I was wondering which type of gun/weapon inventory styles people prefer? Do you like Halo, for example, which forces you to only carry two weapons at once, while exposing you to a varied number of weapons? Or something like Quake, which basically has a standard set that you can hold at any time? Other variants include GTA-like no limits, or Counter-strike esque variants of the Halo example. Also, would you prefer many weapons that might be poorly balanced, or a few weapons that are balanced perfectly? Just wanted to get some opinions, Panayoti

Gimme a bunch of varied use weapons. I don''t need more than one chaingun, one rocket launcher, one shotgun...Counter-Strike screwed that up for me. Invariably I grabbed the AK47 and started owning. There was no reason to switch guns or even use SMGs. And they better be balanced. Remeber the original Tribes and its mortars or any Quake flavor and its rocket launchers?

Don''t much care how many weapons there are - just so long as they''re reasonably balanced... And, of course, single-player and deathmatch have different weapon balancing: single-player, the ammo supply does a lot of the balancing for you; deathmatch, respawn times are the major limiting factor on the best weapons.

Edward,

I understand your meaning, but does that mean you''d prefer a huge list of unbalanced weapons or a small list of perfectly balanced ones?

Or maybe I am to assume you would prefer the small list of balanced weapons. I guess that''s what you are implying.

Just clarifying,

P

I would have to go for the Halo/CounterStrike weapon load out, but with fewer more balanced weapons. I can''t understand why CS needs so many damn guns. Are they sponsored by the NRA?

Give me a few guns, a few grenade types, and some that are not too obvious. I think there is a game coming out soon called, umm, Devastation? They put 2x4''s in the game, rat bombs... you know, the wacky stuff. Let me pick up a chair and ambush somebody with it. Let me kick somebody off a roof.

Balance should be ok, doesn''t have to be perfect. Just as long as people use different things now and then. I think AQ2 had pretty good balance for all of the weapons.

A like the loadout system. HAs anyone played the Urban Terror mod for Q3A? Just a handful of different gear, but you could opt for helmets, kevlar vests, suppressors, up to three firearms and a variety of grenades. No single gun dominated, and each was conducive to a different style of play. You could load out for stealth and play it like Rainbow Six or you could bust out the shottie and an AR and blast your way through the fights.

Loadout also eliminates the whole "jump across the lava bridge to get the railgun" thing in quake. That leads to serious weapon camping, which blows. I''d rather have a hard time getting through a pinch point because a guy who brought a sniper rifle keeps shooting the buttons off of my coat than have to put up with some camping bastard who won''t let me get the rocket launcher. At least in the first scenario you can bring up a guy with a grenade launcher and shell the crap out the the sniper.

Definitely go for the small list of balanced weapons.

Or maybe, have a lot of weapons but only have a small subset available on any given level.

The situation you want to avoid is: given the choice between weapon A and B, any sane player ALWAYS picks A over B because it is so superiour.

Sooo, if you never put weapons A and B on the same level, then that situation will never occur.

Thanks for the awesome replies guys.

It appears everyone agrees that balance beats out selection. So, what kind of useful balance can we introduce into a world that has only AK-47s and shotguns (or, without stretching the imagination too far at least).

As far as I can tell, the categories would be:
0) Melee weapon (high damage, very short range, medium refire)
1) Hand gun (medium damage, medium range, slow refire)
2) Shotgun gun (high damage, short range, slow refire) - spread
3) Machine gun (low damage, medium range, fast refire)
4) Sniper (high damage, long range, slow refire)
5) Bazooka (high damage, medium range, slow refire)

Specials:
6) Grenade (high damage, short range, slow refire) - ease of use through some sort of "toss" key
7) Energy-based variants of the above, except not requiring ammo.. instead recharge slowly before refire... If we allow a bit of an imaginative stretch.



[edited by - panayoti on February 17, 2003 12:47:45 AM]

Assuming that the "machinegun" listed is either a submachinegun or an assault rifle, I''d give it medium damage. A guy with a pistol SHOULD be at a disadvantage when facing a guy with a SMG/AR. There''s a different between balancing weapons and making the little guns as good as the big ones. You should have a slight feeling of desperation as you sling your MP5 and bring out the Glock.

Remember Halo''s pistol? It was a better sniper rifle than the rifle itself!

IMO, all those categories should have high damage. One shot from a SMG will kill, and so will one slice from a knife. If you want to have different damages, present that in the form of armors (vests, helmets, etc.)

The sniper and the bazooka should really be limited by ammo ( ~5 for sniper, ~1 for bazooka).