So people don't keep whipping out preloaded guns to get around the crafting reload.
I know why. I am saying that arbitrary restrictions are poor design. If the idea needs arbitrary restrictions like that to be balanced, then it isn't balanced.
So people don't keep whipping out preloaded guns to get around the crafting reload.
I know why. I am saying that arbitrary restrictions are poor design. If the idea needs arbitrary restrictions like that to be balanced, then it isn't balanced.
Excuse, not reason. No-reason-limits-are-unrealistic is just something people say so that they can get their way. Limits already are placed in this game. Let me list some arbitrary limits you may have overlooked, that already exist:
-64 stack limit. In survival test it was 99. Why the change? Inventory now exists alone with chests. Notch wants to emphasis the use of chests.
-1 food stack. Why? So that people don't have 64 stacks of grilled pork and are virtually invincible.
-1 armor set. A stretch, yes, but I'm sure people used to wear leather padding under plate armor.
If you are going to hate guns so much, feel free to state some useful reasons; like balance, overcomplicated or "adds no play value" (if you are going to use this, re-read the threads OP, or my post on page 6). I have my reasons for not liking guns, but this weapon forgoes each one, therefore I have no real reason to be against it (other guns on the other hand...). Get over the fact that you hate guns for the fact that they are guns, and look into how it will effect the game. This gun does quite a lot of good for this game, not just adding another overpowered ranged weapon (hence the armor-piercing addition).
Also, please read over the OP anyways if you continue to think this is a 1-hit-kill gun.
So people don't keep whipping out preloaded guns to get around the crafting reload.
I know why. I am saying that arbitrary restrictions are poor design. If the idea needs arbitrary restrictions like that to be balanced, then it isn't balanced.
Excuse, not reason. No-reason-limits-are-unrealistic is just something people say so that they can get their way. Limits already are placed in this game. Let me list some arbitrary limits you may have overlooked, that already exist:
-64 stack limit. In survival test it was 99. Why the change? Inventory now exists alone with chests. Notch wants to emphasis the use of chests.
-1 food stack. Why? So that people don't have 64 stacks of grilled pork and are virtually invincible.
-1 armor set. A stretch, yes, but I'm sure people used to wear leather padding under plate armor.
If you are going to hate guns so much, feel free to state some useful reasons; like balance, overcomplicated or "adds no play value" (if you are going to use this, re-read the threads OP, or my post on page 6). I have my reasons for not liking guns, but this weapon forgoes each one, therefore I have no real reason to be against it (other guns on the other hand...). Get over the fact that you hate guns for the fact that they are guns, and look into how it will effect the game. This gun does quite a lot of good for this game, not just adding another overpowered ranged weapon (hence the armor-piercing addition).
Also, please read over the OP anyways if you continue to think this is a 1-hit-kill gun.
Those are not arbitrary limits. Those are chosen values. You have to have some limit on a stack, so a reasonable number is chosen. Food simply has a stack limit of 1. High level armours have multiple layers; wearing a lighter armour underneath doesn't make sense. Saying that you can only load 2 guns at a time is arbitrary and comes out of nowhere. It is easy to understand why you inventory is filling up, but why your third gun won't load is arbitrary.
And if the feel of the game counts for nothing, then why is there a feel to it? Why don't we have cybernetic warriors as mobs, and cowboys dueling each other, and battle cruisers sailing the ocean?
I know why. I am saying that arbitrary restrictions are poor design. If the idea needs arbitrary restrictions like that to be balanced, then it isn't balanced.
Excuse, not reason. No-reason-limits-are-unrealistic is just something people say so that they can get their way. Limits already are placed in this game. Let me list some arbitrary limits you may have overlooked, that already exist:
-64 stack limit. In survival test it was 99. Why the change? Inventory now exists alone with chests. Notch wants to emphasis the use of chests.
-1 food stack. Why? So that people don't have 64 stacks of grilled pork and are virtually invincible.
-1 armor set. A stretch, yes, but I'm sure people used to wear leather padding under plate armor.
If you are going to hate guns so much, feel free to state some useful reasons; like balance, overcomplicated or "adds no play value" (if you are going to use this, re-read the threads OP, or my post on page 6). I have my reasons for not liking guns, but this weapon forgoes each one, therefore I have no real reason to be against it (other guns on the other hand...). Get over the fact that you hate guns for the fact that they are guns, and look into how it will effect the game. This gun does quite a lot of good for this game, not just adding another overpowered ranged weapon (hence the armor-piercing addition).
Also, please read over the OP anyways if you continue to think this is a 1-hit-kill gun.
Those are not arbitrary limits. Those are chosen values. You have to have some limit on a stack, so a reasonable number is chosen. Food simply has a stack limit of 1. High level armours have multiple layers; wearing a lighter armour underneath doesn't make sense. Saying that you can only load 2 guns at a time is arbitrary and comes out of nowhere. It is easy to understand why you inventory is filling up, but why your third gun won't load is arbitrary.
And if the feel of the game counts for nothing, then why is there a feel to it? Why don't we have cybernetic warriors as mobs, and cowboys dueling each other, and battle cruisers sailing the ocean?
Ok, so the limit is backed.
I did a bit more research in the thread. Go over what you need to get guns. Then what you need for loading the guns. Without the 2 gun limit, if you manage to pull off 10 loaded guns, you have spent the time required to get them. So all I can say is that 5 people will die if you have perfect aiming, and no one has any sense to attack you while you CAN'T MOVE (stated that you can't move while firing). I seriously doubt 90% of griefers have the willingness to spend such time for such a small reward (say 30+ minutes to get everything for 10 loaded guns, 1 minute max of gun-happy-time and a max of 5 kills). However, with the limit you will spend much less time for an equal reward (1 kill at your disposal).
As for the feel of the game: if you feel the entire game is revolved around guns after adding a more advanced weapon (a total of 1), then you should stop playing Minecraft. When the bow was added, people didn't think that the wild-west was going to rampage through the website and every server (and I don't see a mass of them now). Why is the gun so different? Adding it won't bring out a space-aged game with aliens.
Notch hasn't gotten to the cyborgs yet (I hope he hurries).[/sarcasm]
Again, if you think that 1 gun means that the "technology" of the game enhances by 550%, then I suggest you take history class. When the eastern world found the western world, the western natives didn't pull out their battlemechs the day after they traded for guns. For them, guns were as technological as things got until a century or so later. By my knowledge, they saved such technology until they were in a war or headed out for an attack, not hunt prey or hold their friends hostage. Why? Because they were very hard to get, very limited in uses, and they were still comfortable in using their bows. Those who wished not to have guns were not forced to have them.
bows indisputable fit in with any medieval/fantasy setting; there was no outrage because that is what you expect. I never said that they weren't historically accurate. I said I didn't like the feel. Serfs may be historically accurate, that doesn't mean I want them in the game.
I see 4 main ways guns can be added, on two axis:
First axis:
Hit-trace:
Your shot reaches its target near instantly. This is a trace-hit, which Notch specifically said he didn't want to include. There is no dodging against a hit trace. It is purely based on the skill of the attacker.
vs.
Projectile:
You fire a distinct projectile out, like the bow does. Could theoretically be dodged. This makes guns un-gunlike, and another weapon would probably fulfill the role better.
Second Axis:
Accurate:
You hit where you aim, like the bow. Granted, the bow does have some variance, but not enough to really matter.
Inaccurate:
Your shot goes in the general direction you aim. Hitting the enemy is mainly chance, out of the control of either combatant. I dislike this because I find it to be poor game design. If the game is not based on chance to start with, having an element that is pure chance in the combat just causes chaos. The outcome of a battle can easily be determined by whether the gunshot happens to hit or not, instead of the preperation and skill of the respective combatants.
Quadrants
You can combine these to form 4 archtypes of gun implementations:
Inaccurate hit-trace:
Purely random chance. Pull the trigger, and hope you hit. You opponent can't do anything about it, you can't make it more likely, it is a pure gamble. This is not a good design, and I do not want to see it in minecraft. This is the worst type of gun.
Inaccurate projectile:
Gives the defender a chance to protect themselves, but the attacker is gambling that the projectile will fire in the right way to hit the enemy. This is also poor design, but is better than the hit-trace
Accurate hit-trace:
Sniper rifle effect. You instantly hit what you aim at. This makes guns very strong and can easily dominate the battlefield. The defender cannot do anything to protect themselves, and it would significantly shift the balance of the game. I do not want this in minecraft. This is precisely the type of gun that notch specifically said he would not add.
Accurate projectile:
The attacker's skill at aiming comes into play, and the defender can counter it. This is actually a good quadrant. However, bows are already in this quadrant. They are filling the only gun-like weapon archetype that this game is suited for. Adding a gun here would basically be a reskinned bow with tweaked properties. It also makes little sense for a gun; a crossbow can satisfy the high-damage, reload-limited niche in this that guns would fill, and it fits the feel of the game much better.
So, I have now shown that I do not want guns for gameplay reasons. Happy?
I haven't read through the thread yet, but have you guys thought about a person using multiple guns? Sure it might not seem so dangerous because you have to reload all of them but with only a few hits from it in the effective range would kill someone :/
Serfs may be historically accurate, that doesn't mean I want them in the game.
... I want serfs.
Anyways. to me this is HILARIOUS because no, you are not making these arguments against guns for game reasons. You are actully mirroring ACTUAL arguments against guns when they first began appearing on battlefields. Valid though your points may be. And I certainly don't disagree with them. I am partially in favor of implementing some form of crude gun, but you make a good point; it would only be filling a role already filled.
In order to simulate the impact of a
110 lb longbow I needed to determine what the momentum was at full distance. This would be the slowest it would hit but, from a tactical angle, would be the most likely time archery would
have been used.
A skilled longbowman could release between 10 - 12 arrows per minute. The longbow could also pierce armour at ranges of more than 250 yards. The medieval knight had no protection against the arrows of the longbow.
http://www.thearchersparadox.co.uk/can-arrows-pierce-armour/
This one has videos of tests. The second video clearly shows that at <20m, a longbow can pierce armour. In minecraft, that is 20 blocks; most fighting is done well within that range.
The third video shows the aftermath of several volleys of arrows. It is quite perforated.
The last video shows arrows going through 4 layers of chainmail. Granted, it was the wrong type, but it still demonstrates peircing power.
One person failing to demonstrate peircing does not disprove it, but people demonstrating peircing does prove it.
Yes but you're clearly missing the point of my post bro, I said that the heavy longbow variants had trouble piercing, these heavy longbow variants were made out of the Type 16 hardened steel arrows with hooked edges. So what does this mean? It means that the guy in the vid was showing what ONE of the most expensive type of arrow would do, albiet not the strongest (type 16), mind you that the English army during that time were severely lucky and underfunded in those battles. So taking all of that into consideration what can one deduce? The average arrow even when shot by a longbow could've not penetrated armor, not only that, but now that Notch has made the tip of the arrows into flint, how much real penetrative power do you think those arrows would lose now (irl that is) thanks to the fact they can only be made out of flint now?
If anything arrows should loose their edge against armor when made out of flint, and gain back their strength or even a bit more when made out of iron/steel again, while the Arquebus would remain how the op wants it to be except toned down a bit. Let's say that when not in armor it equals to say 3/4 health gone or 1/2, when armored it equals to the armor entirely decimated but body relatively intact. BTW I love that stacking and carrying restriction, plus these "arbitrary restrictions" have already been made anyhow as pointed out by people.
My other arguments against guns still stand, irrespective of the ability of a bow to pierce armour. Also, we aren't equipping armies, we are specially crafting a bow for our own use. Our characters can punch down trees and mine tunnels with ease, we are obviously very strong. We can manage a 150+ lb draw bow without a problem.
And the effectiveness against armour is called more damage with iron arrowheads instead of flint. It is already in the system, it doesn't need to be included twice.
It is already in the system, it doesn't need to be included twice.
Really?
Last time I made a bow and arrow I'm sure I couldn't use steel, hmm I might stop using flint again then.
I think we should be able to use different materials to create different tiers of arrows. I am guessing we don't have that already since we don't currently have a method of selecting which type of arrow to fire.
I think we should be able to use different materials to create different tiers of arrows. I am guessing we don't have that already since we don't currently have a method of selecting which type of arrow to fire.
Make a thread about it then bro, after all this thread is supposed to absorb everything about guns, not projectile weapons
My other arguments against guns still stand, irrespective of the ability of a bow to pierce armour.
Okay so I read these arguments an you know what?
Why are you against the inaccurate for the Arquebus?
It would not be "ungunlike" because guns IRL are not as accurate as one would believe, and the Arquebus wasn't either given it's primitive nature. Not only that but the Arquebus should infact not be fired instantly, infact it should be fused based as it was a fused based weapon anyhow.
Many people here want the gun/musket/whatever to be inaccurate, require tons of resources, and do so-so damage. I think if this requires MORE resources, it should be better than the bow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[quote=8bit]
By balance, do you mean make it totally worthless?
I know why. I am saying that arbitrary restrictions are poor design. If the idea needs arbitrary restrictions like that to be balanced, then it isn't balanced.
No. I am also against guns, mainly because I don't like the feel of having them in the game.
Excuse, not reason. No-reason-limits-are-unrealistic is just something people say so that they can get their way. Limits already are placed in this game. Let me list some arbitrary limits you may have overlooked, that already exist:
-64 stack limit. In survival test it was 99. Why the change? Inventory now exists alone with chests. Notch wants to emphasis the use of chests.
-1 food stack. Why? So that people don't have 64 stacks of grilled pork and are virtually invincible.
-1 armor set. A stretch, yes, but I'm sure people used to wear leather padding under plate armor.
If you are going to hate guns so much, feel free to state some useful reasons; like balance, overcomplicated or "adds no play value" (if you are going to use this, re-read the threads OP, or my post on page 6). I have my reasons for not liking guns, but this weapon forgoes each one, therefore I have no real reason to be against it (other guns on the other hand...). Get over the fact that you hate guns for the fact that they are guns, and look into how it will effect the game. This gun does quite a lot of good for this game, not just adding another overpowered ranged weapon (hence the armor-piercing addition).
Also, please read over the OP anyways if you continue to think this is a 1-hit-kill gun.
Hints&Tips Informative Guides for Minecraft
Those are not arbitrary limits. Those are chosen values. You have to have some limit on a stack, so a reasonable number is chosen. Food simply has a stack limit of 1. High level armours have multiple layers; wearing a lighter armour underneath doesn't make sense. Saying that you can only load 2 guns at a time is arbitrary and comes out of nowhere. It is easy to understand why you inventory is filling up, but why your third gun won't load is arbitrary.
And if the feel of the game counts for nothing, then why is there a feel to it? Why don't we have cybernetic warriors as mobs, and cowboys dueling each other, and battle cruisers sailing the ocean?
Ok, so the limit is backed.
I did a bit more research in the thread. Go over what you need to get guns. Then what you need for loading the guns. Without the 2 gun limit, if you manage to pull off 10 loaded guns, you have spent the time required to get them. So all I can say is that 5 people will die if you have perfect aiming, and no one has any sense to attack you while you CAN'T MOVE (stated that you can't move while firing). I seriously doubt 90% of griefers have the willingness to spend such time for such a small reward (say 30+ minutes to get everything for 10 loaded guns, 1 minute max of gun-happy-time and a max of 5 kills). However, with the limit you will spend much less time for an equal reward (1 kill at your disposal).
As for the feel of the game: if you feel the entire game is revolved around guns after adding a more advanced weapon (a total of 1), then you should stop playing Minecraft. When the bow was added, people didn't think that the wild-west was going to rampage through the website and every server (and I don't see a mass of them now). Why is the gun so different? Adding it won't bring out a space-aged game with aliens.
Notch hasn't gotten to the cyborgs yet (I hope he hurries).[/sarcasm]
Again, if you think that 1 gun means that the "technology" of the game enhances by 550%, then I suggest you take history class. When the eastern world found the western world, the western natives didn't pull out their battlemechs the day after they traded for guns. For them, guns were as technological as things got until a century or so later. By my knowledge, they saved such technology until they were in a war or headed out for an attack, not hunt prey or hold their friends hostage. Why? Because they were very hard to get, very limited in uses, and they were still comfortable in using their bows. Those who wished not to have guns were not forced to have them.
Hints&Tips Informative Guides for Minecraft
I see 4 main ways guns can be added, on two axis:
First axis:
Hit-trace:
Your shot reaches its target near instantly. This is a trace-hit, which Notch specifically said he didn't want to include. There is no dodging against a hit trace. It is purely based on the skill of the attacker.
vs.
Projectile:
You fire a distinct projectile out, like the bow does. Could theoretically be dodged. This makes guns un-gunlike, and another weapon would probably fulfill the role better.
Second Axis:
Accurate:
You hit where you aim, like the bow. Granted, the bow does have some variance, but not enough to really matter.
Inaccurate:
Your shot goes in the general direction you aim. Hitting the enemy is mainly chance, out of the control of either combatant. I dislike this because I find it to be poor game design. If the game is not based on chance to start with, having an element that is pure chance in the combat just causes chaos. The outcome of a battle can easily be determined by whether the gunshot happens to hit or not, instead of the preperation and skill of the respective combatants.
Quadrants
You can combine these to form 4 archtypes of gun implementations:
Inaccurate hit-trace:
Purely random chance. Pull the trigger, and hope you hit. You opponent can't do anything about it, you can't make it more likely, it is a pure gamble. This is not a good design, and I do not want to see it in minecraft. This is the worst type of gun.
Inaccurate projectile:
Gives the defender a chance to protect themselves, but the attacker is gambling that the projectile will fire in the right way to hit the enemy. This is also poor design, but is better than the hit-trace
Accurate hit-trace:
Sniper rifle effect. You instantly hit what you aim at. This makes guns very strong and can easily dominate the battlefield. The defender cannot do anything to protect themselves, and it would significantly shift the balance of the game. I do not want this in minecraft. This is precisely the type of gun that notch specifically said he would not add.
Accurate projectile:
The attacker's skill at aiming comes into play, and the defender can counter it. This is actually a good quadrant. However, bows are already in this quadrant. They are filling the only gun-like weapon archetype that this game is suited for. Adding a gun here would basically be a reskinned bow with tweaked properties. It also makes little sense for a gun; a crossbow can satisfy the high-damage, reload-limited niche in this that guns would fill, and it fits the feel of the game much better.
So, I have now shown that I do not want guns for gameplay reasons. Happy?
MOD EDIT: That was pretty bad. Don't do that again.
... I want serfs.
Anyways. to me this is HILARIOUS because no, you are not making these arguments against guns for game reasons. You are actully mirroring ACTUAL arguments against guns when they first began appearing on battlefields. Valid though your points may be. And I certainly don't disagree with them. I am partially in favor of implementing some form of crude gun, but you make a good point; it would only be filling a role already filled.
You can be my serf any day.
Yes but you're clearly missing the point of my post bro, I said that the heavy longbow variants had trouble piercing, these heavy longbow variants were made out of the Type 16 hardened steel arrows with hooked edges. So what does this mean? It means that the guy in the vid was showing what ONE of the most expensive type of arrow would do, albiet not the strongest (type 16), mind you that the English army during that time were severely lucky and underfunded in those battles. So taking all of that into consideration what can one deduce? The average arrow even when shot by a longbow could've not penetrated armor, not only that, but now that Notch has made the tip of the arrows into flint, how much real penetrative power do you think those arrows would lose now (irl that is) thanks to the fact they can only be made out of flint now?
If anything arrows should loose their edge against armor when made out of flint, and gain back their strength or even a bit more when made out of iron/steel again, while the Arquebus would remain how the op wants it to be except toned down a bit. Let's say that when not in armor it equals to say 3/4 health gone or 1/2, when armored it equals to the armor entirely decimated but body relatively intact. BTW I love that stacking and carrying restriction, plus these "arbitrary restrictions" have already been made anyhow as pointed out by people.
And the effectiveness against armour is called more damage with iron arrowheads instead of flint. It is already in the system, it doesn't need to be included twice.
Really?
Last time I made a bow and arrow I'm sure I couldn't use steel, hmm I might stop using flint again then.
I think we should be able to use different materials to create different tiers of arrows. I am guessing we don't have that already since we don't currently have a method of selecting which type of arrow to fire.
Make a thread about it then bro, after all this thread is supposed to absorb everything about guns, not projectile weapons
Okay so I read these arguments an you know what?
Why are you against the inaccurate for the Arquebus?
It would not be "ungunlike" because guns IRL are not as accurate as one would believe, and the Arquebus wasn't either given it's primitive nature. Not only that but the Arquebus should infact not be fired instantly, infact it should be fused based as it was a fused based weapon anyhow.
[quote=8bit]
By balance, do you mean make it totally worthless?