🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Weaponry
Author
Why is it that in some games, a single weapon can be considered the "ultimate weapon". Like a powerful sword could be used to kill any monster.
That's not very realistic. A sword works fine against creatures that have flesh, but not very well against creatures made of ice or rock. And battering weapons work fine against big brutes, but not against, say, an elf, or some other quick and small creature.
Just a thought...
- DarkMage139
"Real game developers don't change the rules. Real game developers don't break the rules. Real game developers make the rules!"
"Originality (in games) is the spice of life!"
Edited by - DarkMage139 on 7/6/00 9:22:30 AM
Why would you want an ultimate weapon in your game anyhow? This bears in closely with the powermaxing controversy atm.
To me it a begins at the start of the game. If a player has difficulty at the start of a game then they will want more powerful weapons. This to them and me seems fun. You get drawn to the need for a more powerful weapon.
To problem that occurs in most games is how easy the ultimate weapon is got and how long it lasts when you have it. If you must have it there at all.
Overkill is fun but for a limited time. With hardcore and experienced gamers this fun lasts even shorter. Well thats my belief anyhow.
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
To me it a begins at the start of the game. If a player has difficulty at the start of a game then they will want more powerful weapons. This to them and me seems fun. You get drawn to the need for a more powerful weapon.
To problem that occurs in most games is how easy the ultimate weapon is got and how long it lasts when you have it. If you must have it there at all.
Overkill is fun but for a limited time. With hardcore and experienced gamers this fun lasts even shorter. Well thats my belief anyhow.
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
Well Now,
Half the fun of a good game is the
challenge and that will be diminished
some what if you posses the ultimate
weapon. How about if you gain a really
good weapon but loose it. The game would
dip and rise. Certainly different and
challenging to. What do you think?
STVOY
Mega Moh Mine!!
Half the fun of a good game is the
challenge and that will be diminished
some what if you posses the ultimate
weapon. How about if you gain a really
good weapon but loose it. The game would
dip and rise. Certainly different and
challenging to. What do you think?
STVOY
Mega Moh Mine!!
Gaining powerful items like magical swords should be the greatest quest of all. Items like that should really be rare (if you ask me).
The rarer the item, the greater the drive to acquire one. The fact that players will know that there are only a few items out there, will only add to their drive. The ones that couldn''t care less about powerful items will just do the same thing that they would do if there were thousands of powerful items available...it doesn''t affect them.
The ones that ''have to have'' that powerful item, will just really have to struggle for it, never knowing if their efforts will be rewarded. The few that do, will become well-known in their area. For they will wield more power than others...
They will inspire awe, admiration, fear...and jealousy. They will have to watch their backs at all times, but they will at least have the aid of their newfound weapon to guide them through the possible attempts on their life.
And that''s just the combat items...what about items that will aid entire villages? That way, there could be groups of players struggling to acquire a certain item...and again, that item might be cause for conflict. One town might attack another to gain the item. Or they might try to buy it. Or they might try to trade for it.
To me, rare is good. Easy to acquire überitems are bad.
Silvermyst
The rarer the item, the greater the drive to acquire one. The fact that players will know that there are only a few items out there, will only add to their drive. The ones that couldn''t care less about powerful items will just do the same thing that they would do if there were thousands of powerful items available...it doesn''t affect them.
The ones that ''have to have'' that powerful item, will just really have to struggle for it, never knowing if their efforts will be rewarded. The few that do, will become well-known in their area. For they will wield more power than others...
They will inspire awe, admiration, fear...and jealousy. They will have to watch their backs at all times, but they will at least have the aid of their newfound weapon to guide them through the possible attempts on their life.
And that''s just the combat items...what about items that will aid entire villages? That way, there could be groups of players struggling to acquire a certain item...and again, that item might be cause for conflict. One town might attack another to gain the item. Or they might try to buy it. Or they might try to trade for it.
To me, rare is good. Easy to acquire überitems are bad.
Silvermyst
here''s an idea for weapons...do something like what ss2 did. allow the user to upgrade and modify any weapon they want (but not all, all the way). if they like a sword, but it is no good against magic creatures, then allow them to cast a repel spell on it. if they like the fire rate of a machine gun, but find the power of the ammo is too weak, let them load different ammo into it. if they kill a dragon or something and they want to remove it''s claws and attach them to the edge of their axe, let them. but this must be regulated some how. maybe they have only a certain number of resources (like a mod kit or something) that is needed to do a certain job. maybe adding a silencer would cost 5 mod points to attach, where as a scope would cost 25. this could be more transparent to the user, instead of having mod points or something ridiculous like that. the point is that the user should be able to beef up the weapons they want if they want to. maybe they want to balance their weapons so each one can do one or two specialized things...
just a thought
<(o)>
just a thought
<(o)>
Well, I like the modification idea, myself. Here''s how my system works:
You take a base weapon, that has given physical attributes (agi+2, int+5, atk+12, def+3, etc) and elemental attributes (physical attack, ice/fire/wind/water/earth/holy/death attack), plus any special/magical attacks it may allow. Then, the player, with his/her gold pieces (when the player''s characters haven''t the class to modify their own weapons) or his/her skill points (SP, when the player''s character will be doing the modification themselves - the more SP used, the better the quality of the modification). For example:
The player has a +50 atk, +23 def, +7 int, -8 agi Firebrand, with a fire attack attribute and the ability to perform the attack FireStrike+2 (a number in reference to the strength of the FireStrike attack). The player also has two items that he wants to combine with this sword: one is an inanimate carbon rod (if you get that reference, good for you!), and the other is an Water Crystal. If the player combines the sword with the rod, he gets a +55 atk, +27 def, +7 int, -12 agi Firebrand, with the fire attribute and the ability of FireStrike +3 - a decent investment. However, if the player added the Water Crystal instead, now s/he puts the fire out (fire + water = puff of smoke) and s/he has a +50 atk, +23 def, +7 int, -8 agi Metal Sword Of Positively Little Use, with a physical attack attribute and the ability to perform the attack Poke You With A Sharp Metal Object. In other words, the combination has failed miserably, and the sword is worth LESS than the one which he began. In other words, element rules have applied. However, what the player MUST realise is that the base attributes for a weapon can ONLY be improved, and almost never is a new attribute created. A firebrand will ALWAYS have a fire attribute, and never other attributes. This way, the "ultimate weapon" is one that the player is still willing to give up in a give situation.
-Jaemes Weare
You take a base weapon, that has given physical attributes (agi+2, int+5, atk+12, def+3, etc) and elemental attributes (physical attack, ice/fire/wind/water/earth/holy/death attack), plus any special/magical attacks it may allow. Then, the player, with his/her gold pieces (when the player''s characters haven''t the class to modify their own weapons) or his/her skill points (SP, when the player''s character will be doing the modification themselves - the more SP used, the better the quality of the modification). For example:
The player has a +50 atk, +23 def, +7 int, -8 agi Firebrand, with a fire attack attribute and the ability to perform the attack FireStrike+2 (a number in reference to the strength of the FireStrike attack). The player also has two items that he wants to combine with this sword: one is an inanimate carbon rod (if you get that reference, good for you!), and the other is an Water Crystal. If the player combines the sword with the rod, he gets a +55 atk, +27 def, +7 int, -12 agi Firebrand, with the fire attribute and the ability of FireStrike +3 - a decent investment. However, if the player added the Water Crystal instead, now s/he puts the fire out (fire + water = puff of smoke) and s/he has a +50 atk, +23 def, +7 int, -8 agi Metal Sword Of Positively Little Use, with a physical attack attribute and the ability to perform the attack Poke You With A Sharp Metal Object. In other words, the combination has failed miserably, and the sword is worth LESS than the one which he began. In other words, element rules have applied. However, what the player MUST realise is that the base attributes for a weapon can ONLY be improved, and almost never is a new attribute created. A firebrand will ALWAYS have a fire attribute, and never other attributes. This way, the "ultimate weapon" is one that the player is still willing to give up in a give situation.
-Jaemes Weare
First you say something isn''t realistic. Then in the same paragraph, you mention:
1. creatures made of ice and/or rock
2. elves
What''s not realistic here anyway?
1. creatures made of ice and/or rock
2. elves
What''s not realistic here anyway?
Sometimes I think a sword should just be a sword. In real life, a rusty old blade can kill someone just as easy as a masterfully crafter one. The difference is mainly aesthetic.
Sometimes I think magic items are just phallic compensation. Evidence of how much money you have, how much you have killed, how mcuh you can kill. Most games are contests of materialism, and whoever is most dedicated to said materialism wins. Joke''s on them though, all it comes down to is how much time you invest, and in the end you have nothing to show for it except your fragile, real life ego. Good luck finding a girlfriend.
Sometimes I think magic items are just phallic compensation. Evidence of how much money you have, how much you have killed, how mcuh you can kill. Most games are contests of materialism, and whoever is most dedicated to said materialism wins. Joke''s on them though, all it comes down to is how much time you invest, and in the end you have nothing to show for it except your fragile, real life ego. Good luck finding a girlfriend.
"Sometimes I think a sword should just be a sword. In real life, a rusty old blade can kill someone just as easy as a masterfully crafter one. The difference is mainly aesthetic."
Well, okay, sure. But we''re not talking about *real life*. In *games* you''re looking to break the rules a little - you expect the audience will give you some suspension of disbelief, or you''ve failed to entertain them. That''s what fantasy is about, and so just letting a rusty old sword do as much damage as that beautiful new Regal Blade is counter-productive - why should I get the 50,000 G to get that Regal Blade if this rusty one will do as much damage?
-Jaemes Weare
Well, okay, sure. But we''re not talking about *real life*. In *games* you''re looking to break the rules a little - you expect the audience will give you some suspension of disbelief, or you''ve failed to entertain them. That''s what fantasy is about, and so just letting a rusty old sword do as much damage as that beautiful new Regal Blade is counter-productive - why should I get the 50,000 G to get that Regal Blade if this rusty one will do as much damage?
-Jaemes Weare
Well, I dunno if a "rusty old blade" should do as much damage as a real expensive and extravigant rare sword. If its just against flesh, then the difference comes down to how the weapon is handled, its weight and such. If its against armor then a magical or rare sword should be alot stronger able to bust through the armor.For a regular sword, If its heavy, like some broadsword it should be able to hack away at nearly anything in one hit but because its heavy the attack should be rather slow. A rare and expensive sword should be able to do the same thing but with faster attacks. It should be lighter and have little maintenance upkeep. a rusty ld sword cannot bust through the death knights heavy plate armor, and breaks to pieces with one hit. The rare regal blade of equal weight smashes through the armor in one hit, killing the knight. Thats what might seperate common short swords or your rusty old blades from your rare regal blades.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
