Minecraft seems to be a very low tech game in general, at the very most we're reaching the Industrial Age but not much beyond that. If it's possible to implement guns in way that fits with the theme then I'd be all for it, I love the idea of muskets and one-shot weapons.
What's the point of adding a weapon to the game if it has only disadvantages added to balance it out? It has no advantages, so why bother adding in the first place then? The only one I can see is insta-shot, but that's a given. If it's so crappy, people will prefer bows anyway. Noone wants an expensive and crappy weapon.
Your assuming that the only reason to pick a weapon is for its effectiveness. People could want it for the simple image they have of their character, this is especially true of role players.
You know I think if the guns were made breakable, then a comparison to the power of the bow and arrow would be unneccesary, as the bow and arrow would have an instant advantage, provided the gun recipe was expensive enough. You could maybe make it similar to dead rising's guns in fact, obviously not in terms of actual weaponry, but in terms of when you make a gun it has a number of bullets assigned to it, say 10, and when you've used them all you have to make another gun. Just an idea.
This becomes a decision between making minetracks or using guns.
I feel that the gun being powerful would not be a problem, so long as it required tech/materials found in later stages of exploration or it has a high cost.
Personally I feel it should be medium difficulty to craft the gun, but in order to make ammunition you need to make a ball shot mold (a tool), and use it with a torch to melt down one bar of iron for one bullet. I feel one bar of iron for one shot would be plenty costly to keep it balanced, as there is already a very high demand for iron in-game.
So you craft a gun. [] []
You craft a ball shot mold (just an example, this could be made in many different shapes).
[] []
Then at any point you can craft the actual shot (on either a 2x2 or a 3x3, = ball shot mold). []
Iron is highly abundant if you know what you are doing. The main use of this is mine tracks. Lots and lots of minetracks. If you shunted all of the minetrack production into guns, you could easily maintain any weapon with a reasonable durability. Using that as a balancing factor doesn't really work.
Cost as a limiting factor only really works if the end result is supposed to be definitively better. A diamond pick has more cost than an iron pick, but it is meant to be a distinct improvement over it. However, if an item is supposed to be an alternative, a higher cost alone does not make it a good gameplay choice. Having the dynamics of standing still while firing, having to reload it in the inventory, etc. give it a selection of advantages and disadvantages that would allow it to work as an alternative weapon. An increased cost does not give it a good trade-off; the choice is to either make it, or not to make it, as opposed to allowing different situations where it may be better in than others.
So unless the gun is intended to simply be a higher-tier bow(which, from my understanding, people do not want), simply using an increased iron cost to balance it does not make for good game design. This is not to say that an increased iron cost cannot be part of the tradeoffs, but it should not be the sole tradeoff.
The original quote I was commenting on:
Quote from Wilks228 »
You know I think if the guns were made breakable, then a comparison to the power of the bow and arrow would be unneccesary, as the bow and arrow would have an instant advantage, provided the gun recipe was expensive enough. You could maybe make it similar to dead rising's guns in fact, obviously not in terms of actual weaponry, but in terms of when you make a gun it has a number of bullets assigned to it, say 10, and when you've used them all you have to make another gun. Just an idea.
He seems to be presenting guns as being a higher-tier weapon, and nothing more. We have not been trying to get a higher-tier weapon, but an alternative.
Additionally, you have to look at the opportunity costs of making items. If I make an iron pickaxe, that is 3 iron I am not spending on a sword. If I have enough iron, I can get both. Pickaxes and swords are relatively cheap, and don't have a high opportunity cost associated with making them. Where the real decision will arise will be between making a gun, or making mine tracks. Both are the high-cost iron consumers that will be competing for the iron left over from swords or pickaxes. If I have 25 iron, spending 3 of it on a pickaxe is irrelevant compared to whether or not to spend 18 iron on mien tracks or on a gun. Hence, as I said earlier, the choice is mine-tracks or guns.
Furthermore, the idea of a temporary gun as a resource drain is redundant. The main cost in making a gun will be the iron. Hence, if a gun lasts for x shots, you are simply increasing the cost of each shot by 1/x * the amount of iron in a gun. Hence, there is only really a cost for each bullet, which could be easily accounted for directly with an increased cost of the bullet. Hence, there is no fundamental difference between charging for a new gun every x shots or simply making more expensive bullets.
I don't think it would just be a better bow. The only real advantage it would have over the bow is it's power. Enough to take out a low level mob in one hit. Is that a game breaker, would it make it too easy? Of course not. The advantages would be offset by the greater cost of either the weapon or ammunition, the long reload time, it's malfunction in rainy weather and it's shorter range. I figure that the cost of ammunition would make killing a single, low level mob with your gun a stupid waste as well. A bow or sword would be much more economical. Why would you want a firearm then? Because there are going to be bigger, more imposing mobs coming long later. Like dragons, which are confirmed. I imagine it would still take 6-8 shots to kill a dragon with a firearm.
I think each cartridge should be made with iron shot, two units of gunpowder and four of paper.
[] []
= iron shot, four from one ingot. = paper
The different resources and the amount of gunpowder you consume offsets the power making it not always better than the bow and not always worse. Also, I think it would degrade like any other tool. Give it as many uses as the flint and iron has before it brakes. It's not like you'd use it all the time.
I think it would be good if older guns were added in.
In my personal opinion, and yes, I am bracing for the huge amount of hate I'm about to get for this; Minecraft could learn a lot from first person shooters, gameplay wise.
The combat in minecraft really isn't all that excellent. Yes, it's fun, it's not horribly broken, but it is lack luster.
You can either use cheap strategy and win instantly, or try to have a fun, fair fight with your enemies and die instantly. Neither of which I enjoy much. The main issues I see are with the rate of attacks, and the lack of good knockback effects to keep you from getting damaged repeatedly. Spiders, for instance, will hump you vigorously if miss so much as a single sword swipe and drain half your health.
I think it would be good if older guns were added in.
In my personal opinion, and yes, I am bracing for the huge amount of hate I'm about to get for this; Minecraft could learn a lot from first person shooters, gameplay wise.
The combat in minecraft really isn't all that excellent. Yes, it's fun, it's not horribly broken, but it is lack luster.
You can either use cheap strategy and win instantly, or try to have a fun, fair fight with your enemies and die instantly. Neither of which I enjoy much. The main issues I see are with the rate of attacks, and the lack of good knockback effects to keep you from getting damaged repeatedly. Spiders, for instance, will hump you vigorously if miss so much as a single sword swipe and drain half your health.
Combat is broken, but I wouldn't say it has to learn from FPS.
FPS is the wrong move
The combat has to learn from a variety of genres out there here's some of the combat suggestions I've made (most have been shotdown)
Clambering
Rolling Dodge
Melee is much more effective against zombies and skeletons than ranged weapons
With these combat can finally be much more than just circle strafing and clicking the mouse button like a retard. But sadly the community is against this with Notch himself on the fence because he finds it hard to animate and because he thinks it would add needless complexity.
I agree with spartacuscat. Combat does need improving, but FPSs are not the place to look. A relatively simple suite of combat improvements could make things much better. For example:
Blocking(preferably with sheilds)
- this alone would expand combat greatly
allowing off-hand or multiple-hand weapons
- Expanding on the shield to allow more combative options and strategies
vulnerability/resistance to melee/range
- simple addition that would demand more varied tactics.
FPSs do not have the proper structure to combat for minecraft. Their combat is primarily involved with instantaneous damage at range, and are structured to operate in a modern->futuristic setting. Minecraft would do better learning from likes of oblivion, which actually is designed around swords, shields, and arrows.
@Mystify, I've been hearing people on the IRC sayign that they've seen Notch agree that shields would be awesome, I'm crossing my fingers that it's true, and that if it is true it's like that one thread where we said it should be like Elder's Scrolls.
OH GOD I CAN'T WAIT FOR AT LEAST SOME SHIELDS
I mean sure rolling dodge like demon's souls would be great but shields would just open up combat alot more,and it would make room for heavier weaponry too!
I don't think that the combat is terrible but there are definitely ways it could be made much better. Some kind of shield would be a huge plus.
I don't think Minecraft absolutely needs firearms but they would be really fun. You don't really see primitive firearms in games.
It seems to me like Notch wants to take it in a strong fantasy direction, which disappoints me some. It's all pretty stereotypical. Been done before. I don't think any game should have slimes. They've been first on the rpg enemy roster since when? Dragon Warrior in 1986 or something? Skeletons too. What's next? Black magicians? A bunch of different golems would crush me.
1:Not overpowered
2:Long reload
Your assuming that the only reason to pick a weapon is for its effectiveness. People could want it for the simple image they have of their character, this is especially true of role players.
For the sake of clarity, here you go.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThis becomes a decision between making minetracks or using guns.
Personally I feel it should be medium difficulty to craft the gun, but in order to make ammunition you need to make a ball shot mold (a tool), and use it with a torch to melt down one bar of iron for one bullet. I feel one bar of iron for one shot would be plenty costly to keep it balanced, as there is already a very high demand for iron in-game.
So you craft a gun.
You craft a ball shot mold (just an example, this could be made in many different shapes).
[]
Then at any point you can craft the actual shot (on either a 2x2 or a 3x3,
I think this would result in a very balanced gun.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumYou know I'm seeing a trend here on the boards of people increasing the costs of things to balance them out...
Horrible
Wars begin
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumSo unless the gun is intended to simply be a higher-tier bow(which, from my understanding, people do not want), simply using an increased iron cost to balance it does not make for good game design. This is not to say that an increased iron cost cannot be part of the tradeoffs, but it should not be the sole tradeoff.
The original quote I was commenting on:
He seems to be presenting guns as being a higher-tier weapon, and nothing more. We have not been trying to get a higher-tier weapon, but an alternative.
Additionally, you have to look at the opportunity costs of making items. If I make an iron pickaxe, that is 3 iron I am not spending on a sword. If I have enough iron, I can get both. Pickaxes and swords are relatively cheap, and don't have a high opportunity cost associated with making them. Where the real decision will arise will be between making a gun, or making mine tracks. Both are the high-cost iron consumers that will be competing for the iron left over from swords or pickaxes. If I have 25 iron, spending 3 of it on a pickaxe is irrelevant compared to whether or not to spend 18 iron on mien tracks or on a gun. Hence, as I said earlier, the choice is mine-tracks or guns.
Furthermore, the idea of a temporary gun as a resource drain is redundant. The main cost in making a gun will be the iron. Hence, if a gun lasts for x shots, you are simply increasing the cost of each shot by 1/x * the amount of iron in a gun. Hence, there is only really a cost for each bullet, which could be easily accounted for directly with an increased cost of the bullet. Hence, there is no fundamental difference between charging for a new gun every x shots or simply making more expensive bullets.
I think each cartridge should be made with iron shot, two units of gunpowder and four of paper.
[]
The different resources and the amount of gunpowder you consume offsets the power making it not always better than the bow and not always worse. Also, I think it would degrade like any other tool. Give it as many uses as the flint and iron has before it brakes. It's not like you'd use it all the time.
In my personal opinion, and yes, I am bracing for the huge amount of hate I'm about to get for this; Minecraft could learn a lot from first person shooters, gameplay wise.
The combat in minecraft really isn't all that excellent. Yes, it's fun, it's not horribly broken, but it is lack luster.
You can either use cheap strategy and win instantly, or try to have a fun, fair fight with your enemies and die instantly. Neither of which I enjoy much. The main issues I see are with the rate of attacks, and the lack of good knockback effects to keep you from getting damaged repeatedly. Spiders, for instance, will hump you vigorously if miss so much as a single sword swipe and drain half your health.
Combat is broken, but I wouldn't say it has to learn from FPS.
FPS is the wrong move
The combat has to learn from a variety of genres out there here's some of the combat suggestions I've made (most have been shotdown)
Clambering
Rolling Dodge
Melee is much more effective against zombies and skeletons than ranged weapons
With these combat can finally be much more than just circle strafing and clicking the mouse button like a retard. But sadly the community is against this with Notch himself on the fence because he finds it hard to animate and because he thinks it would add needless complexity.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumBlocking(preferably with sheilds)
- this alone would expand combat greatly
allowing off-hand or multiple-hand weapons
- Expanding on the shield to allow more combative options and strategies
vulnerability/resistance to melee/range
- simple addition that would demand more varied tactics.
FPSs do not have the proper structure to combat for minecraft. Their combat is primarily involved with instantaneous damage at range, and are structured to operate in a modern->futuristic setting. Minecraft would do better learning from likes of oblivion, which actually is designed around swords, shields, and arrows.
OH GOD I CAN'T WAIT FOR AT LEAST SOME SHIELDS
I mean sure rolling dodge like demon's souls would be great but shields would just open up combat alot more,and it would make room for heavier weaponry too!
I don't think Minecraft absolutely needs firearms but they would be really fun. You don't really see primitive firearms in games.
It seems to me like Notch wants to take it in a strong fantasy direction, which disappoints me some. It's all pretty stereotypical. Been done before. I don't think any game should have slimes. They've been first on the rpg enemy roster since when? Dragon Warrior in 1986 or something? Skeletons too. What's next? Black magicians? A bunch of different golems would crush me.
True I've never ever seen a Matchlock weapon in a video game that is not an rts or ts
I can't think of a single example.
Well there is one example, but the thing was added as a joke in the game
Game is MGS4