Poll: Weapon Degradation
- Thread starter MurderousToaster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
FC2 can, on occasion, use it for tension, such as when I'm trekking across the map to get to a save point with naught but a rusty eagle and half a clip. That happens rarely though, so it sucks.
Hell will freeze over before I claim to be a firearms expert, but I'd like to think that any RPG game, featuring rest spots and the like, your character would have the good decency to wake up, take out a gun care kit and clean his weapon before leaving. Same with the FC2 safe houses.
I heard, HEARD, ONE THE INTERNET SO DON'T HOLD IT AGAINST ME IF IT'S BULL, that an M16 with misfire once after about 2 continuous clips firing as fast as possible, and regular care for it would make it very reliable, Vietnam's only problem being that US soldiers were told that it was a very advanced gun that damn near cleaned itself, the very muddy conditions and the beaucrats supplying them with particularly dirty bullets.
If a weapon with a reputation like the M16 can be reliable enough to survive about as many conflicts as you'll see in the average FO3 hike before it needs some TLC, most other guns, especially tried and tested designs like shotguns and bolt actions, shouldn't have a big problem with it.
Concerning the effects of degredation, I can understand accuracy suffering due to a warped barrel, or damage from breahes in the reciever letting gas escape, but I'm curious how a gun can consistenty explode from misuse. Like, actually prevent the bullet leaving the chamber, igniting the propellant and sending some of the frame flying.
Hell will freeze over before I claim to be a firearms expert, but I'd like to think that any RPG game, featuring rest spots and the like, your character would have the good decency to wake up, take out a gun care kit and clean his weapon before leaving. Same with the FC2 safe houses.
I heard, HEARD, ONE THE INTERNET SO DON'T HOLD IT AGAINST ME IF IT'S BULL, that an M16 with misfire once after about 2 continuous clips firing as fast as possible, and regular care for it would make it very reliable, Vietnam's only problem being that US soldiers were told that it was a very advanced gun that damn near cleaned itself, the very muddy conditions and the beaucrats supplying them with particularly dirty bullets.
If a weapon with a reputation like the M16 can be reliable enough to survive about as many conflicts as you'll see in the average FO3 hike before it needs some TLC, most other guns, especially tried and tested designs like shotguns and bolt actions, shouldn't have a big problem with it.
Concerning the effects of degredation, I can understand accuracy suffering due to a warped barrel, or damage from breahes in the reciever letting gas escape, but I'm curious how a gun can consistenty explode from misuse. Like, actually prevent the bullet leaving the chamber, igniting the propellant and sending some of the frame flying.
I am generally against it. In general terms most combat worthy firearms have a service life of tens of thousands of shots before requiring a major overhaul. Certain factors may decrease this life dramatically for specific components. For example, while the barrel of an M-249 can be used for thousands of shots under normal operating conditions, long bursts of sustained fire can heat the material past it's limits resulting in warping and fractures. In fact, a single sustained 200 round burst is sufficient to render the barrel unusuable in the future - the only hope of repair is melting it down and recasting the part.
In most video games where degredation occurs, it happens so rapidly that the only explanation is the user (who possess an immense capacity to repair a weapon) has no knowledge of how to clean and otherwise maintain the firearm. An M-4 for example can fire hundreds of shots in a sitting without problems but thanks to a design flaw (gas is dumped directly into the chamber to recock the weapon) a great deal of carbon fouling occurs. This eventually leads to irregularities in the operation of the weapon resulting in a notable increase in stoppages (the weapon fails to fully cycle) and jamming (the weapon fails to extract spent brass before loading a new round). This problem can be corrected simply by cleaning the fouling away. My own rifle fired many thousands of rounds while in my hands and during that time no part required replacement in spite of the fact that it had been in service for more than a decade before I recieved it.
As such, implementing such a system has no basis in realty and it's gameplay function simply adds another resource I am required to manage beyond healt and ammunition. While this can lead to emergent play if well executed (it gives players an active incentive to scanenge even if healthy and well armed) in most cases it simply adds a layer of busy work and inventory management I can do without.
In most video games where degredation occurs, it happens so rapidly that the only explanation is the user (who possess an immense capacity to repair a weapon) has no knowledge of how to clean and otherwise maintain the firearm. An M-4 for example can fire hundreds of shots in a sitting without problems but thanks to a design flaw (gas is dumped directly into the chamber to recock the weapon) a great deal of carbon fouling occurs. This eventually leads to irregularities in the operation of the weapon resulting in a notable increase in stoppages (the weapon fails to fully cycle) and jamming (the weapon fails to extract spent brass before loading a new round). This problem can be corrected simply by cleaning the fouling away. My own rifle fired many thousands of rounds while in my hands and during that time no part required replacement in spite of the fact that it had been in service for more than a decade before I recieved it.
As such, implementing such a system has no basis in realty and it's gameplay function simply adds another resource I am required to manage beyond healt and ammunition. While this can lead to emergent play if well executed (it gives players an active incentive to scanenge even if healthy and well armed) in most cases it simply adds a layer of busy work and inventory management I can do without.
It makes more sense if a melee weapon is damaged during it's use. Slaming a piece of metal forged into an edge into a plate of steel is hardly good for either implement. A simple parry with large weapons results in pitting and gouging on the weapon. A heavy impact on plate armor results in the armor being deformed. The crystaline structure of any metal is compromised after repeated impact (a concept known as metal fatigue). Under normal operation, these weapons sustain tremendous stress that reasonably require the regular intevention of a skilled smith to resolve. While modern firearms undergo similar stresses, superior materials and engineering ensure the weapon is well adapted for such things thus leading to dramatically improved service life under combat conditions. The most common problem with a firearm lies not in mechanical breakdown but rather buildup of foriegn particles in the mechanisms. An M-4 for example can be "broken" by simply introducing a single grain of sand in the extractor groove that results in regular jamming. Resolving the problem does not require part replacement - simply removing the offending particle is sufficient.Fingolfin High-King of the Noldor said:
waterhazard said:
Assault Rifles mainly, slight exaggeration on my part but there was incredible rust on them after a few magazines.
Sniper Rifles didn't degrade so much though.
It depends how you use it, and if you keep it out when walking around.Manhattan2112 said:
OT: If done correctly, it can add a layer of survival and resource management to a game that otherwise wouldn't. However, it only works in a game that is conductive to that sort of atmosphere. In a post-apocalyptic game (Fallout 3, or the upcoming Metro 2033, which I am looking forward to immensely) it add to the game, but we can all agree that it would feel awkward in MW2.
It's nothing but an exercise in realism where realism is not due to have weapons degrade in a game. Some people, who really want to play a military simulator more than a game, like it because it makes things harder. I don't.
I think weapon degradation is a pathetic, shallow way of making a game harder to use when you couldn't be bothered making the AI that would be worthy of existence within a Very Hard or Extreme difficulty setting, and since it's all not a truly random process (like the problems faced by real guns - sometimes there's a problem with the cannon, sometimes the gas, and sometimes you just fire a dud) it's only false realism anyway.
Guns don't just jam or misfire, they break, they can't go underwater (so, you know all that swimming you do in Far Cry 2, yeah, you're an idiot if you take guns down there in real life as any type of ammo except full metal jacket will be ruined), automatics rely on other resources to run than bullets so those can run out, and the list just goes on. Putting all of that into a game would ruin a) the amazing feeling of being a one man army who, through skill, can take out whole battalions, and b) any sense of flow in the gameplay as it was.
And that's the guns used in modern warfare, meanwhile ancient weapons were made to be even LESS durable, making simplistic attempts by designers like Bethesda to have "realistic" degradation systems laughable. Swords would obviously rust if you swam with them without stopping to maintain or even replace parts of them, wooden spear handles would rot over time, and arrows and bows all had similar issues, to say nothing of the string or feather used to make them extra accurate in later designs. Bottom line, you could not get them wet, at all, so fighting, say, in the rain was a battle to keep your weapons functional, often resulting in death for those who did not do a good job of it. Emulating that just hasn't been done yet, and who wants it anyway? It's nothing but a distraction from the enjoyable side of combat.
Far Cry 2 actually has flow issues as a result of these attempts at unnecessary realism; critics canned it for that pretty heavily. So I don't believe that weapons degradation should be universal to shooting games - it just has no element of fun to it except making you freak out in a fire-fight, so it should be left to the full-on simulators.
I think weapon degradation is a pathetic, shallow way of making a game harder to use when you couldn't be bothered making the AI that would be worthy of existence within a Very Hard or Extreme difficulty setting, and since it's all not a truly random process (like the problems faced by real guns - sometimes there's a problem with the cannon, sometimes the gas, and sometimes you just fire a dud) it's only false realism anyway.
Guns don't just jam or misfire, they break, they can't go underwater (so, you know all that swimming you do in Far Cry 2, yeah, you're an idiot if you take guns down there in real life as any type of ammo except full metal jacket will be ruined), automatics rely on other resources to run than bullets so those can run out, and the list just goes on. Putting all of that into a game would ruin a) the amazing feeling of being a one man army who, through skill, can take out whole battalions, and b) any sense of flow in the gameplay as it was.
And that's the guns used in modern warfare, meanwhile ancient weapons were made to be even LESS durable, making simplistic attempts by designers like Bethesda to have "realistic" degradation systems laughable. Swords would obviously rust if you swam with them without stopping to maintain or even replace parts of them, wooden spear handles would rot over time, and arrows and bows all had similar issues, to say nothing of the string or feather used to make them extra accurate in later designs. Bottom line, you could not get them wet, at all, so fighting, say, in the rain was a battle to keep your weapons functional, often resulting in death for those who did not do a good job of it. Emulating that just hasn't been done yet, and who wants it anyway? It's nothing but a distraction from the enjoyable side of combat.
Far Cry 2 actually has flow issues as a result of these attempts at unnecessary realism; critics canned it for that pretty heavily. So I don't believe that weapons degradation should be universal to shooting games - it just has no element of fun to it except making you freak out in a fire-fight, so it should be left to the full-on simulators.
This. It worked in Beowulf: The Game because it was based in Norse mythology and weapons weren't as durable as they are today (plus Beowulf had the strength of 30 men, so 30 times to wear). And it works in DDO, although permanent damage gets annoying. But then, acid spells will do that to stuff...Pigeon_Grenade said:
It can add a nice touch to a game, but most developers abuse it and turn it into a bad feature.
Weapon degradation is a great idea, but most game have it degrade far too quickly, and make it expensive to keep it in tip-top shape (if you can repair it at all).
Weapon degradation is a great idea, but most game have it degrade far too quickly, and make it expensive to keep it in tip-top shape (if you can repair it at all).
I like weapon degradation in Fallout 3 as it was easy enough to repair everything and the "one-of-a-kind" weapons could be repaired with inferior versions.
I feel I should point out that on my very first play-through of F3, I didn't know you could repair weapons so I spent half the game searching for a new Laser Rifle every 20min.
I feel I should point out that on my very first play-through of F3, I didn't know you could repair weapons so I spent half the game searching for a new Laser Rifle every 20min.
disagree completely.MurderousToaster said:
if there's going to be a weapon degradation system then there should be an option for performing basic maintenance.
the dart gun rusted out so ridiculously quickly that it had to be replaced every one or two missions.
the degradation is accelerated to a ridiculous degree, which was okay on random battered weapons, but on the as new store bought ones?
I had the opposite experience. One of the reasons I finally said "oh, screw this" to Fallout 3 was that I hated constantly having to repair my weapons, and never being able to go fifteen minutes without "oh, snap, your gun sucks now".Kuchinawa212 said:
For as long as it's realistic, and if there is weapon degradation you should be able to clean it instead of having to pay for repairs.
Fallout 3 is a good example, weapon degradation was a bit too sudden but it was nice that you could repair the guns with parts from a similar gun.
Fallout 3 is a good example, weapon degradation was a bit too sudden but it was nice that you could repair the guns with parts from a similar gun.
I hate it, all I want is to use my mini chainsaw forever without it breaking. Though, I used the book thing to get it to last for a really long time... but still.
As long as there is a reasonably easy way to either replace it or repair it, I don't mind it as much, however, if you can lose a BFW due to it (Like how I did once in Dark Cloud with the ChronicleII *seeths with fury*) and said weapon is unrepairable/replaceable, then I'm liable to send the disc hurling into the next star.
If the game is trying to be as realistic as possible I am all for the degredation of weapons, however if a game doesn't need it it just gets annoying to me. But if it is to fix up the weapon or it degrades slowly (preferably both) then it is fine with me.
Ahh see. You're working with 200 year old stuff. So I assumed that it was going to take a lot of damage. Like springs not working and triggers jamming. So you need to go and fix them. While I see your consern with constant upkeep, I always found a insane amount of hunting rifles, so Ol' painless was always in good shape (helps if you have a super hight repair skill)Seldon2639 said:
If the game is trying to be as realistic as possible I am all for the degredation of weapons, however if a game doesn't need it it just gets annoying to me. But if it is to fix up the weapon or it degrades slowly (preferably both) then it is fine with me.