When you have soldier in front of you and you shot him with 300 bullets from LMG, and he still have health and fight you like nothing happened, yeah that is problem.
as I mentioned, armor is really just a way to get sponge mechanics into the game and totally makes sense in the world.
Is a weapon accuracy system the only way to do this? % chances your bullets hit your crosshair?
outside of looter shooters like Borderlands, where does this really happen though?
What's the problem with them in RPGs?
What's the problem with them in RPGs?
What's the problem with them in RPGs?
Headshot accuracy can be a thrill which is why a number of games ‘reward’ the player by doing extra damage and or extra XP for getting them, sometimes but not always instant killing the target.I do MAINLY because I exclusively choose bolt action sniper rifles. Headshot accuracy is my thrill.
Yes, but there is a difference there. Sponge mechanics are just that, you slice it out little by little until you get a better damage dealer. Armor system is much more flexible in that it can be leashed to provide more tactics to the gameplay.
Most FPS RPGs are looter shooters, so you're taking most of the available sample size.
they're the same way, just different window dressing. either way, its an incentive to either upgrade your equipment or your whole approach. the functional change is the same, you need more hits to kill.
the only difference is that one LOOKS more true in its presentation. the end result is the same though, you either shoot more, or use better guns/weapons.
not at all the case and not what I'm doing. this is a very simple concept. whether its more health, or armor, its functionally having you do the EXACT same thing: shoot more bullets, hit more times. you could put either scenario in and it wouldn't change what you have to do or how you do it (in the way armor was being discussed). its literally just shifting health into armor so that its feels more logical. but its the same thing. there's an enemy that takes x amount of bullets hitting it to kill it. the actions you take don't change because the effect you have is the same. armor piercing ammunition is effectively just a stronger gun in this scenario. unless armor allows enemies to completely tank hits (which it might, we don't know, but that's not what was described when I responded), it is fundamentally the same as just buffing health. all they did was call it a different name in the way of presentation.If you zoom the point out far enough, you can say it’s all the same mechanically anyway, either you kill the enemy, or he kills you.
My point was that with simply chipping down the digits, you always choose the tool that does the most damage, there’s never a need to change that pattern; but with a well done armor system, you might need a set of tools and swap on the fly to a more suitable tool for the situation at hand. Some enemies might require AP rounds, some others JHP, some explosive, some EMP (for example). Or you might need to weigh those choices already before combat or the mission. Tactical decision making between a number of options instead of simply moving up the ladder linearly.
not at all the case and not what I'm doing. this is a very simple concept. whether its more health, or armor, its functionally having you do the EXACT same thing: shoot more bullets, hit more times. you could put either scenario in and it wouldn't change what you have to do or how you do it (in the way armor was being discussed). its literally just shifting health into armor so that its feels more logical. but its the same thing. there's an enemy that takes x amount of bullets hitting it to kill it. the actions you take don't change because the effect you have is the same. armor piercing ammunition is effectively just a stronger gun in this scenario. unless armor allows enemies to completely tank hits (which it might, we don't know, but that's not what was described when I responded), it is fundamentally the same as just buffing health. all they did was call it a different name in the way of presentation.
that's already largely accounted for even in the most spongy of looter shooters. pretty much every game forces you to tailor equipment for the enemy. this isn't new, even borderlands does this with the elemental damage system. but they just buff the health and get the same effect anyway, because all you're really doing is making certain things hit harder against a de facto health pool. those choices exist either way whether they use an armor system or a pure health pool.
an armor system is just communicating the exact same information through a different language. either way you're creating a enemy that soaks up more hits. if you dislike "bullet sponges", utilizing and armor system in no way changes the reality, it just flavors it in a way that's more palatable for you.
immersion is subjective.You forget immersion, something important for RPGs.
If you think that having a naked body taking dozens of bullets to die is as immersive as having an heavily armored body taking dozens of bullets to die, it's your right, but don't imagine that's the same for many people.
The Division (both of them) isn't FPS. It's very much in third person unless you are using a specific range of Scope mounts.
I'm using the term shooter here loosely, because though its third person, its still rooted very much in well, shooting, compared to like, say, tomb raider, or another Third Person game with more gameplay elements than just combat.The Division (both of them) isn't FPS. It's very much in third person unless you are using a specific range of Scope mounts.
True, for the player it is very much about shooting - though you can smack people at close range with the butt of your firearm and there are Melee opponents.I'm using the term shooter here loosely, because though its third person, its still rooted very much in well, shooting, compared to like, say, tomb raider, or another Third Person game with more gameplay elements than just combat.
it CAN be. But are you seriously immersed in a one shot headshot w/out armor or 3 full clip headshots w/out armor at point blank while the guy stares at you blankly as if he feels and sees nothing?immersion is subjective.
like I said, that 100% depends on how everything else surrounding it feels.it CAN be. But are you seriously immersed in a one shot headshot w/out armor or 3 full clip headshots w/out armor at point blank while the guy stares at you blankly as if he feels and sees nothing?
The pacing of encounters, especially boss battles, is dragged down by unloading clip after clip into large enemies. This was the case in the Maelstrom boss fight. If every big moment is spraying mech'd up guys with bullets, it'll be an issue.
I'm kinda hoping for some kind of a knockdown effect mechanic to armored but light enemies where they might still get up after a shot to the noggin' but not zeroed because of some implants. That would be cool.Headshot accuracy can be a thrill which is why a number of games ‘reward’ the player by doing extra damage and or extra XP for getting them, sometimes but not always instant killing the target.
Probably not the only way, but I'd say most convenient and representative of the characters ability. It's also less intrusive in that it doesn't fool the player into thinking the game cheats him with having the reticle or iron sights spot on target and still miss, which is a common complaint with games where you aim yourself, but the bullets still curve as per skillbased spreadvalue. "I aimed right between the eyes, why did I miss???" It is easier to build and balance the system so that it makes sense in the context of the game and its genre around abstracted aim that clearly tells the player: "You move the character, you choose the target, you choose when to pull the trigger, but the character aims as per how you've built and progressed him."
That doesn't mean that bullets that miss, don't hit anything, though. Nor that it would lack action, nor that your character inevitably misses clip after clip after clip early on and even later on. Systems can be built around choosing the right moment to pull the trigger for best situational accuracy. What that does is it makes careless running and gunning really ineffective and forces more focused and tactical approach to combat situations, and actually encourages skillprogression because low skill does really mean you'll perform badly.
Which is much better imo. Good visual representation alone can make you think about who your 1st, and last target is before jumping in. Imagine if that big scav with a shotgun who's bullets bounce off his face in the trailer was actually not a pistol sponge during gameplay and little ol' Dum-Dum rushes you with a machete, tanks a clip or 2 of your LMG, and pushes you back to your hidey hole.the only difference is that one LOOKS more true in its presentation.