FC Forums

what about this

we add more lives
around 80
then weapons could really be diffrent of eachother

and if you can make 2 extra precision hit boxes you wouldt be that overpowered with a sniper if it just does around 10 damage if it doesnt hit your head

then ship guns would be really storn doing around 60 damage
and normal handheld guns around 6
swords would also be possible to hit the precision boxes to increase handcombat

Guns still require skill to fight with, go play Flans mod on multiplayer, you'll see what I mean.

yes but this wil make a little more diffrence between the guns and use of tactics

Balance melee and projectile. As in, have a sword of (type X) and a gun of (type X) do roughly the same amount of damage, meaning it simply becomes a matter of preference. So if sword X does 10 hearts (50%) damage, gun X does too. That way, you can hide (gun) or run away (sword), and there's no definitive advantage to either for actions aboard ships.

Well war hammer might be a good example here, I mean thu have big ass guns but also have close range swords and stuff

Plasma sword = more damage than assault rifle. Assault rifles are cheap. Sniper rifles are there too, but won't do anything against a tank or mech. Infiltration is the core of boarding, but ground combat uses mech and stuff.

snipers should only deal alot of damage if it hits head or hart

Keon wrote:Plasma sword = more damage than assault rifle.

But that's not realistic at all!

Flies off in space ship made from blocks of wool.

Plasma both cuts and cauterize a wound. The thing about blade weapons is that they can hit a lot of places, while a bullet can jellify maybe a 3" square to the bullet depth(human bullets, that is to say). A sword can gouge a giant area, and plasma swords 3rd degree burn an area 2" from the cut wound, and every doubling inch has another degree. Armor also does bum squat unless it's some super-ceramics, which no crew would just have on when they need to have neural uplinks.

So yes, plasma sword>Assualt rifle.

No.

It's much easier to just point and shoot then, you know, apply effort to combat. That's beyond everyone :P

add the extra hit boxes everyone happy from upclose they are easyer to hit
from afar they do way more damage

they make both styles usefull
and it would be more challenging to hit those then just spam the enemy with a rain of bullits

The problem with having both is that if you have a sword and the other guy has a gun, you die.

But if you have a gun and the other guy has a sword and you die, your first reaction is going to be to betch and moan that they're OP. That's why I suggested removing them entirely, at least as far as infantry is concerned.

Tiel wrote:But if you have a gun and the other guy has a sword and you die, your first reaction is going to be to betch and moan that they're OP. That's why I suggested removing them entirely, at least as far as infantry is concerned.

...I assume you meant to reverse 'gun' and 'sword'? But no, that's not what would happen. What would happen is that you wouldn't see a single person choosing to go into battle armed only with swords, exactly as has happened in the real world.

(welcomes self back to FC forum)

In a boarding raid, a gun would be dangerous (as previously stated), cumbersome, and generally ineffective in CQC. Melee weapons, be they plasma envelopes, nanoedged combat blades, or some other kind of slashy-stabby-cutty thing, would be much easier to wield. Guns could be used, mainly small arms such as pistols or short-range weapons like a shotgun or plasma thrower. That said, it would be kind of stupid to get rid of longer-range infantry weapons. In an open battlefield, it's much easier and more efficient to damage the enemy when you don't have to run to within spitting distance.