (especially warhammers), the actual armor penetration wasn't fantastic - but it blew other ranged weapons out of the water. Individual accuracy is also mentioned: the ability to hit and kill man-sized, moving, armored targets at range. It's no coincidence that the first dedicated military sharpshooters used firearms. Ammo was incredibly cheap next to the relatively expensive arrows or bolts, and was also easier to carry, allowing shooters to blaze away in engagements without concern of running low on shots. Longbowmen, in contrast, are often mentioned being careful to conserve ammunition.

 

Rate of fire can be maintained without fatigue, allowing shooters to wear heavy armor and engage in melee combat once closed, though this is more of a problem with the longbow in general. And of course, firearms are relatively easy to use somewhat effectively with little training, while longbows and even crossbows require more practice and care. This should not be used to denigrate them, however. High quality weapons in the hands of expert marksman have pulled off amazing shots - the Turkish sniper fire during the siege of Rhodes coming to mind - and expert musketmen divisions could get high rates of fire (4-5 a minute are the numbers tossed around) once they deployed their heavy weapons. And of course, this all ignores various expensive modifications, like rifling and breechloading, which militaries avoided but adventurers might go for.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Diagoras

[Jojobobo]

I would like a long reload, so you have to chose between leaving that character vulnerable or just letting them charge in and musket-whip people.

[AGX-17]

I would like a long reload, so you have to chose between leaving that character vulnerable or just letting them charge in and musket-whip people.

 

The power would have to be massive to justify that. If I'm only going to be able to get one shot off during a fight it should do such massive damage that the highest-DPS classes do a double-take and spit water out of their mouths when they see the effects/numbers.

 

And muskets are not meand to be used as cudgels. You'd typically have a bayonet, and even then you've effectively got a poorly-balanced substitute for a pike.

Edited December 13, 2012 by AGX-17

[Diagoras]

And muskets are not meand to be used as cudgels. You'd typically have a bayonet, and even then you've effectively got a poorly-balanced substitute for a pike.

 

The era P:E seems to be aiming for, at least in firearms technology, we're pre-bayonet. And in fact, the bayonet wouldn't be very helpful, as this is the era where the price of plate armor (though not good plate armor) begins to fall like a rock as economies of scale take hold, but heavy armor is still useful enough to wear. In fact, there are examples of bayonets from this era, and many of them are essentially maces you can screw on to the end of your gun! Much more helpful against an armored foe then a blade. The bottoms of pistols also ended in a giant ball for more than balancing reasons - it could fetch an enemy a good clonk on the head in a tight spot.

 

Of course, that doesn't tell us much about adventurers, does it? The reasons bayonets weren't used until later used were mainly military ones, and drawing direct parallels between the militaries of the time and adventurers isn't very helpful due to their very different combat needs and resources.

[Atreides]

Rogues sneaking up and getting "backstab" damage multiplier with a shotgun for mega damage could be really funny.

[jivex5k]

I'd like the ability to stab with a bayonet, and then fire the round into the enemies skull with the bayonet still lodged in it.

After that he'd better be dead, or you'd better have backup for your shotgun wielding warrior there.

I'd also like the possibility of a weapon jam to blow up in your face, but limit it to very high end rifles/shotguns.

Lower end weapons should be more reliable, maybe if they take damage use that to determine the chance of a jam.

 

Problem is, this jamming would only apply to the guns so they would have to be powerful enough to accept the additional risk.

I'd probably just leave jamming out of the game for that reason right there...but it would be cool, just don't see it balancing well.

 

Bayonets should be the crappiest of crappy piercing weapons, worse than daggers.

 

The force of the projectile though...it should shred through the strongest armor and have a huge potential for knocking down the enemy it hits.

 

So basically, make the shot powerful as hell, the bayonet weak as hell (if you even need to include them).

[Dream]

Treat them the same way crossbows are treated in pretty much every rpg (including the IE ones).

[rjshae]

I'm wondering what role cannon will play in the game? Perhaps as a siege weapon with the PC's stronghold? It seems like too powerful of a weapon to use in a typical encounter, so perhaps the effects will only have an indirect impact? Will the developers opt for fortifications that take the cannon into account? (I.e. such as the use of ditches and ramparts.)

Edited December 13, 2012 by rjshae

[Diagoras]

I'd also like the possibility of a weapon jam to blow up in your face, but limit it to very high end rifles/shotguns.

Lower end weapons should be more reliable, maybe if they take damage use that to determine the chance of a jam.

 

 

 

How does this make sense? If anything, lower quality weapons should misfire more often.

 

The force of the projectile though...it should shred through the strongest armor and have a huge potential for knocking down the enemy it hits.

 

Remember that plate armor continued to be used through to the late 17th century. Firearms and armor are still in a state of relative balance, in the early 1500s actually saw an explosion in the use of heavy armor.

 

Treat them the same way crossbows are treated in pretty much every rpg (including the IE ones).

 

There are some significant differences. Can you expand on why they should be treated the same?

Edited December 14, 2012 by Diagoras

[Dream]

Treat them the same way crossbows are treated in pretty much every rpg (including the IE ones).

 

There are some significant differences. Can you expand on why they should be treated the same?

 

I meant in the sense that you can't possibly fire crossbows as fast as you do in pretty much every game that has them, and guns in P:E should get the same treatment.

 

Basically give us m4s, glocks, and benellis that look like old timey weapons.

[Diagoras]

I meant in the sense that you can't possibly fire crossbows as fast as you do in pretty much every game that has them, and guns in P:E should get the same treatment.

 

Ah, gotchya. Yeah, if you're applying an "awesomeness" modifier, apply it uniformly - excepting game balance decisions.

 

Basically give us m4s, glocks, and benellis that look like old timey weapons.

 

That might be getting a bit ahead of things.

[SaibotMK]

I'm wondering what role cannon will play in the game? Perhaps as a siege weapon with the PC's stronghold? It seems like too powerful of a weapon to use in a typical encounter, so perhaps the effects will only have an indirect impact? Will the developers opt for fortifications that take the cannon into account? (I.e. such as the use of ditches and ramparts.)

 

Do we know if Strongholds will have some kind of seige mode/quest yet?

[rjshae]

If we have guns in a game then they should work as the best weapons avaiable, hand down. Superior range, damage etc. Like in Fallout you have other options like fists and melee but they are clearly inferior and done for kicks or for companions, and not for normal gameplay.

Sure, they'd be like the hunting rifles in Fallout 3, except they take many rounds to load (under ideal conditions) and have trouble hitting the broad side of a barn at 100 paces. Meanwhile the guy with the clearly inferior sword has lopped off your arms and spilt your guts.

[jivex5k]

I'd also like the possibility of a weapon jam to blow up in your face, but limit it to very high end rifles/shotguns.

Lower end weapons should be more reliable, maybe if they take damage use that to determine the chance of a jam.

 

 

 

How does this make sense? If anything, lower quality weapons should misfire more often.

Just for balance, not realism.

Balance > Realism IMHO when it comes to combat elements.

[Diagoras]

If we have guns in a game then they should work as the best weapons avaiable, hand down. Superior range, damage etc.

 

Why? I mean, historically speaking this would be completely inaccurate. Early black powder firearms were but one kind of weapon in a vast arsenal of weapons, all with their own unique strengths and weaknesses. I really don't see why they would be the best weapons available for any given quality, from either a realistic or gameplay perspective.

 

Just for balance, not realism.

Balance > Realism IMHO when it comes to combat elements.

 

Well, we should note that P:E has a definite lean towards realism - check out Josh's post on armor, for example. But even from a balance perspective, this doesn't make sense. As you level up and get better equipment, why not make one of the vectors reliability? It'd be both realistic and encourage players to improve their equipment. Making higher-level items uniformly worse only confuses the leveling process.

 

Of course, depending on the level of micromanagement in weapons, you could have trade-offs among a given weapon tier between reliability, power, reload speed, etc. But arbitrarily making higher tier weapons inferior in an aspect seems to punish players for leveling up more than anything.

[clippedwolf]

If we have guns in a game then they should work as the best weapons avaiable, hand down. Superior range, damage etc. Like in Fallout you have other options like fists and melee but they are clearly inferior and done for kicks or for companions, and not for normal gameplay.

 

The first guns had poor accuracy, but they could punch through heavy armor. Know what else could do that? Crossbows. Crossbows were more reliable, bows had more range. If you have the first generation of guns in the game I would expect that canons would also be in PE somewhere as well, but I digress.

The guns I would expect to see in PE would be muzzle loaded: blunderbusses and matchlock pistols and rifles.

[Diagoras]

The first guns had poor accuracy, but they could punch through heavy armor.

 

Well, if you're talking about hand gonnes, then yes. After the invention of the stock (and especially the wheellock, which enabled the rise of irregular military units), however, you see accuracy improvements snowballing. There's a reason that sharpshooters of the 16th century used firearms rather than bows.

 

Crossbows were more reliable, bows had more range.

 

Really? Longbows, maybe, but otherwise I'd think it'd vary on the weapon. And of course, range and effective range are different.

 

The guns I would expect to see in PE would be muzzle loaded: blunderbusses and matchlock pistols and rifles.

 

According to Word of God, we're in the wheellock era, which you'd think adventurers would prefer over matchlocks. So, arquebus/musket/pistol/petronel/hackbut being the main subtypes, hackbuts being breech-loaded.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Diagoras

[Diagoras]

This isn't our world. Developing process of guns doesn't have to go the same stages as in our world. And we have magic so if we have magic swords that increase accuracy or damage the same apply to guns. If we have magic bows that do not require arrows, the same apply to guns.

 

If you just wave your hands and say "Magic!", then yes anything can happen. However, the world of Project: Eternity is very similar to the world of Late Medieval Europe, suggesting that magic is used as a flavoring rather than the main course.

 

Even given a world where magic can do anything, your premise doesn't hold. If magic can do anything - why have mundane weapons systems at all?

 

It seems more likely that we'll see something out of Tolkeinian (sic) fantasy - namely, magic being so unreliable/uncontrollable/rare that economic, social, and military development can mimic our own system. ie. Like the old IE games, excluding Torment which was special.

 

Why use guns in a game when they are not the primary weapon.

 

What? Why use anything in the game when it's not the only weapon available? Because you can choose which weapon to use based on class, abilities, the weapon's advantages and disadvantage, etc. Have you played a top-down RPG before?

[Diagoras]

I'm just going to point you to Sawyer's update on armor design. I think reading it might show you that the design philosophy being adopted here is a little disconnected from the one you're espousing.

[PrimeJunta]

You might want to read that again, Sharp_one. 'Cuz Sawyer is clearly stating that his intention is to do exactly that -- make a variety of armor/weapon combos available, and avoid a situation where there's only one objectively "right" (dominant) way to build and equip a character. Whether he'll succeed is a different matter, but he does have a fair bit of experience tuning systems to do just that, so I think the odds are in his favor.

[Diagoras]

We would like our armor system to accomplish the following goals:

• Make wearing different types of armor a real choice for the player based on both character build and circumstance. E.g. a swashbuckling lightly-armored fighter will tend to wear one of a variety of light armor types (maybe a gambeson or leather cuirass), but in a circumstance where protection is of utmost importance, the player may still choose to wear heavy armor with a loss in build optimization.
  
• Disassociate armor value from class type in favor of different build types. E.g. a wizard can wear heavy armor and be a different type of wizard instead of just "a wizard who is bad".
  
• Allow a character to maintain a character concept throughout the game without suffering extreme mechanical penalties. E.g. a character who starts the game in some form of light armor can complete the game in some form of light armor with appropriate gameplay trade-offs compared to wearing heavy armor.
  

 

So, he's explicitly interested in making all armor types useful, disassociating class and armor, and ensuring that different armors can be switched out for different situations. What about that suggests that every class will use one armor because it's the best, each class can essentially be tied to an armor, and you're stuck with that armor for the entire game? If nothing, then why are you saying that's going to be the case with weapons?