PDA

View Full Version : Guns, Ammo, and Mods.



Pages : [1] 2

O.m.a.r
2nd Feb 2008, 16:49
What are your ideas about the weapon system in Deus Ex 3, Should there be Universal ammo? Should there be permanent mods and what type of mods should there be? Should there be secret weapons, and what types of weapons should there be?

As far as I can tell everyone here hates universal ammo…Except for me :rasp:
I always liked universal for some reason . Some say that it takes the enjoyment out of finding ammo, but I found it to be a great idea. In other games every time I found ammo for a gun that I really liked the ammo was hella rare. I never liked that I would always save that ammo up for a special occasion, that never came. And anyways it’s the future of course there’s going to be universal ammo, there’s even a book that explains how it works.

I didnt mind about permanent mods never really bothered me. What I would like to see however would be kick *** mods, like the glass disintegrator mod thing were you shoot a window and it just melts causing no noise.

And there should defiantly secret weapons , I loved that in IW. The Smg that shoots spider bots instead of grenades, or the hellfire bolt caster instead of poison shoots fire darts, and my favorite the Toxic Blade enough said.

These are some topics that should be thought through.

jd10013
2nd Feb 2008, 19:06
anybody advocating universal ammo should be banned. and each weapon should have multiple ammo types. One of the things from IW that I did like was the Mod and Alt fire mode. Mods like the glass destabilizer that did something better than just raise accuracy or range was good. as was smoke grenades and flash bombs.

Unstoppable
2nd Feb 2008, 20:03
Should be just like Deus Ex with more depth. Also once you beat the game and play again there are new weapons unlocked.

Draco1979
2nd Feb 2008, 20:57
Ok I kinda like the universal ammo to a point but once it was gone what do you use........... I think there should be more then one type of universal ammo. One that will just work like IW then one that explodes and one for gas. I think they need to come out with an ammo bag so you can carry more ammo.

gamer0004
3rd Feb 2008, 10:10
Should be just like Deus Ex with more depth. Also once you beat the game and play again there are new weapons unlocked.

Unlocked?????? This is Deus Ex, not some crappy arcade racegame!!

Unlocking is very unrealistic and many people don't want it. If there are unlockable things people feel almost forced to play the game again. DX doen't need that, it's such a great game that people will play it again anyway.
But, when you play the game again, the chance that you'll find a certain weapon earlier on in the game is bigger. So almost the same result but without the downsides of unlockable stuff.

RedFeather1975
3rd Feb 2008, 10:34
My favourite weapon in DX:IW was the incendiary dart gun.
Mwa ha haaaa. :lmao:

ikenstein
3rd Feb 2008, 14:05
universal amo suks.

RedFeather1975
3rd Feb 2008, 14:12
Anyhoo, universal ammo is okay when used properly to cut down on pickup bloat.
I don't think 6 different guns, with 3 ammo choices each, should use a total of 18 different types of ammo altogether. But I have no idea how broad the weapon choices will be in DX3.

jd10013
3rd Feb 2008, 14:41
universal amo suks.

well said. pretty stupid to have my pistol using the same ammo as my flamethrower. and to balance it all out, the flamethrower had to use half a clip at a time.

Papy
3rd Feb 2008, 15:05
In other games every time I found ammo for a gun that I really liked the ammo was hella rare. I never liked that I would always save that ammo up for a special occasion, that never came.
The perceive value of something is a direct consequence of its rarity. Rockets and 30.06 ammo in DX were valuable, at least in the beginning of the game, universal ammo clips in IW were not. Because of that, a pack of rockets could be viewed as a reward, but not a clip of universal ammos.

In order to be rewarding, a game MUST be frustrating (to a point, of course).



Also once you beat the game and play again there are new weapons unlocked.
Worst... idea... ever!

jd10013
3rd Feb 2008, 15:35
The perceive value of something is a direct consequence of its rarity. Rockets and 30.06 ammo in DX were valuable, at least in the beginning of the game, universal ammo clips in IW were not. Because of that, a pack of rockets could be viewed as a reward, but not a clip of universal ammos.

In order to be rewarding, a game MUST be frustrating (to a point, of course).


and in the end of the game it was HE, WP rockets and plasma ammo.

O.m.a.r
3rd Feb 2008, 16:57
well said. pretty stupid to have my pistol using the same ammo as my flamethrower. and to balance it all out, the flamethrower had to use half a clip at a time.

:lol: Ok good point.

jordan_a
3rd Feb 2008, 17:35
Should be just like Deus Ex with more depth. Also once you beat the game and play again there are new weapons unlocked.You must be kidding...

Brambo
3rd Feb 2008, 18:55
I did like the variety of ammo in the original, the weaponmods too.
One of the many things that make DX1 so nice is the ability to tweak and edit soo much (IMHO)

Just ONE thing:

Let there be a superweapon !
Something like the tac-cannon in crysis :cool:

gamer0004
3rd Feb 2008, 20:39
The dragon's toothe sword was a superweapon, but it was still a challenge to finish the game with. It was a melee weapon, so a guy with a sniperrifle could still easily kill you. And the MIB and WIB blew up once you'de killed them, so you had to use a different weapon on them.
It was a superweapon, but the game was still a challenge. And that's very well done by the devs.

rhalibus
4th Feb 2008, 00:14
Sometimes because I ran out of ammo for a weapon I was forced to try another weapon...this actually enhanced my game experience because I had to try new methods. In DX2, when I ran out of universal ammo suddenly all my non-melee weapon options were gone; this was frustrating in a bad way.

Draco1979
4th Feb 2008, 00:15
Anyhoo, universal ammo is okay when used properly to cut down on pickup bloat.
I don't think 6 different guns, with 3 ammo choices each, should use a total of 18 different types of ammo altogether. But I have no idea how broad the weapon choices will be in DX3.

Yea maybe your right but it was just a thought of mine but i still think you should be able to get more ammo with an ammo bag or something so dont have to be so stingy on the ammo

INSAN3
6th Feb 2008, 18:07
Sometimes because I ran out of ammo for a weapon I was forced to try another weapon...this actually enhanced my game experience because I had to try new methods. In DX2, when I ran out of universal ammo suddenly all my non-melee weapon options were gone; this was frustrating in a bad way.
I have the same feelings on this; I felt more immersion in the game play having to rationalise which weapon to use for a particular nasty situation (and to my mind I think I relied more of my bio-mods to get me though when ammo was in short supply for the weapons I was carrying). I was even more gratified by the payout of finding ammo for my favourite weapons (namely the hand-dart launcher), even before leaving a zone I would drop whatever weapon seemed to be in large supply in a particular area and return to pick-up a weapon I had dropped before but now had found ammo for. So yes the actual THINKING about the game is what made it great and in my opinion this with great storyline is what made it truly immersing. :thumbsup:

I was quite dismayed with DX2's single ammo tech, yes it may be true that the studio made the decision perhaps because of time constraints, and the honestly wanted to dedicate what resources they had to making something else less S-to-the-T - but I digress. :scratch:
I found it rather implausible however that one ammo could be used across a range of seemingly conventional weaponry which even today is dated - come on, it be the future. If there has to be one common ammo type then great I'm on board, on ONE CONDITION.
Somebody has got to come up with totally unique and plausible ways to kill stuff in a variety of ways from one logical RESOURCE; I can only assume some radioactive element like uranium may be a good start:
1. Squash into bolts = crossbow
2. Power a energy phaser = pistol
3. Larger volume could power concentrating long range beam = Sniper
4. Mix with other nasty compounds and glue on a stick = grenade
(I mean hell the most fun about DX was the modding - BUILD WEAPONS from scrap, have basic bake-a-gun logic in the game)

For further inspiration about weapons systems everyone please see BioShock :cool:

Angel/0A
6th Feb 2008, 21:00
The dragon's toothe sword was a superweapon, but it was still a challenge to finish the game with. It was a melee weapon, so a guy with a sniperrifle could still easily kill you. And the MIB and WIB blew up once you'de killed them, so you had to use a different weapon on them.
It was a superweapon, but the game was still a challenge. And that's very well done by the devs.

The mini-crossbow is a superweapon, Paul said so! :D

jd10013
6th Feb 2008, 23:45
II found it rather implausible however that one ammo could be used across a range of seemingly conventional weaponry which even today is dated - come on, it be the future.

I can look past the realism, it is a game after all, and game play should never be sacrificed in the name of realism. what bother me about the universal ammo was that it limited what weapons you could use. for example, if you want to have fun with the rocket launcher an kill some people that way, you'd burn through your ammo real fast. But you weren't just burning through your rockets, you were burning through ALL you ammo. no more smg, no more pistol, no more crossbow. you were done. What I described is what killed the one good thing they did with the weapons, the Alt fire mode. smoke bombs, flash bombs, and spider bots from the widow maker smg were great ideas, but used far to much ammo to be used or played around with.



For further inspiration about weapons systems everyone please see BioShock :cool:
yea, they did pretty good there. the only criticism I would make is there weren't enough upgrades. I preferred the way DX an SS did it where you could apply to any weapon you wanted.

INSAN3
7th Feb 2008, 03:27
I can look past the realism, it is a game after all, and game play should never be sacrificed in the name of realism. what bother me about the universal ammo was that it limited what weapons you could use. for example, if you want to have fun with the rocket launcher an kill some people that way, you'd burn through your ammo real fast. But you weren't just burning through your rockets, you were burning through ALL you ammo. no more smg, no more pistol, no more crossbow. you were done. What I described is what killed the one good thing they did with the weapons, the Alt fire mode. smoke bombs, flash bombs, and spider bots from the widow maker smg were great ideas, but used far to much ammo to be used or played around with.

yea, they did pretty good there. the only criticism I would make is there weren't enough upgrades. I preferred the way DX an SS did it where you could apply to any weapon you wanted.

Actually I definately agree there, you couldn't just pick-up a random weapon, shoot something and then drop it; like you said you burn through all your ammo. Without a doubt the level of upgrade-ability of weapons was well ahead of it's time in DX; again I'd be keen to see more varied upgrades that can be applied to the weapons system (even some hybrid upgrades for both character and weapon that interface with each other, such as auto-targeting which can be a free upgrade for console gamers?)

pauldenton
9th Feb 2008, 05:18
stun prod and tranque darts -

i fell the stun prod and the tranque darts were too basic, once the victem was rendered unconcious. it effectively killed them.

i would liked to have seen the stunned opponent get up after a period depending on how many darts were used.

so once stunned you had the choice of whether to

1. move on knowing he will soon wake up and maybe attack you or set of an alarm, he may also expose you to the authorities for who you are and what you are doing - depending on the plot and enemy at that point.

2. fill him with tranque darts knowing he wont be getting up for a long/safer period but it will cost you more darts/prod charges.

3. shoot him in the head while hes unconcious. again more resource costs and it may alert the other guards nearby.

i believe the new method increases tension and adds choices.

Lucifer
9th Feb 2008, 12:08
I very liked to sneak with elctro prod to enemies and finish them in 1 second with crowbar.


JC Denton: Here comes your chance to be a hero :cool:
or: Take your best shoot.
or: I am gonna clean the place out.

gamer0004
9th Feb 2008, 17:16
stun prod and tranque darts -

i fell the stun prod and the tranque darts were too basic, once the victem was rendered unconcious. it effectively killed them.

i would liked to have seen the stunned opponent get up after a period depending on how many darts were used.

so once stunned you had the choice of whether to

1. move on knowing he will soon wake up and maybe attack you or set of an alarm, he may also expose you to the authorities for who you are and what you are doing - depending on the plot and enemy at that point.

2. fill him with tranque darts knowing he wont be getting up for a long/safer period but it will cost you more darts/prod charges.

3. shoot him in the head while hes unconcious. again more resource costs and it may alert the other guards nearby.

i believe the new method increases tension and adds choices.

I was so glad that DX was not like other games, because once you had shot him with tranq darts, he remained unconscious. Other games try desperately to "increase tension and adds choice", but in these kind of situations it will only be annoying. I really wouldn't want a system like that. It's like paying to park your car. How long are you going to be away? 2 hours? 3? Maybe the whole day?
It ends up with you rushing back to the car because you had paid to little and you have to pay some extre, or being annoyed because you'd paid too much.
"Damn, I wasted 2 darts on him and it only took me 2 minutes to get out" or "Holy ****" *BOOM*"
"Damn, I should've used another dart on that guy with the GEP run."

Besides, in these kind of situations, I wouldn't go waste my darts. I'd just tie up the guy. But in most games you can't do that, so it's pretty annoying, not only because you almost always waste darts or get shot because you used to little darts, but because you can't do what you'd want to do in a situation like that either.

pauldenton
9th Feb 2008, 18:53
if you dont want them to get back up then stab them, how hard is that?

but at least there would be some practical difference between killing them and stunning them.

there could be times when just stunning someone for a short period could work for you,

such as the monsters or a maniac.

once you get past them while they are unconcious, they could then wake up and kill your following enemys, while you are in a safe place.

jd10013
10th Feb 2008, 02:11
realistically, getting zapped by a typical stun gun would keep you out for quite awhile. and once you awoke, it would be a loooooong time before you were ready to go back to the front, so to speak. same thing applies with the right tranquillizer.

pauldenton
10th Feb 2008, 02:22
realistically, getting zapped by a typical stun gun would keep you out for quite awhile. and once you awoke, it would be a loooooong time before you were ready to go back to the front, so to speak. same thing applies with the right tranquillizer.


JD do some research before talking nonsense

stun gun -

Effects and Safety - The stun gun does not merely rely on pain for results. The stun gun works on the muscular and neural system. When 3-5 seconds of contact is made with the stun gun, an assailant's neuromuscular system is overwhelmed and controlled, causing loss of balance and muscle control, confusion and disorientation. The effect on the heart is insignificant. It takes 5 to 10 minutes for full recovery.

jd10013
10th Feb 2008, 02:36
JD do some research before talking nonsense

stun gun -

Effects and Safety - The stun gun does not merely rely on pain for results. The stun gun works on the muscular and neural system. When 3-5 seconds of contact is made with the stun gun, an assailant's neuromuscular system is overwhelmed and controlled, causing loss of balance and muscle control, confusion and disorientation. The effect on the heart is insignificant. It takes 5 to 10 minutes for full recovery.

perhaps you should do some research before posting nonsense, as stun guns have been know to kill people. A great deal depends on the gun, and the person. Many police departments have banned their use because of that

pauldenton
10th Feb 2008, 03:31
back to the original main point being that in DX the stun gun and tranq darts tend to render someone as good as dead once they have been knocked out.
with regards to the stun gun this is unrealistic and to me mostly uninteresting.

in real life the tranq darts could knock you out for many hours, depending on dose - (also in real life possibly killing you - but we wont get into that!) the plus side of the tranq darts in game are that they are not as immidiate in effect giving a nice variety of gameplay as you wait for the drug to take hold.

but i first thought when playing the game after darting someone ` i wonder how long these will knock people out for, how effective are these darts, perhaps i should use another method?` of course as you continue to play the game you realise that anyone stunned is as good as dead - rather boring really - also when people said they had completed the game and hardly killed anyone, i wasnt buying it - as many had in practise effectively killed everyone with the stun tools, there was no practical difference other than limmiting yourself in weapons.

stun weapons - could they make a new interesting impact with a semi believeable wake up, i believe they could.

Zegano
10th Feb 2008, 05:55
If your enemy is going to wake up soon, whats the point? If your a stealth player using non-lethal weapons because they're the only ones that are silent before modification, then the enemy will wake up and sound the alarm. Even if your not stealth, why not just kill them out right anyway? Non-lethal force should have other effects, like stunning a person carrying vital information, or a reward for not killing too many people, leading to good public relations.

Blade_hunter
10th Feb 2008, 11:51
The unique ammo for all weapon is the worst thing in deus ex

Multiple ammo force players to explore levels to find ammo and weapons and other useful items like deus ex 1
a multiple fire mode hability for most weapons can be useful

in deus ex 1 we have some weapons but we can add more weapons and accessories !

We can use some old style weapons and weapons used in the time period of deus ex and prototype weapons

I think the player must have the hability to build weapons with some parts (the weapons are defined but i think it can add some player hability)

for the inventory I think to made three parts
-Combat weapons
This part is for fire arms and weapon accessories like under barrel grenade launcher or shotgun, laser targeting systems, scopes, silencers,
-Ammo
This part is used to store ammo, grenades and mines
-Accessories
This part is used to store tools, some low tech weapons like crow bar a screw driver, hammer, cutter .... Items like flares, light torch devices, medkits, vaccins, drugs, food, armors, suits, biomods, bio cells, goggles.... Weapon upgrades like clip extender, energy economizer, faster reload, accuracy improvements, permanent sliencer upgrade, damage amplifier, weapon range upgrade

We can upgrade the inventory to have more loading capacity

I have much ideas to purpose but I want to know if my ideas will be good or not ...

gamer0004
10th Feb 2008, 12:19
if you dont want them to get back up then stab them, how hard is that?

but at least there would be some practical difference between killing them and stunning them.

there could be times when just stunning someone for a short period could work for you,

such as the monsters or a maniac.

once you get past them while they are unconcious, they could then wake up and kill your following enemys, while you are in a safe place.

Why would I want to stab them if I used a tranq dart in the first place?

Red
10th Feb 2008, 13:25
Because the game wants you to become cold-blooded mass murderer :D

Lo Bruto
10th Feb 2008, 17:51
Unconscious and dead in DX makes difference only if you are Roleplaying (and in some dialogue)

I wish this could change in DX3, like people getting conscious after some time or you being able to finish the job, using a crowbar in the head of a unconscious guy...

Not heroic, but effective...

And the Universal ammo thing was used to improve the gameplay of the game with all this Alt Fire thing, but failed.
In example: The SMG would need the normal bullets (ok) and the actual Flashbombs to use the Alt Fire. And how many flashbombs did you come across the entire game? This would put a big Limit in the Alternate Fire feature, so they poped ud the idea of Universal Ammo.
If the Alternate Fire uses the same type of ammo of the primary fire (Like in Unreal or some weapons of DX:IW itself) this is way easier.

Many people hate the Universal Ammo concept, but it was used to give us a better gameplay.

carldavid1887
10th Feb 2008, 19:50
I detest the Universal Ammo concept. It's as simple as that.
Different ammo-types, the shortage of useful/powerful ammo like the 20 mm grenades, and it's usage as a reward was great in DX 1.

If I ran out of ammo for the weapon of my choice I was forced either to switch weapons or to overcome the obstacle in a different way. In DX:IW, if I ran outta ammo, my only choice is to search for a diff. way.

Blade_hunter
10th Feb 2008, 22:04
Universal ammo was created for 2 reasons one is in Lo bruto's post, the second is to simplify the game, but if the ammo is rare, the melee weapons are the unique alternate choice or choosing a different way
when you use multiple ammo when you are one kind of ammo is empty, you can switch with a weapon with full or have enough ammo to eleminate your target or chose the different way.

Multiple ammo must be conserved for one reason and important reason for me:
More choice you have in a game, better the gameplay is!

The game isn't a pure infiltration game, deus ex is a game with infitration, RPG, adventure and standard FPS features.

Choice is your best friend

Papy
11th Feb 2008, 02:56
I have some difficulties understanding how some people could be in a situation where they would be out of ammo with IW. I was always fully loaded and never had to care about them. Anyway, if that's the case, I guess it means Warren Spector is right when saying universal ammo made IW more... hardcore! :eek:

jd10013
11th Feb 2008, 03:06
I have some difficulties understanding how some people could be in a situation where they would be out of ammo with IW. I was always fully loaded and never had to care about them. Anyway, if that's the case, I guess it means Warren Spector is right when saying universal ammo made IW more... hardcore! :eek:

It wasn't very common, but there were times I'd run out. In one of the last levels, heading toward JC's sanctuary, using the emp riffle to kill all the templars in the power armor would burn through ammo real fast, and nothing other weapon really worked well on them. If I remember correctly, I had to switch to emp aug (or whatever it was called) and kill them that way.

anyhow, seems to me the abundance of ammo was part of the problem of the universal ammo. For balance purposes, some weapons like the rocket launcher, emp gun, and flame thrower used quite a bit. That forced them to scatter a good amount around on the maps. so, if you were using the pistol, crossbow, or other low consumption weapon; you never came close to running out of ammo.

O.m.a.r
11th Feb 2008, 23:21
You really didn’t have to worry about running out of ammo in IW. You just had to play smart (sorry if that is offensive to anyone).For all the weapons that used more ammo I used ammo saving mods, and I never placed mods that caused more ammo to be used up, Also I always picked ammo off the dead. I found this an effective way to save ammo. Even against Armored Templar. I always used the Rocket Launcher to take them down, I never found a problem of running out of ammo. Also the problem which a lot of people had was looking for ammo, many people have said that having universal ammo took away the "joy" of searching for Rare ammo, However in IW ammo was eaten up pretty quickly so you were forced to search for more ammo. Maybe that aspect annoyed people because they were forced. Beyond that I do see the faults with universal ammo, but the problem with quickly used up ammo can be avoided. :eek:

Lo Bruto
11th Feb 2008, 23:35
I also never ran out of ammo in IW. And my weapon of choice was the Widowmaker (that alt fire eats ammo as hell)
I guess you guys just keep shooting like maniacs :nut:

jd10013
12th Feb 2008, 20:44
I also never ran out of ammo in IW. And my weapon of choice was the Widowmaker (that alt fire eats ammo as hell)
I guess you guys just keep shooting like maniacs :nut:


By the time you get the widowmaker the game is practically over.

Blade_hunter
12th Feb 2008, 21:53
This is a reason to give some particularitys to each weapon each ammo and each skill mod
for exemple you have 2 assault rifles

assault rifle 1
-Rifle skill level 1
-Weapon size 8
-Primary fire: fire the 7.62 mm bullets
-Secondary fire: flare gun
-Fire modes primary fire auto, s-auto
-7.62 mm clip size: 30 bullets upgradable to 40
-Flares clip size: 1 flare only not upgradable
-7.62 mm ammo type: perforating, poisonned, EMP
-Flares ammo type: lighting, flame, explosive, flash
-weapon mods: clip extentions, laser sight, infrared scanner, reload faster, recoil weapon mod, dammage modifier, ROF upgrade.

assault rifle 2
-Rifle skill level 3
-Weapon size 12
-Primary fire: fire the 5.56 mm bullets or 40 mm grenades
-Secondary fire: 40 mm grenade launcher or scope
-Fire modes primary fire: auto, tracer, s-auto
-Fire modes secondary fire: impact, remote contrelled
-Smart scope with night vision
-5.56 mm clip size: 35 bullets upgradable to 50
-40 mm grenades clip size: 2 grenades upgradable
-5.56 mm ammo type: perforating, antipersonnel
-40 mm grenade ammo type: HE, frag, tear gas, smoke, flash, EMP, poison, rad, incendiary and buckshot
-weapon mods: clip extentions, laser sight, removable silencer, reload faster, recoil weapon mod, dammage modifier, ROF upgrade.

there are two similar weapons and they have different functions and uses.
some players will prefer the firt weapon for its special upgrade, and low size, some others prefer the second for its functionality and the sniper function

the skill needed depends if it will be added or if it's a skill to guarantee a good weapon operating or if you need a skill level to use a weapon .....

Lo Bruto
13th Feb 2008, 00:30
Nice ideas, Blade_hunter... as usual from you.

But forget it, I'm pretty sure that if there are going to be 2 rifles in the game, both will use the same ammo. Just like the Assault Shotgun and the Sawed Off one in DX1.
Deus Ex is not a MilSim... like Battlefield or whatever... so we must stick with the the game universe own guns (what the hell was that assault rifle model? :nut: ) but when talking about Deus Ex, guns designs are just secondary.

Blade_hunter
13th Feb 2008, 17:03
Depends in DX 1 you have the assault rifle and the sniper rifle.
they have the 30 - 06 and the assault rifle uses the 7.62x51 mm
these rifles bullets are significantly the same calibers, but they haven't the same uses.
In DX 1 all rifles and pistol ammo exits in our actual world, but the DX weapons aren't real and my idea it's give the same game spirit and enhances with more variety.
I won't propose real weapons and all real items and weapons like some games.
In DX 1 the best thing are the two pistols they are different and uses the same ammo but the ROF, clip size, noise and power are different. this kind of weapons give a choice for all players combat style.
But perhaps my proposal do too much items. and some players wants only a small variety of weapons and ammo

Lo Bruto
13th Feb 2008, 20:29
Yeah, i meant Two Assault Rifles...

The Sniper Rifle is a whole different weapon.

GruntOwner
16th Feb 2008, 16:56
IMHO:
Stun weapons should be permenant. I'm a U.N. funded, augmented, multi purpose super soldier manufactured for war. Hell if I'm gonna hit them with something that'll only keep them out for a few minutes.
Ammo should be seperate, cross comatable in some cases such as the shotgun, and be only one of the options for each weapon. The anti armour shells were a god send against the MIB, and I hope that they keep it that way.
This hasn't come up yet, though I still believe that it needs to voiced: Don't nerf the bots. DX1, spider droids were the embodiment of your own hell, your own little, eight legged, lightning spewing, bio energy draining, vent patrolling hell. In a fight between 10 of the Invis. War walkers and a single DX1 military bot, you might as well just throw it against a lollipop stick model of the Eifel Tower.
As for not tying people up, didn't you see the house of pain billboards in Hell's Kitchen?

gashoneil
18th Feb 2008, 01:43
I struggled my way through IW tolerating the really silly ammo system. When I finished DX1, I went back and played through again, tackled the game a different way by focusing on different weapon sets. When I finished IW however, I put it away, had a quick look 3 years later and remembered how painful it was.

That was a shame, as I love games, buy them, collect them. And of all the thousands of games I own and have ever played DX1 is in the top 5. The game itself wasn't that bad, but that element ruined it. System Shock 2 is in my top 5 too and it has good tips for ammo system - though the guns degrade a little too quickly in SS2. I want DX to be great again!!!

If DX3 has universal ammo, it is simple for me. I won't be paying money for it. Get it sorted!!

Blade_hunter
19th Feb 2008, 19:36
I think they won't made the same system as deus ex 2 I think ....
I hope the future deus ex is better than it's prequels and better than system shock 2, Bioshock, snowblind and STALKER.

For the Bio mods I want suggest something in addition of my biomods proposals
I think the Biomods can be a weapon in Bioshock you can use an electric weapon and use water to extend your power

In deus ex the inovative I think is to freeze water to create a way to avoid swimming .... but this can be so difficult to program ...

Burning some wood and take it to use as a weapon or a torch or affraid some mutants if they have fear against fire

Use acid to disolve metals it can be useful against bots, metallic doors and other things ....

Using gravity to move some objects, throw, distort and break them it can be useful to make diversion against some NPC's

Throw some liquids

there is some chemical effects or physical are so difficult to program and add them in a game .... but I think these thing can add a lot of fun in a game

The gore and decors destruction can be added but some of these thinge are so complex or useless but some if these things can inovate the universe of the video games .....

Blade_hunter
22nd Feb 2008, 15:46
I'm sorry to made a double post but I want to post one of my favourite guns :)

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/5/gunsfj2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

There is a 7.62 mm caliber minigun and a 25 mm caliber railgun

H.M.G
22nd Feb 2008, 19:02
In my oppinion, one of the major things that made DX and IW great was the player's choice of action wherever he went. Eather way you look at it, universal ammo diminishes one of the game's greatest advantages.
Moreover, one of the things that made you go back and play the game over again was the fact you could master one or two types of weapons, and play the game using, say, heavy weaponry, and the next time you play it, apply stealth and master melee weapons and small arms. That should be kept from the first DX as well.
A good Idea might be to make weapons modular, not only permenently modded. For example, having diffrent types of scopes for the assault rifle (a couple of seconds to switch and the weapon's lifespan in the game is increased), Tactical ligth, IR vs visible laser designator and a silencer you can remove once the **** hits the fan, it's no longer necessary to be discreet but your weapon's impact increases.

~[ß]Síke~
22nd Feb 2008, 19:22
Some real life guns would be nice in DX3 without forgetting some new not existing DX guns. Would be cool if you could attach mods to your guns with the same way as in Crysis.

Blade_hunter
22nd Feb 2008, 20:14
Why not the weapon customization like the Crysis has used is good; but real weapons :/ .... In Crysis we have fictionnal and real guns, in DX 3 I prefer have only fictionnal weapons but most of them must have some realism like DX 1 weapons. I"ve said the same in an other tread

O.m.a.r
22nd Feb 2008, 21:16
Nice guns Blade Hunter

Azrepheal
1st Mar 2008, 15:27
Had an idea this morning...

I was thinking about the different ammo types you could collect for different gunsin DX (like the fire / poison bolts for the crossbow) and thought a similar template could be applied to the stun gun. Not different ammo, as such, but different voltage.

The stungun would use the same ammo, but the 'change ammo' buttons could be used to set it to low, medium or high voltage (the latter two using more power from the clip, obviously) I was thinking something along the lines of low voltage being used to knock out normal troop types, high voltage being used to kill all troops (and fry bots... not necessarily the big ones but the smaller armed ones) and medium voltage used to take out MJ12 troops and stun bots. And if you manage to stun a bot, and have a computer / electronics skill high enough, perhaps 'hack' it and reprogram it to be an ally??

Hmm maybe Im asking too much from a glorified cattleprod.

mouse
1st Mar 2008, 17:47
Had an idea this morning...


I think the general idea of an adjustable voltage for the stun prod is great. I'm not sure though if every weapon shoud be converted in an all-purpose weapon (to attack people AND bots).

SageSavage
1st Mar 2008, 18:09
I like your idea, Azrepheal.

Angel/0A
1st Mar 2008, 19:04
"Jesus JC, when I said 'stick with the prod' I didn't mean for you to electrocute them..."

mouse
1st Mar 2008, 21:04
"Jesus JC, when I said 'stick with the prod' I didn't mean for you to electrocute them..."

is that a real quote from the game? I've never heard that one before :scratch:

Angel/0A
2nd Mar 2008, 04:30
is that a real quote from the game? I've never heard that one before :scratch:

"Jesus Christ, JC" and "stick with the prod" are both things Paul says, the rest is fabricated, alluding to Azrepheal's idea.

Azrepheal
2nd Mar 2008, 04:43
"Jesus Christ, JC" and "stick with the prod" are both things Paul says, the rest is fabricated, alluding to Azrepheal's idea.

*Zzzapp*
<CRASH>
Russian Sailor: "I spill my drink!"
JC: "Shocking!" :lol:

Blade_hunter
2nd Mar 2008, 09:05
lol but changing fire modes in most of weapons should be a good thing.

Changing the power or fire mod of energy weapons, fire modes of projectile weapons, projectile modes like the grenades or rockets can use and more ....

Multifunctionnal weapons adds some strategy and various uses, but not too functionnal to makes other weapons and choices between each.

Azrepheal
2nd Mar 2008, 13:49
"Jesus JC, when I said 'stick with the prod' I didn't mean for you to electrocute them..."

Strangely enough... been playing through the game the last couple of days, and after the 747 bit with Lebedev, I went back to UNATCO and found this email on Jaime's computer:

From: JManderley//UNATCO.00013.76490
To: JReyes//UNATCO.00973.20892
Subject: Excessive Force

Thank you for bringing this to my attention Dr. Reyes. If accurate, this
mistreatment obviously violates any number of rules in the UNATCO charter and
will be thoroughly investigated. However, the situation is currently very fluid,
and I would ask you to refrain from specualting further until we have an
opportunity to ascertain all the relevent facts.

JM

>I understand that what we're doing here isn't kid's stuff,
>but I had an NSF trooper brought in to be treated prior to
>interrogation suffering from multiple second-degree burns
>consistent with repeated application of a riot prod at close
>range. One or two shocks at most should have been enough
>to incapacitate almost any individual; this man had at least
>seven distinct burn wounds.

:whistle:

mouse
2nd Mar 2008, 16:00
^^

caught in the act...:eek:

Dead-Eye
30th Mar 2008, 02:54
Also once you beat the game and play again there are new weapons unlocked.

Yeah like the little Gorge W. Bush gun. It fires little W. Bushs everywhere that somehow make it imposable to beat the game.

Vasarto
31st Mar 2008, 23:11
Im always Filled to the brim with great ideas. Just ask the people at the Ragnarok Online Rebirth server about that!;)

Ok ideas for weapons ammo and mod's. How about a stealth kill knive. One
where if you sneak up behind someone and kill them you cover their mouth and stick the knife in their back.

How about incinarate or plasma shells for the assult shot gun? Or Augmentation that can allow you to read people's minds so you can get information out of them without forcing them or having to bargin with them or make friends ect.. Or one that can be implanted in your head so you can levitate
items from a far distance or break things to allow for distracting guards so you can sneak past them. See when you break something they will all walk over to it to inspect it and you can sneak past guards that way.


What about a device that can allow you to see through doors or walls. Or better yet an Aug that can do that...only alot better than the one in the first game could. You know the night vision one that was pretty much useless.

Oh and night vision..instead of being a green square on the screen. The ENTIRE screen fills with the night vision look instead of just a small part of it...you know to make it more realistic and what-not.

Or how about a mod for a gun that can allow it to fire ammo its not suppost to fire. but you can only choose ONE type of ammo and you cannot have any one gun fire all types of ammo. Like you could have a hand gun fire shot gun shells or a sniper rifle that can shoot granades ect.

How about a Aug that can allow you to walk through certain walls or doors?
Or how about a granade that instead of blinding or gasing it sends out...you remember in Perfect dark 64...that granade that made that Giant sized black dome of energy that made everything look weird and you couldnt see right and it seemed like you'r character was on crack or something...a granade like that would be cool.

Or what about a device or a gun that can shoot a tiny transmitter that can act as a tracking device and a camarah. so if you attach it to a person or item you can view where-ever they go and see through the camarah and if things get really tough just make the camarah blow with a tiny emp field that can disable electric stuff and temp blind people.


Or how about

RebelX
1st Apr 2008, 00:21
Wow, you guys have wonderful ideas! I like a lot of them. Like many said, I hope that universal ammo is NOT used in the game. It's just "too futuristic" if you know what I mean. I don't how they will implement non-universal ammo (if they want to) after the fact it was used in DX2. I like conventional weapons, like ones we have now. You know, guns that use bullets. But just a little more futuristic. Something like in the Halo series. or Killzone. But not something like Star Wars or Star Trek.

As for mods, keep 'em! Just make sure the mod is visible when it is installed. In DX1 you put a scope on like a pistol or something and it isn't visible. Same with a silencer.

So basically, model the guns, ammo, and mods like in DX1 but improve them but not to the point that it is ridiculous.

fozzie
2nd Apr 2008, 03:20
I reckon that the modding system in DX1 was better than DX2.
In DX1 you could keep adding mods to weapons, whether it be to increase accuracy, range, stuff like that, or to add a scope or laser sight.
Whichever type of mod you were looking for, you always had something to apply it to, in DX2, about midway, i had already put the 2 mods i wanted on each weapon, and was collecting all these useless mods.

also, i didn't like the aug system and lack of skills in DX2, i had to choose between hacking(which, frankly, should be a skill) and invisibility.
the fact that you can CHANGE your augs in DX2 removes that "now, am i positivly sure i want this one?" feeling, mind you, you could just save before applying one.

as for the universal ammo... i think its rather stupid...

A. first of all, there was NO need to reload, WTF, that was half the strategy

B. when you switched weapons, the ammo in the clip INSTANTLY transferred to whatever weapon you swiched to

C. in DX1 there were VERY powerful ammo types(20mmHE anyone?), but they could only be found later in the game, if this very powerful ability implemented into DX2, you would be able to clear out entire rooms with one shot, from the first SMG you picked up, so they dumbed it down :(

on a last note... i read on megagames awhile ago, that they were making DX3 a PREQUEL(due to DX2's 5 or so endings), so, logically speaking, there should be NO UNIRVERSAL AMMO, YAY

sorry for the huge post everyone

c37579
2nd Apr 2008, 13:54
back to the argument about knocked out people

what if they were unconcious until another trooper found them, and if they couldnt see you/anything that caused it, they would drag thier ally to a med center or something, and after a couple of minutes, that NPC would be out patrolling again, maybe more suspicious

this could be prety cool i think, you could even go and sabotage a med center to they couldnt wake up thier unconcious allies :rasp:

fozzie
2nd Apr 2008, 21:59
oh yeah i forgot about that! (it was the actual reason i posted in the first place, but i went to get lunch, whilst thinking about what i would write, and when i got back i forgot all about it)

i beleive that the tranquilizer dart was really the wussy way out(not in a bad way), you know, good for guys with BIG guns(GEP for instance), you could step out from behind the corner dart him and RUN LIKE HELL!

and its kinda the same thing with the stun prod, 'cept you would hide around the corner, wait for THEM, zap 'em, and RUN LIKE HELL!

however, i do like yor idea c37579, with the revival thingy by their team mates

knocking someone out would also be good if someone wanted you to bring them back alive, which i think someone said before... but i cant remember who... credit to them anyway!

Vasarto
2nd Apr 2008, 22:07
How about a gun that shoots a tracker becon for things like mechs. Or something where you can take controll of it Via..Remote.

Deadelus
30th Apr 2008, 10:56
Universal ammo pissed me off to the point of no return. I'm a ammo hog. I keep firing after the frickin dudes down, *just to be sure*. Seemed like I was pulling out my blade every other kill. And someone proved a REALLY good point. Pistols and flamethrowers don't share the same ammo.. Strange. Anyone played Unreal II: Liandri Conflict? The Ammo system was kinda cool. Projectiles, energy, and explosives. Maybe go from there.

Voltaire
30th Apr 2008, 14:58
"Just to be sure" is the way it has to be. I butchered Walt Simons with the power sword thing once I'd killed him. Fun!

Gary_Savage
30th Apr 2008, 15:17
"Just to be sure" is the way it has to be. I butchered Walt Simons with the power sword thing once I'd killed him. Fun!

Ah, I did that, at Area 51 (and in the tunnel, on my next playthrough), out of sheer disappointment, anguish, and spite! With his optical targeting system, I was expecting him to be at least as much a memorable challenge as the sniper AI character whom I mentioned here (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?p=748275#post748275).

Fen
30th Apr 2008, 17:00
Please dont make people wake up when theyve been knocked unconcious. It just encourages killing people, when there should be the option of just knocking them out.

To make a difference between killing and putting to sleep, more missions where you have to take someone alive should be implemented. Make the character model of the downed enemy breath so we know that they are still alive however.

Blade_hunter
30th Apr 2008, 17:08
No if can immobilize the unconscious NPC it stay alive and you can see he's alive sometimes you can use the NPC to take infos or distract an other NPC.
The NPC wake up takes time, you can wake up the NPC more sooner to use it.
Do you think with this option it encourages killing people ?
I think add more ranged weapons with tranquilizer can help to knock instead of killing people.

Voltaire
30th Apr 2008, 17:53
Awakening of unconcious guards would be horrible. For one thing, it would entirely negate the health system (another thing I liked about DX was the limb-specific damage on NPCs and freedom of info on overall health of guards).

In Soldier of Fortune II, unconcious guards pop right back up after about 3 minutes, something you don't need if you're defending a fox-hole with an unconcious body in it. PLUS, unconcious guards would probably be unarmed after revival, meaning what? They run round screaming, they hide, they search for more armourment? It wouldn't work well at all. ****

Blade_hunter
30th Apr 2008, 18:06
Immobilize would say you can attach, the NPC ...
In the strategy game commandos the enemies can wake up after some time, and to avoid this you can attach them. In SOF 2 I agree you must kill them after knocking them to avoid their wake up ...
If you can attach them I think they can stay silent ...

Gary_Savage
30th Apr 2008, 19:27
If attaching/tying up (if that's what you meant--I haven't played Commandos) keeps the enemy immobilized, then why the extra step of attaching the enemy? In that case, game development time would be better spent on other things, than tying enemies up. Just, as someone just suggested, give us hints, like breathing, that the enemy is alive. Only if resources allow (i.e., AFTER storyline, gameplay mechanics, AI, weapons balance, etc. have been taken care of), would I want the option to be able to tie up the enemies (something like in Hitman, if I remember the game right).

iWait
30th Apr 2008, 20:42
Yes in commando once you knock out someone you can tie them up.

Just curious, Blade_Hunter is English your first language?

Gary_Savage
30th Apr 2008, 20:52
Hey, I'm feeling bad, here: at least we can understand what Blade_hunter is trying to say.

jcp28
30th Apr 2008, 23:18
Forget universal ammo. It strongly encourages a player to shoot the crap out of everyone when it doesn't necessarily fit the mission you're on. It wasn't like ammo was rare in DX. You can generally find it if you look. And there were maybe two guns I ran out of ammo on, and they were usually in areas it would have been okay to use a pistol(like in the tunnels after the subway area with the mole people) Besides, I would switch from the assault shotgun to the assault rifle in the later lvels if I ran out of shells, and I woudl still have enough.

And immobilizing people worked just fine in DX. Having them wake up would be pointless, once they realize there ammo and other stuff like radios for instance has been stripped from them. They could find an alarm, but if the player is smart, he or she will have found it and blown it up somehow, and probably kill or knock outother enemies that could be a threat.

I liked the mods from DX, btw, but there's always room for innovation. But since this game is a prequel, I'd say they'd have to be features that are already part of mods introduced in DX.

iWait
30th Apr 2008, 23:43
No I was seriously just curious since there seems to be a diverse population on the forums.

Chemix
1st May 2008, 00:03
Guns: Classes of weapons and possible semi-specific weapons (wide ranges, no expectations)

Pistol (semi auto):
9mm relic
10mm standard
Desert Eagle (for street thugs and gangsters)
Rail/ Gauss Pistol- such weapons are currently under development where bullets can enter the chamber and be fired without any gunpowder, by magnetic coils or rails. Such a gun would have better range than even some rifles and might be able to fire under water.

Revolver:
38. special
357. magnum
44. magnum
Mateba Model 6 Unica auto-revolver (automatic revolver, odd gun out)

Crossbow:
Full Crossbow- long range, lethal or high damage rounds
Wrist Crossbow- same as DX, but with tranq darts that characters differentiate from kill darts.

to be continued

iWait
1st May 2008, 00:12
44. magnum

JC: Do you feel lucky, punk?

Chemix
1st May 2008, 00:48
I'd definitely love to see that as a dialog option somewhere,

...
Rifles:
Hunting Rifle (more likely to be found in a semi urban environment in the UK or other parts of Europe than most other guns)- Standard bullets, Buck Shot and Long Range Heavy Tranqs
Normal Sniper rifle- Adjustable zoom and very good damage, bolt action (meaning you have to re-sight after every shot), however, can use a suppressor (silencer, which by the way, doesn't actually silence the gun, no silencer can completely quiet the sound of the hammer coming down in a gun, any gun)
Semi-Auto Sniper Rifle- Like the above, but with slightly less damage (except head shot, which should be an instant kill from any bullet/energy based weapon) and no bolt action, for continuous in scoped firing and precision aiming.
Anti-Material Rifle- In real life these guns are banned almost everywhere, in military use even, because they hit with such a force that the target essentially becomes a blood and particle cloud upon impact, no silencer option, always kills organics
Rail Rifle/ Gauss Rifle- Magnetic based rifles for firing large rounds, might even be useful underwater because of a lack of gunpowder, possibly a waterproofing mod for it, no silencer, in between normal and AM sniper rifle damage

again, more later

FelixP
1st May 2008, 01:07
Really, I think that one of the biggest strengths of DX was its plausibility and grounding in reality. While there was all of this fantastic technology, it fit logically into its surroundings. IW, on the other hand, threw all of that coherence out the window; it completely lacked DX1's clear attention to detail and the effort that was made to make everything 'fit'.

Obviously, DX3 should try to move back to the original's focus on plausibility and "realism" in order to give the game the right feel. Take the human weapons in Halo, for example- Bungie clearly took great pains to make their weapons "feel" right in the sense that they carefully worked out exactly how the guns operate, look, fire, sound, etc., even if none of them actually exist.

Also, in order to increase both realism and the gameplay experience, I strongly believe that a much larger variety of weapons should be included than in either DX1 or DX2. While I recognize that there are significant practical concerns in terms of playability and in development resources, having, say, 5 subtly different handguns to choose from instead of one or two would both improve the overall gameplay experience (i.e. give the player more options) and increase realism (since when does every single soldier, policeman, terrorist, and homeowner carry the exact same model of firearm?). If possible, a careful mix of existing weapons and *plausible* future ones (or evolutions of current designs) would be the best possible route. The important thing would be to make the game fun and instantly enjoyable for someone who didn't want to mess with selecting the completely optimum weapon / mod / ammo combination for the task at hand, while at the same time rewarding players who appreciate the opportunity to do so.

Blade_hunter
1st May 2008, 01:28
Third to be exact ... :/

I like your ideas chemix

but I think an underwater pistol can be used too and an harpoon rifle :D
perhaps a twin barreled pistol

iWait
1st May 2008, 01:36
Perhaps something like a high-velocity nail gun? With the right physics it could be ALOT of fun.

Chemix
1st May 2008, 02:19
A gauss/ rail gun could effectively do the same thing, it propels a metal bolt into an object, simply using long sharp bolts would be a super nail gun from hell

Blade_hunter
1st May 2008, 09:51
The nail gun already exists, they works like a pistol, but they trow nails;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nailgun
The nail gun is a tool if it be added to the game I loved we can use it's tool function. Use some wooden boards and put them to block doors or have other uses :D

A laser and a plasma pistol

the laser pistol doesn't act like Starwars weapons; all laser weapons are hitscan weapons, because the laser ray goes at 300000 km/s

For the plasma pistol it can be something like the PS 20 but with more shots or the same as DX ....

minus0ne
1st May 2008, 22:05
Spiderbots set us up teh bomb!

http://baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_10832814523.html
http://baesystems.com/static/bae_cimg_eis_mast_latestReleased_bae_cimg_eis_mast_Web.jpg

Not that they were ever far-fetched to begin with (nor is this the first spiderbot), and they're probably going to be a lot smaller than DX/IW's spiderbots. But hey, one step closer to that dystopian fictional world that is Deus Ex :p

Chemix
2nd May 2008, 08:47
An odd ball and long shot for a possible weapon:
Tachyon Sniper Rifle- Tachyons are particles that do two very unique things: they move faster than light, and backwards in time, so they move from their end point to their creation point as the reaction occurs. So theoretically, a tachyon based sniper rifle would be an instant hit (hitscan) weapon that would only be detectable to some scanners, autopsy analysis, and would always come from the victim towards the gun, but because it moves faster than light, it can't be seen, so you'd just get a strong kickback in the gun just after firing.

Blade_hunter
2nd May 2008, 13:40
I think some stupid weapons can be added :D

Slingshot

The slingshot does a little damage it can be used to knock an enemy if we are close enough the only ammo we need are some gravels or some other thing can be find, the main function of this weapon is to distract or to attract an enemy in a desired place.
This weapon is stealth because it makes low noise and the ammo is easy to find, this weapon is inaccurate, but it can be useful sometimes ...

Bear trap

the Bear trap can be find on shops and can be used more than once, this trap is more useful in dark areas or when we have grass on the ground.

Dart gun

This is a rifle that uses 12.7 mm dart cartridges and can be used to make an enemy unconscious this gun can be used on animals or humans.
Unfortunately these cartridges doesn't work with a large caliber rifle because they use compressed gas instead of powder...

Electroshock pistol/rifle

This weapon is a weapon like the famous TASER. TASER is a trade mark that is the reason i use the correct name of this weapon.
The functions are the same but more moderns pistols can use a clip/magazine to allows more shots.
I think we can use three models
-Single shot pistol acts like the actual TASER compact size and easy to use

-The multiple shot pistol, is heavier than the single shot pistol, but it's more efficient than the single shot pistol because we can fire on multiple targets

-The rifle model is a multiple shot too, but the main advantage is the great range.

The main drawback of the pistols are the short range even the multiple shot model needs to be close of the paralyzed victims during a certain moment.
The rifle model is more autonomous than the pistols but the ammo isn't the same the rifle model uses bigger cartridges
(For the game we can use realistic or more futuristic models because the futuristic models are easier to code than true models, simulate a cable is more difficult than simulate an autonomous projectile ....)

Banana peel

Throw the banana peel and :D

Riot pistol

This weapon is used in France by the police to stop riots without killing it be also used in UK and Israel army, it uses plastic cartridges. The name is the "Flash-ball", like TASER it's a trademark and it's role is something identical to the TASER role, it's to knock, capture and doesn't make any casualties. Like the TASER we must operate at short ranges
more we are far of the target, less are the chances to causes damage to the victim.

Electrolaser rifle

This weapon is a a sort of lightening gun with a laser ,that combines the effects of the two energies at long range. The main draw back of this weapon is the ROF and the capacity to kill an human if we don't control our fire ...

Riot paint bullet launcher

This weapon throws large size bullets with paint that releases incapacitating gas, poison gas, or only paint projectiles like a paint ball gun

Blinding laser

This is a pistol to blind your enemy it can be useful if the enemy drives a vehicle or is on foot to allows a more quickly approach with less risks

Sonic rifle

The sonic rifle can be used on the ground or underwater to knock or kill targets in a short range. you can use the sound to make annoying noises like a mosquito noise to put away some targets, but sometimes they can try to find the source of the sound...

Water cannon

This device is used to disperse your victims or put the far away from you this can put out the fire and have several uses like using electricity to immobilize your targets

iWait
9th May 2008, 00:05
Tachyon Sniper Rifle- Tachyons are particles that do two very unique things: they move faster than light, and backwards in time, so they move from their end point to their creation point as the reaction occurs. So theoretically, a tachyon based sniper rifle would be an instant hit (hitscan) weapon that would only be detectable to some scanners, autopsy analysis, and would always come from the victim towards the gun, but because it moves faster than light, it can't be seen, so you'd just get a strong kickback in the gun just after firing.

The problem with that idea is tachyons that are based on a theory, and rely on mathematical proofs based off of quantum physics. Even the people who came up with the idea of tachyons admit that even if they do exist, they don't exist. It's really hard to describe but basically tachyons cannot exist, due to the fact that they are a paradox. One "law" of science is that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. By moving faster than light tachyons travel backwards in time. They are much smaller than most sub-atomic particles, and the theories state that every second we are bombarded by them. This has no effect on us, even if billions of tachyons somehow managed to hit every cell in our brain, because of the following.

If a tachyon were to hit you, and manage to damage you in any way, it wouldn't matter. Tachyons are always traveling backwards in time, so when it hits you it's still on it's journey. There are no types of matter that do not change over a period of time. Tachyons always travel backwards in time at faster than light speeds, this means that eventually every tachyon that ever came into existence would eventually either change into another form of matter or come to the beginning of everything. Because it is STILL traveling through time it goes past the beginning of everything, which must be nothing, making it so that the tachyon existed BEFORE nothing, so it could not have ever existed. This is a basic paradox, which even the people who theorized tachyons agree with. Therefore a tachyon gun could never exist, for tachyons do not exist.



The nail gun already exists, they works like a pistol, but they trow nails;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nailgun
The nail gun is a tool if it be added to the game I loved we can use it's tool function. Use some wooden boards and put them to block doors or have other uses


Sorry I didn't specify but I was thinking something like a weapon, like a spike gun or something. After I thought about it I came to realize that having a big nasty spike-cannon in DX makes almost no sense, but it would still be cool to play with.

I got another idea- A tiny handheld chemical laser that you could point at peoples eyes and blind them or point at them to not really hurt them but get their attention.

Chemix
9th May 2008, 02:16
A tachyon disappears as the particles that spawn the tachyon collide, so it's matter and energy simply reside in the particles that collide, causing them to bounce off one another.

A concentrated ray of tachyons, could theoretically do some form of damage while on their journey, as these tachyons are not naturally created, there origin point is definite (the gun) and they don't go any farther.

They've been observed in particle colliders IIRC.

iWait
9th May 2008, 04:49
That is true, tachyons could do damage if they were in a concentrated wave or beam, but we do not know enough about them. What we know is based off of quantum mechanics and the observations of the effects of unknown forces. Frankly, we do not know enough about science to discuss the true nature of the universe, most of what is known as fact are actually just theories, for instance linear time is just a theory, as are the processes of nuclear reactions and parallel universes.

Also, did you know that scientist observed microscopic black holes that exist for fractions of seconds in particle accelerators? We, as a whole, don't know jack **** about how things work. We can just conduct experiments and try to prove our theories.

Chemix
9th May 2008, 09:45
indeed, we don't know jack about the universe's true nature, but this being a semi-scifi game, I don't see why certain elements of that nature can't have been understood by certain individuals.

Voltaire
9th May 2008, 14:40
indeed, we don't know jack about the universe's true nature, but this being a semi-scifi game, I don't see why certain elements of that nature can't have been understood by certain individuals.

Exactly. Sci-fi transcends such barriers as actuality and fact.

Nobody stormed the set of star trek and said: "you want to go how fast?"

minus0ne
9th May 2008, 17:14
indeed, we don't know jack about the universe's true nature, but this being a semi-scifi game, I don't see why certain elements of that nature can't have been understood by certain individuals.
Actually we know a whole damn lot. Don't know how education is faring where you come from though (if you're from the US you'll probably be taught that only Jesus Christ truly understands the universe, evolution is 'just a theory' and more of such crap).

The beautiful thing is, the more we know, the more questions we have. It's what I like to call "the delicious circle".

*Sorry about the rant, just saw Horizon's "The War on Science" about those Intelligent Design-bastards.

paul
9th May 2008, 17:25
There was something about the idea of Universal Ammo that made Invisible War feel incredibly X-box-ish. Deus Ex 1 was a highly cerebral game that could only be enjoyed to its full extent on the PC. Its sequel was a bag of ****. I hope that the weapon system is similar to Deus Ex 1, with the inventory interface.

iWait
10th May 2008, 04:57
Actually we know a whole damn lot. Don't know how education is faring where you come from though (if you're from the US you'll probably be taught that only Jesus Christ truly understands the universe, evolution is 'just a theory' and more of such crap).

The beautiful thing is, the more we know, the more questions we have. It's what I like to call "the delicious circle".

No we do not *know* a whole damn lot. NOBODY EVEN KNOWS WHAT LIGHT ****IN' IS, we *know* some of it's properties and have theorized how it works, but even the smartest minds still don't know what it is. We don't know how magnets work either, yes we *know* that a magnetic field is made when domains in a material align, and there are theories as to the energy transfers taking place in that process, but we don't know anything about it. If I were to ask a great physicist how gravity works, he would probably tell me that it is the force exerted upon bodies of mass, and then probably quote something from General Relativity, but if I asked him what causes the forces he would not know. It is the same thing with everything, and if you want to see how the process of these theories changing into accepted fact look at String Theory. Did you know that it started with (2 or 4 I can't remember) Parallel universes? But when the "math" (:lol: @ quantum mechanics) was inputted it was proven impossible, then they added more and more to String Theory, to explain past phenomena they have observed. If it is not disproven, and it keeps being added to, in about 50-100 years it will be considered fact. That is the one thing that is retarded about the application of science in our world, if we run experiments and observe the same result over and over again over a long period of time it becomes a "law" of science.

(I was not educated by Christians, I am not religious, and I think that Jesus never existed.)

Voltaire
10th May 2008, 07:41
Exactly! The main ingredients for our universe are still pretty enigmatic to us at the moment. Even a lot of modern christians can see that scientific research into the rules and components of a celestialn creation.

Chemix
10th May 2008, 15:33
Actually we know a whole damn lot. Don't know how education is faring where you come from though (if you're from the US you'll probably be taught that only Jesus Christ truly understands the universe, evolution is 'just a theory' and more of such crap).

The beautiful thing is, the more we know, the more questions we have. It's what I like to call "the delicious circle".

*Sorry about the rant, just saw Horizon's "The War on Science" about those Intelligent Design-bastards.

The first step to knowing, is to understand that you know nothing.

As for united states schools, I think you're the one who is a bit brainwashed. US schools don't talk about Jesus out side of a 15 minute history lesson that we hear once (with most of the 15 minutes as a "clause" that the school is not pushing this belief on people), in fact it's just about shunned by public schools to believe in the Christian faith openly. Whereas a good month can be spent on Hinduism and a good 2 weeks can be spent on Islam, with no such "clauses" on their openings. Every biology class teaches evolution, even Earth Science touches on it.

Science is the pursuit to understand the environment (the universe we live in) and it's applications (rock smashes egg, rock probably smashes more eggs, primitive toolmaking).

It's must easier to make a list of what we think we know, than one of what we don't know, because the latter is nigh on infinite.

As a note: I am a creationist, but I was not taught that in a public school, it is simply that the more I look at the systems within this world, the more I have come to realize that IMO the world could not be without a creator.

jcp28
10th May 2008, 19:02
I was gonna ignore this chump, but I just thought of something....

Going through a superior education system does not equal absolute certanity when it comes to scientific questions. Having taken an "American" astronomy class and having read stuff on subatomic particles, I can say for sure that we don't really know what the universe is like for sure.

Gary_Savage
10th May 2008, 22:15
the process of these theories changing into accepted fact look at String Theory. Did you know that it started with (2 or 4 I can't remember) Parallel universes? But when the "math" (:lol: @ quantum mechanics) was inputted it was proven impossible, then they added more and more to String Theory, to explain past phenomena they have observed. If it is not disproven, and it keeps being added to, in about 50-100 years it will be considered fact. That is the one thing that is retarded about the application of science in our world, if we run experiments and observe the same result over and over again over a long period of time it becomes a "law" of science.

(I was not educated by Christians, I am not religious, and I think that Jesus never existed.)

That's quite a simplistic view you have of science. If it suits your fancy, then I would suggest you check it out some more. Not every researcher is convinced of parallel universes, so it might be a little unwise to think that the whole of the scientific community believes in such theories, just because a lot of media attention is given to them; so I would suggest you pick up the foundations (and, yes, quantum mechanics is a fascinating, and extremely practical part of modern science; case in point: the laser), and move along from there. As for your gripe that if something is not disproven then it is taken for a fact, think of it this way: if you let an object go, then it falls down. Try it again, and it still falls down. Try it again, and it still falls down. Then you can theorize that objects with mass attract, but it does not mean that you had the audacity to suggest you knew why objects with mass attract; it only means that you have stated an observation that can be used to predict the results of future experiments. If your theory can predict future outcomes of experiments, then you have done some science (that's about as succinctly as I can put it, for now). Now, that's not retarded, is it? :D

Now, about Jesus... he's not that ancient a guy. Certainly not as ancient as Noah, or Adam, that one can dispute his existence for lack of evidence. So, regardless of anyone's personal beliefs (and no, I am not a Christian, myself), I'm not sure why anyone could not acknowledge his existence as a historical figure. I'm just so curious as to why you think he did not exist (insert smirk smiley here).

EDIT: About all the resources that are being spent on experiments that are being conducted by String theorists, that data can also be used by others, who may have a different idea on how the universe works. Throughout history, you will always come across competing scientific theories, and the one that makes the most sense at any given time is taught most often. The data that the theories came from, however, are always there, to prove the theory wrong. Light used to be thought of as particles (by Newton), then waves, and now we treat light as having a dual nature. In the end, we are able to make progress (better lighting, better long distance communications, better cryptography, etc.), regardless of a theory's being continued to be accepted, or disproven. So, while some pieces of work may be disproven, as time goes by, the disproven works may well have contributed towards the understandings of later generations, so I don't see how the work of scientists is a laughing matter.

iWait
10th May 2008, 22:50
I do not think ALL scientists agree with string theory, just that MOST people, scientists included have heard it as fact and accept it. I do not think the work of scientists is a laughing matter, I love reading the theoretical works of scientists and contemplating their implications. And I know that true understanding of the simplest of things is impossible, but I dislike how theories in which true scientific experiments cannot be carried out are taught as fact to normal people, (think the law of conservation of energy for one).
Also, the laser was not derived from quantum mechanics, it was made through observations based off of the behavior of light, yes, it can be explained through quantum mechanics, but that is not how Man first discovered it's existence.

As for Jesus, I am sure that around 2000 years ago there were many people named Jesus, but I do not think there ever was a man named Jesus as described by the Vatican and the Bible.

Just a little something to think about: Do you know how much money the Vatican has? It is the single most powerful (and richest) country in the whole world, and the mere fact that there are almost billions of people ready to stand up and fight for it's safety is a bit scary. AND the Vatican is NOT a democracy (as it is most commonly known), the Cardinals (or Bishops I forget) pick the Pope, but nobody else has any say.

jcp28
11th May 2008, 17:05
Just a little something to think about: Do you know how much money the Vatican has? It is the single most powerful (and richest) country in the whole world, and the mere fact that there are almost billions of people ready to stand up and fight for it's safety is a bit scary. AND the Vatican is NOT a democracy (as it is most commonly known), the Cardinals (or Bishops I forget) pick the Pope, but nobody else has any say.

I see. So you're saying that you're afraid of what the Vatican could do, should they choose to use some sort of excuse to assert their power(like mass persecution)? It's not exactly the Middle Ages anymore. Secular forces or however you choose to label them will also be powerful forces in modern society. But I suppose we should be glad they're not routinely asserting their power in oh so many other ways

iWait
11th May 2008, 23:16
Just think about it. The Vatican has existed for hundreds of years now without any army. But they still have never been conquered. Before the were the rulers of kings, and now they are protected through mass manipulation. (By mass manipulation I mean the manipulation of the masses into thinking of the Vatican not as an independent country filled with countless riches, but as a religious entity that cannot be attacked.)
And I am afraid of what ANY independent force could do that can manipulate people through divine law.

Chemix
12th May 2008, 00:37
"divine" law is merely one of many mediums through which power can be derived. I very much doubt that people will follow what the Pope says unless it's something simple and mediocre, and even then, people are laxxed. The catholic church obliterated it's greatest allies along time ago, the Templars. Now it's a city state with autonomy and a lot of old virgin men walking around in robes, not that much to fear.

The corporations are who you should worry about these days, their wars are killing innocents over monetary gain and proof of concept. Deus Ex Machina has been the goal of many since mankind began. It was the purpose of the pyramids, the purpose of spies networks, the purpose of underground temples, the purpose of the panopticon and the purpose of ECHELON along with the Military Commission's Act today. Unlimited knowledge, unlimited power

Gary_Savage
12th May 2008, 00:43
I do not think ALL scientists agree with string theory, just that MOST people, scientists included have heard it as fact and accept it.

I doubt that: I learned my quantum mechanics from the same department that employs Prof. Michio Kaku, and I wasn't taught that String Theory was valid, just that it's a theory being worked on.


but I dislike how theories in which true scientific experiments cannot be carried out are taught as fact to normal people, (think the law of conservation of energy for one).

I'm not sure where you are going with that: at the macro scale the theory of conservation of energy provides a satisfactory method for predicting the results of experiments. If you go to the sub-atomic scales, then there is the matter of matter-energy conversion, but each theory provides a satisfactory approximation for predicting the results of experiments in its own scale.


Also, the laser was not derived from quantum mechanics, it was made through observations based off of the behavior of light, yes, it can be explained through quantum mechanics, but that is not how Man first discovered it's existence.

Actually, laser action was predicted through quantum mechanics, long before it was even invented. Yes, those observations were from experiments into the nature of light and matter; you might have noticed that the laser, in itself, relies on the interaction of light and matter: that interaction is where the "stimulated radiation" comes from.



As for Jesus, I am sure that around 2000 years ago there were many people named Jesus, but I do not think there ever was a man named Jesus as described by the Vatican and the Bible.

While someone might not agree with the Vatican's projected view of Jesus, I'm sure there was a guy, about 2000 years ago, who was a big enough pain in the Roman Empire's neck for them to want to crucify him. As for whether that guy was named Jesus (as we call him in English), I doubt it, since the pronunciation in his native tongue is something like "Isa," though I'm sure my transliteration is not that great.



Just a little something to think about: Do you know how much money the Vatican has? It is the single most powerful (and richest) country in the whole world, and the mere fact that there are almost billions of people ready to stand up and fight for it's safety is a bit scary. AND the Vatican is NOT a democracy (as it is most commonly known), the Cardinals (or Bishops I forget) pick the Pope, but nobody else has any say.

That does not prove that a person called Jesus (or Isa, however one chooses to call him) did not exist, does it?

jcp28
12th May 2008, 20:30
The crossbow should be able to shoot from at least a somewhat longer distance. It's a little difficult to take down enemies non-lethally if they're more than about 9-12 feet away otherwise.

Igoe
12th May 2008, 20:56
Eh I think it SHOULD be difficult for non-lethal takedowns.

Its VERY easy to take a life. Point a gun and pow, gone.

The moral choice of non-lethally incapacitating an NPC should be accompanied by an increase in gameplay difficulty. You should feel rewarded and gratified for your hard work and results!

jcp28
12th May 2008, 21:24
I just don't like burning through whatever spare ammo I have. I generally learn that if I don't knock out an enemy with three shots of the bow, I shoulg go with one of my other guns before I get cut to pieces(this is a particular issue on Realistic)

iWait
12th May 2008, 22:02
That does not prove that a person called Jesus (or Isa, however one chooses to call him) did not exist, does it?


No, it doesn't, that's why I put it separate from what I said about Jesus. It is almost impossible to prove or disprove religion. I cannot give you proof that Jesus as the bible described him never existed, neither can you give me proof that he did.


Eh I think it SHOULD be difficult for non-lethal takedowns.

Its VERY easy to take a life. Point a gun and pow, gone.

The moral choice of non-lethally incapacitating an NPC should be accompanied by an increase in gameplay difficulty. You should feel rewarded and gratified for your hard work and results!

I do not think it should be extra difficult to be non-lethal, it discourages the moral choice of to kill or not to kill, because if it is evident that killing is more efficient and easier, a logical person would kill.

As for the moral choice of the matter is it moral to intentionally spare the life of, say, a Templar agent? His intentions and prejudices are clear, and if he has the choice to after he is revived he would continue down the path he had chosen.
If I remember the Book Of Revelations correctly Paul (Or Peter Or some other Holy figure) kills a three-headed beast, the Beast's intentions were clear, and the Holy figure could have spared it's life, but he chose not to. The beast did nothing in the past, but it would do something in the future if it could.
So is it moral to spare the life of an entity that would hurt another?

Voltaire
13th May 2008, 15:26
...As for the moral choice of the matter is it moral to intentionally spare the life of, say, a Templar agent? His intentions and prejudices are clear, and if he has the choice to after he is revived he would continue down the path he had chosen.
If I remember the Book Of Revelations correctly Paul (Or Peter Or some other Holy figure) kills a three-headed beast, the Beast's intentions were clear, and the Holy figure could have spared it's life, but he chose not to. The beast did nothing in the past, but it would do something in the future if it could.
So is it moral to spare the life of an entity that would hurt another?

The argument you have outlined here is "the lesser of two evils" approach, i.e. both things are bad, but the stuff he might do is worse than me killing him. It's convincing up to the point where you realise it's just hypocrisy with a new haircut and a smart shirt.

Personally, (and I know many think differently) I believe in the Sanctity of Human Life, and I do not believe that mere mortals should have the right to choose whether a man lives or dies, we just aren't that responsible.

That doesn't stop me blowing up lone sentries with a LAW to distract guards though... :D

iWait
13th May 2008, 17:13
You believe in the Sanctity of Human Life? That is good to believe in, but do you believe that China is evil? It's quite over-populated there, and the Chinese Government has been forced to take measures of population control, including the infamous 1 child per family. If there's twins, one dies, if an extra child is accidentally conceived, it is destroyed.
So do you think that what they are doing is evil? If there was no population control disease would increase, living space would decrease, and they might of had to fight their neighboring Countries for land and resources.

Voltaire
13th May 2008, 17:46
Indeed, in a more caring world, resources and space would be more evenly distributed. The money used for the upkeep of this very forum could feed a depressingly large number of hungry mouths. Poverty and clashes of ideologies are never excuses for murder.

Just look at Burma, and the amount of unnecessary death caused by a government refusing to humbly accept aid supplies for an impoverished populace. Those deaths can't be seen as fair, but the survivors shouldn't instigate a battle royale to increase the food per person ratio (which is currently one cup of rice per family per day). It's an extreme example, but it illustrates the point.

Chemix
13th May 2008, 19:41
spread out, there is enough room in China for 2 people per square mile, and considering there are 11,000 some people in a small city taking up 2 miles, and there isn't that much congestion of populace or traffic around here, half a square mile per person is pretty damned open. The problem is that most of this land isn't very hospitable and requires some work to make truly livable, work that China (the government thereof) would rather put into it's economy than into it's quality of life for it's people.

Food can be grown in mass quantities using hydroponics and the seas are not completely unlivable. It's possible to even life on or below the water, perhaps not in cities, but it floating modules available as cheap housing. The only problem then is safety, but I think that those who would be killed otherwise, would happily appreciate an alternative to such a fate.

Gary_Savage
15th May 2008, 21:50
No, it doesn't, that's why I put it separate from what I said about Jesus. It is almost impossible to prove or disprove religion. I cannot give you proof that Jesus as the bible described him never existed, neither can you give me proof that he did.

Quite a change in position you've taken, from
I think that Jesus never existed to
I cannot give you proof that Jesus as the bible described him never existed
_________________________________________________

As for
Jesus as the bible described him never existed, neither can you give me proof that he did., :lol: when did I start agreeing with the Vatican? :lol:

_________________________________________________

Anyway, you started looking into any quantum mechanics, by any chance? I can't proove that reading David Griffith's book will give you better DX3 weapons mods, but you cannot disproove that reading his work you will kill one less Schrodinger's cat. :D

Blade_hunter
15th May 2008, 22:52
Ah Yes I want to propose more other guns :D

A Netgun

The net gun throws a net to our enemies without knocking them or kill them but we must be cautious because some enemies have some cutting tools and can break the net and be dangerous again; when our enemies are in the net we can knock them easily, use our pick pocketing ability, liberate them, move them if we are strong enough and more other possibilities :)

A grapple launcher

the grapple launcher can be used to climb some buildings and get some uses like make some crazy traps with this gun.

I think a great game engine can makes these weapons interesting in use

in a DX mod a sew this :D enjoy
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=pf43_RWOc0U

iWait
15th May 2008, 23:08
I'm sorry, I assumed everybody knew what I meant by saying "I do not believe Jesus ever existed"
I made that statement in response to a post suggesting that I was educated by Christians and was taught to believe only in Jesus Christ. If you look at the post I made and put it in the context of the post I was responding to, you should understand what I meant by saying that.

I never said that you supported the Vatican or what it does/did, I just wanted to, while we were discussing my religious affiliations, show some things I believe are abit messed up with the Catholic Church.


Also, I believe that Schrodinger's Cat theory is quite amusing.

Gary_Savage
15th May 2008, 23:42
I'm sorry, I assumed everybody knew what I meant by saying "I do not believe Jesus ever existed"
I made that statement in response to a post suggesting that I was educated by Christians and was taught to believe only in Jesus Christ. If you look at the post I made and put it in the context of the post I was responding to, you should understand what I meant by saying that.

O, I thought that that comment about being educated by Christians was directed at Chemix. :D Well, I thought it was said to Chemix, though I did not take it to mean that its author was implying the education of anyone on this thread. I just thought that it was a general statement (one that I have not found ample proof for, but one I cannot argue against, either). Given that, you shouldn't think that anything was being pointed at you, so I think you can relax.


I never said that you supported the Vatican or what it does/did, I just wanted to, while we were discussing my religious affiliations, show some things I believe are abit messed up with the Catholic Church.

Not being part of that church, I won't agree, or disagree, with you (on your views about the church). I do agree that it seems to wield quite some power. While I don't agree with that church's views (of Jesus), I do think that the guy existed, historically, as a public figure... but we're not arguing about his religious connections, here.



Also, I believe that Schrodinger's Cat theory is quite amusing.

...and a little disturbing, too :( don't you think? Why can't I not kill my kitti-cat? :mad2: It's still a wonderful way of explaining things, though.

________________________________________________

Back on topic:


I got another idea- A tiny handheld chemical laser that you could point at peoples eyes and blind them or point at them to not really hurt them but get their attention.

Why not a simple hand-held flash? Having tried to weaponize a Helium-Neon alignment laser for the same purpose, some years back, I think it would be absurd to believe that the PC (player character) can position the beam spreading lens(es) the right distance from the laser to spread the beam enough to compensate for his/her aim, without spreading it out too much (I nearly looked right into a bar code scanning laser, earlier today, so I know it won't blind any enemies). With a compact flash that has a parabolic mirror to direct most of the energy into a narrow beam, on the other hand (say, the size of a flashbang), the PC can aim roughly at the enemy's face, and fire. If there are multiple enemies clustered close together, then they could all be blinded in one go. This weapon could work like the flashbomb, from Thief1, only with a parabolic mirror, so that our Garrett/PC can look at the enemy, when the thing goes off.

Blade_hunter
16th May 2008, 14:55
For the idea of "chemical laser" I prefer a Radiation gun, but the only thing is how much sci-fi is the game ...

Gary_Savage
16th May 2008, 15:53
That's why I prefer a conventional flash. A bright flash in a dark spot should be blinding, since the eyes will not have time to adjust for the change in brightness. I think that the player should either have a battery powered reusable flash (with a parabolic mirror), or something like a flashbang, as used by SWAT teams. That way we can get a stun option, via a flashbang grenade, without going too sci-fi. Also, a 'flashbang' that only flashes, but does not make a sound, will be good for stunning enemies at a dark corner, quietly. Sounds good, yet?

Blade_hunter
16th May 2008, 21:54
Yes I agree flash devices are a good option, and a blinding laser too, because these weapon exists and we can invent some other flash devices for more tactics.
For example a flash grenade that acts like the LAM with multiple shots can be a good diversion.
A digital camera can acts like your reusable flash device, I think about it because I loved the idea of "everyday" weapons ...

badkarma29
24th May 2008, 18:25
Anyhoo, universal ammo is okay when used properly to cut down on pickup bloat.
I don't think 6 different guns, with 3 ammo choices each, should use a total of 18 different types of ammo altogether. But I have no idea how broad the weapon choices will be in DX3.

Thsi a good idea - but how about 2 pistols types and an Smg using the same ammo, 2 or 3 assault rifles again with the same ammo - you get the idea. That way there would be a fair number of weapons, and each could have some differences, but still not a huge amount of ammo to haul around

sea
25th May 2008, 00:14
Thsi a good idea - but how about 2 pistols types and an Smg using the same ammo, 2 or 3 assault rifles again with the same ammo - you get the idea. That way there would be a fair number of weapons, and each could have some differences, but still not a huge amount of ammo to haul aroundI don't see how that's a problem considering that ammo likely won't take up inventory slots.

Blade_hunter
25th May 2008, 12:54
And what do you think if the ammo will take inventory slots ?

What effect the suits will take if they're used in the game ?

I always wanted to get an ammo management and use armor, suits and other equipment more closer to RPG's than some FPS.

On a FPS when you use an armor the armor is automatically wared in DX when you wear an armor or an other item it works more like some quake 2 items, you activate it and you have a time remaining before the effects stops. The time and the efficiency of an item depends on the environmental skill.
I want to keep the last part, but with a system closer to SS2.

I want to see back some pieces of armor, the thermoptic camo, the hazard suit, and perhaps more suits and versions of these suits, it can make more sense to separate health scheme of the first game.

I think a great variety of weapons and items can be the best thing because each player can build an "armory" at its own image. Each armory can be good for stealth, hacker, brute, and other variations of players. Tactical weapons and standard weapons are good thing.

Blade_hunter
10th Jul 2008, 12:27
Sorry to post twice but its to talk more about ammo than weapons, In DX the ammo was he great thing of the game and they remove on it's the different kinds of ammo to put an unique ammo.

I've proposed in some post to convert the ammo converters of DX to ammo that enlarges the the ammo possibilities of weapons, keep the logic of the universe technology.

From DX 2 I want to convert theses mods into ammo

EMP converter
Glass destabilizer
Fragmentary round

The ammo results are:

EMP rounds
Glass destabilizer ammo
Fragmentation ammo

Not all weapons have theses kind of ammo of course, but some of them have them, the Glass destabilizer ammo is rare because it was an infiltration item and guards never carry this kind of ammo, for guards near locations with patrol bots they can get some EMP ammo, for they're weapons, or use heavy weapons instead (RL, grenades, etc)
The fragmentation ammo is for explosives, bullets/slugs , arrows/darts, weapons that don't fire a lot of projectiles like a shotgun for example.

Some ammo can have a sort of tactical issue and/or upgrade the effectiveness of a weapon against a target

- Remote camera that can be fired with a weapon
- A noise maker ammo
- A mine (proxipity, laser triggered, etc)
- A biological gas ammo (high caliber weapons, abd maybe chemical throwers with liquids that leave some toxic gas)
- A White Phosphorous ammo
- A napalm/incendiary ammo (for explosives, shell pellets, bullets or chemical throwers for example)
- An Acid ammo (for explosives or chemical throwers for example)
- Armor piercing (Bullets, Shells, even rockets)
- Anti personnel (for bullets for example)
- Tranquilizers (darts/arrows, bullets, shotshells)
- Smoke ammo (for high caliber weapons)
- Explosive ammo (bullets, shells, the rockets and the grenades are basically explosive)
- Flare ammo (arrows, bullets, shotshells)
- Concussion ammo
- Poison ammo (darts,arrows, bullets, shotshells)

I don't think I've mentioned all kind of ammo, I hesitate about rubber bullets because some weapons are made to fire them and they're not conventional weapons

What do you think and suggest about this ?

jcp28
10th Jul 2008, 15:58
I agree that those mods from DX 2 would work better as ammo. But I really don't think we need all those damn rounds you mentioned. Phosphorus, acid... this is like the suits thread. We really don't need all this much. We only need ammo for pistols, rifles, shotguns, crossbows, flamethrowers, rocket launchers, and probably some kind of crowd control weapon in addition to various explosive devices. And we can have explosive rounds for our regular(pistol, shotgun, rifle) weapons. But otherwise, there wouldn't be huge reason for an augmented agent to use most of these weapons.

iWait
10th Jul 2008, 21:54
I don't get the use for a noise maker ammo...

Romeo
11th Jul 2008, 01:03
To make noise, duh. ;) lol

I think he means like the Magnum from PD:Z. You could shot it initially silenced, and after the ound hit something, it made a noise. This made it seem like you were firing from somewhere else. Good for confusing the opposition.

And phospherous rounds are a fancy term for Tracers, which is the ammunition that allows you to "see" your shots, and can ignite certain substances. It's also illegal for civilian use.

iWait
11th Jul 2008, 03:43
Anti-Armor Round:
Using the same principle as a modern shaped charge, this (50. Cal? Maybe for sniper only?) round projects a molten stream of copper just before impact, melting a hole in most things and causing massive damage to occupants of vehicles.

%43Burnt
11th Jul 2008, 04:11
How about instead of ammo and weapons, they increase the possibilities of playing through the game without having to kill a single person. One of the things that made the original Deus Ex such an incredible game was the open ended nature of the gameplay. While the game was played from first person view, I would hardly call it an FPS. Instead, the viewpoint and whatnot merely served as a GUI for gameplay mechanics that borrowed heavily from the PC RPGs of decades past.

I'm really really hoping they don't make this game idiot proof like they did with a certain title whose name won't be mentioned. Instead they should focus on more open ended game play and greater evironmental interactivity. I must say, if they incorporated sand-box elements, Deus Ex 3 could be a really awesome experience.

That being said, I do think a dual wield feature would be pretty cool.

(I see high probability that this reply may get flamed)

Laputin Man
11th Jul 2008, 04:51
How about instead of ammo and weapons, they increase the possibilities of playing through the game without having to kill a single person. One of the things that made the original Deus Ex such an incredible game was the open ended nature of the gameplay. While the game was played from first person view, I would hardly call it an FPS. Instead, the viewpoint and whatnot merely served as a GUI for gameplay mechanics that borrowed heavily from the PC RPGs of decades past.

I'm really really hoping they don't make this game idiot proof like they did with a certain title whose name won't be mentioned. Instead they should focus on more open ended game play and greater evironmental interactivity. I must say, if they incorporated sand-box elements, Deus Ex 3 could be a really awesome experience.

That being said, I do think a dual wield feature would be pretty cool.

(I see high probability that this reply may get flamed)

THIS!

Well, I'm not completely sure about the free roam thing. But everything is spot on. I'd really not want to see alot of things get over complicated. A few added weapons, weapon mods, and a new ammo type or two is fine. I'd really like to see more of what this guy suggested. And also, I'd kind of like the game to take place in FPP instead of FPS.

GruntOwner
11th Jul 2008, 22:29
How about instead of ammo and weapons, they increase the possibilities of playing through the game without having to kill a single person. One of the things that made the original Deus Ex such an incredible game was the open ended nature of the gameplay. While the game was played from first person view, I would hardly call it an FPS. Instead, the viewpoint and whatnot merely served as a GUI for gameplay mechanics that borrowed heavily from the PC RPGs of decades past.

I'm really really hoping they don't make this game idiot proof like they did with a certain title whose name won't be mentioned. Instead they should focus on more open ended game play and greater evironmental interactivity. I must say, if they incorporated sand-box elements, Deus Ex 3 could be a really awesome experience.

That being said, I do think a dual wield feature would be pretty cool.

(I see high probability that this reply may get flamed)

Sir, you are one of the few people whom I have seen joining this this forum and making a helpful, different suggestion with understandable modesty. Congrtulations.

I completely agree apart from the free roam and duel wield, Deus Ex only needs a few more additions to what it already had and the rest should focus on other non-combat options.Certainly not crappy tools which replace the weapons as a routine item, yet at the same time not level/area specific. Something to fire out a fine wire at high speed and then make a chirping noise before retracting back would be great for distractions, but they may prove to be a problem as people might call for backup if they're smart. Perhaps an item to replicate an animal sound. If someone hears you then starts invstigating, you go meow and rustle into the bush. They assume it was a cat. Problem being if you're somewhere the aniaml wouldn't normally be, or if they happen to be very bored and relaxed, like a rooftop sniper on a really quiet night. They don't make it possible to do all stealth, yet they can be used in may situations. The wire can tap against something when the baddy is moving on an innocent, and they go to see what it was before you come out from the other side of the room and knife him, etc. They can evel be implemented into an assault plan.

Welcome to the forum.:)

Fen
12th Jul 2008, 16:44
How about instead of ammo and weapons, they increase the possibilities of playing through the game without having to kill a single person. One of the things that made the original Deus Ex such an incredible game was the open ended nature of the gameplay. While the game was played from first person view, I would hardly call it an FPS. Instead, the viewpoint and whatnot merely served as a GUI for gameplay mechanics that borrowed heavily from the PC RPGs of decades past.

I'm really really hoping they don't make this game idiot proof like they did with a certain title whose name won't be mentioned. Instead they should focus on more open ended game play and greater evironmental interactivity. I must say, if they incorporated sand-box elements, Deus Ex 3 could be a really awesome experience.

That being said, I do think a dual wield feature would be pretty cool.

(I see high probability that this reply may get flamed)

Yeah this is what I want to see as well. DX left you with a feeling that the story was really up to you and you were not forced to do things a certain way. It captured one of the greatest RPG elements there is, but allowed for a decent shooter at the same time.

As for free roam, no thanks. Large levels are great, but free roam games dont tend to tell a compelling story as well as a linear pathed game.

As for dual wield, no thanks. Its just too overdone and cliche these days. And yes I know that the main chracter in DX1 woar sunglasses and a trenchcoat :o

Styrisvolurin
12th Jul 2008, 19:45
I was also a fan of the crossbow and the nanosword. I'm happy to see what they throw in, but yeah I have to agree with the anti-universal mob, it takes fun out the game if its laying around available everywhere, you may as well just flick on a bunch of cheats.

Blade_hunter
12th Jul 2008, 22:38
About a new kind of weapons I think about remote explosives(bombs gas etc...), but with a special feature.
Use the remote controller to choose the explosive we want to explode and with a simple method, by target the explosive itself with our remote controller, in many games when we do that, the remote explosives, will detonate in the order of release or all at the same time.
We can use a sort of remote control that can choose the wanted explosive by for example this kind of working.
The primary fire will throw the explosives and the secondary will activate a sort of mini menu (we must hold the button pressed to keep the menu open)
and with our mouse cursor chose the explosive that we want to detonate
Ok this will disable the aim but when we need to choose the bomb we don't need to aim and the release of the secondary fire button when we use this weapon makes the aim normal again

We can use this system for turrets or gas boxes, even control drones if we want to disable them for a further use or move them.
One other thing is put some remote spy cams

About some other special weapons like turrets I want to see some critics about it, maybe solutions to enhance it, and other ideas

Chemix
13th Jul 2008, 00:52
The difficult thing is, you typically want to be behind cover when you detonate explosives, so maybe a timer, or better yet device that allows you to detonate a specifically numbered explosive, like 1, 2, 3, 4, or so on.

Blade_hunter
13th Jul 2008, 12:02
It's for that reason I proposed the second tip ;)
The first is by designate the bomb by painting after this proposal, I've thought about the covering and propose the second tip.
The secondary fire button will work as a bomb selector menu, that allow by clicking in the wanted explosive to detonate it.

Chemix
13th Jul 2008, 12:40
I missed that, though the idea in my post was simply to assign them to number keys so you didn't have to click each one with the mouse

Blade_hunter
13th Jul 2008, 12:46
Yes, it's an other view and it could work. the advantage of your system is the fact you can use an other weapon instead of mine that we must keep the remote weapon in the hand to detonate the bombs.

Fen
13th Jul 2008, 13:21
Yeah, I think the whole using mines and traps could be explored a lot more in DX3. Ive done that scene where the dudes bust into your brothers room a lot of times, trying to fortify and build traps etc. But it just doesnt work all that well due to the nature of the explosives.

jcp28
13th Jul 2008, 16:08
Yes, that's pretty obvious. But hopefully, you'll be able to use explosive traps and other such similar devices after being forewarned of some situation where they might serve some good use. The first time I played Deus Ex, I didn't know Anna Navarre was going to show up to make sure I killed Lebedev or that a huge massive force would bust in your brother's room.

So maybe we could have some sort of infiltration-type options in our missions where we might use such explosives to break through fences at remote points, maybe blow up a generator as a distraction to make it easier for you to access some other part of the complex you are at. Else, you could place explosives in an area where you expect reinforcements to arrive, and then you might end up taking out a goodly portion of them.

Jima B
13th Jul 2008, 18:13
In terms of ammo, why don't they just be Realistic? :P

Shells to be used in all form of Shotguns...
9mm to be used in standard SMGs and Pistols

Like they did in the old DX1 :P
And like they use in stalker :)

Im not opposed to ammo taking up inventory slots...

How come on DX1 you can carry 4 boxes of Gep rockets, and 4 boxes pistol ammo... but if you don't use the pistol, and so carry no pistol ammo... That means you have 0 boxes of pistol ammo, yet can still only have 4 boxes of Gep rockets...

Thats why i like stalker; you can throw away the forms of ammo you don't use in favour of carrying more guns/items/ammo you do use...

Of course they could solve that whole argument by making all ammo on the game standardised... but that isn't as tactical at all, and that seems to have made people a little angry in DXIW...

Blade_hunter
13th Jul 2008, 22:29
The ammo in therms of realism must have some properties that justify their existence and their use in the first game we have the buckshot shotshells for organic targets and the sabot shotshells for the mechanical / armored targets.

the caliber of the bullets can justify its amount of damages, the damage type, the range and the bullet speed.
A sniper rifle bullet is faster than a pistol bullet
The arrow is one of the slowest ammo because they don't use weapons that can throw the projectile at high speed.
An SMG can fire faster than an assault rifle because the SMG ammo is shorter than an assault rifle ammo.
A sniper rifle makes more damages than an assault rifle with the same ammo because the propellants (gas) aren't used to make the automatic function.
Bullets with better propellants can deal more damages than bullets with lower propellants, the range and the bullet speed is affected by this effect.
The laser have no projectile delay because lasers have the lightspeed
Modify the laser mirror chambers will change the power of the laser, the light source too.

I think the ammo makes the weaponry tactical, it makes a reason for their environment use, in DX we cant use the pistol underwater, but the crossbow can be used.

For ammo management I give my opinion in an other thread...

I think all wants tactical explosives :D

Fen
14th Jul 2008, 07:51
I think all wants tactical explosives :D

First time round, I decided I wanted to train in explosives. Trained up to advanced, but it never really paid off. I would REALLY like to see an explosives skill return, but have it worthwhile.

Blade_hunter
14th Jul 2008, 10:11
For me I want to see back the skills too, they were useful to adapt us with the game difficulty, in the tower in the area 51 this skill was useful for defusing the bombs

CJRamze
20th Aug 2008, 21:31
Definatly not down with universal ammo
Thought it was pointless as I always ended up having 1400 pistol rounds but as soon as I pulled the sniper rifle out and Fired off a few rounds and went back to my pistol I only had one Clip.
Infuriating,


However in the same respect I always found Sniper ammo in Deus Ex Incredibly sparse to the point where I constantly had a sniper rifle with no ammo!


So basically as far as I'm concerned
I hate universal ammunition, but dont make ammunition so sparse for certain guns that you'll never use them.

Maybe have a proper armoury where you can purchase ammunition in trade for credits?
That sounds like a good idea to me.

On the weapon model's
Deus Ex 1, I thought had very good weapon models
Deus Ex 2, Tried far too hard to be futurisitc and I thought they looked balls.

As far as modifications go for weapons I again didn't like Deus Ex's IW's methods.

However I have an idea for this and hear me out.

External modifications such as
Flashlights
Red Dot Sights
Scopes

That would mount to RIS rails etc should have a Crysis addon system. (see link)
http://www.ben-carlson.com/images/77.jpg
Something similar to that would be fantastic

HOWEVER
For internal weapon modifications such as, Increased power, Glass Destabaliser etc. You need to take your gun to the armoury or Gunsmith for alteration.

This means that in battle you can bring out your gun and change over certain elements but you cant just suddenly make it incredibly powerful in the middle of a battle.


Anyone wit any feedback :-)

jcp28
21st Aug 2008, 02:28
^

Eh, there were only a few instances where the sniper rifle was useful(the rooftops of Hell's Kitchen, the area behind Vandenberg Air Force Base, and the tower straight ahead of where you start in Area 51 all come to mind) But you're right. There'd benothing wrong with a few places with ammo.

As for the mods you suggest, I don't really see a huge need for them. Sure they'd be cool. However, others have correctly pointed out that DX is much more than a straight shooter game. Which means that if there are mods, they will modify characterstics like recoil, accuracy, and so forth that help your gun to fire better.

I'll be the first to admit that I didn't know exactly how they affected your weapon firing. I assumed they supplemented the skill points you already spent on improving weapon skill in differenr catagories., but I could be wrong

CJRamze
21st Aug 2008, 03:12
^

Eh, there were only a few instances where the sniper rifle was useful(the rooftops of Hell's Kitchen, the area behind Vandenberg Air Force Base, and the tower straight ahead of where you start in Area 51 all come to mind) But you're right. There'd benothing wrong with a few places with ammo.

As for the mods you suggest, I don't really see a huge need for them. Sure they'd be cool. However, others have correctly pointed out that DX is much more than a straight shooter game. Which means that if there are mods, they will modify characterstics like recoil, accuracy, and so forth that help your gun to fire better.

I'll be the first to admit that I didn't know exactly how they affected your weapon firing. I assumed they supplemented the skill points you already spent on improving weapon skill in differenr catagories., but I could be wrong

I think you missed what I'm saying
I wasnt saying the gun itself was useless, It was one of my favourite weapons but the ammo was incredibly sparse.

Also on the "Mods" thats what I mean, ones that make the gun more accurate.
if for example you wanted to make the gun more accurate over range you'd use an extended barrell

Thats not something you could just apply in the field,
That would need to be done by an official gunsmith.

farmerbobconspiracist
21st Aug 2008, 21:28
Sometimes because I ran out of ammo for a weapon I was forced to try another weapon...this actually enhanced my game experience because I had to try new methods. In DX2, when I ran out of universal ammo suddenly all my non-melee weapon options were gone; this was frustrating in a bad way.

I remember several occasions where I ran out of universal ammo in the middle of a firefight. :mad2:

I swear, I would've strangled the bastard that forced that concept on me if he was there at the time. Never again. Never.

farmerbobconspiracist
21st Aug 2008, 22:07
Thinking about it, there's probably more kinds of darts you could implement for the mini-crossbow (and it BETTER be in DX3) than you would have time to do so.

Gas Grenade Dart: Upon hitting a target, releases a small amount of non-lethal gas like the gas grenade. Since this is smaller, the amount of gas and time it lasts should be a fraction of a grenade. Shouldn't be reusable.

Flash Bomb Dart: Make it something akin to flash bomb option on the SMG. Perhaps not as powerful, though. Shouldn't be reusable.

Lock/Door Buster Dart: Dart with a small explosive charge (and I do mean small). Enough power to blow apart some doors and locks... Could have amusing results on human targets. Obviously can't be reusable.

Noisemaker Dart: Dart that will emit a very distracting noise upon hitting a target.

Electro-Dart: Something like a mini-prod, with "knock out" and "lethal" charge settings. Perhaps could minorly affect bots with lethal setting, maybe temporarily knocking them offline. Should affect cameras somewhat, as well. Shouldn't be reusable.

Flare Dart: Bring it back, please.

Surveillance Dart: Shoots a dart containing a miniature remotely-operated camera. Yes, it's a rip-off of the sticky-cams from Splinter Cell.

Poison Dart: In case you're too sadistic for mere tranqs and want to actually kill, but just silently.



One of the other things I was thinking of was a Holo-Grenade. A grenade that could be programmed to broadcast a holographic image when thrown. You could possibly use several different templates, maybe needing to have detailed scans or something similar in order to program new template images. This could lead to humorous events. Imagine if you could throw a holo-grenade with the image of Walton Simons into a group of UNACTO soldiers.

gamer0004
22nd Aug 2008, 05:20
Gas Grenade Dart: Upon hitting a target, releases a small amount of non-lethal gas like the gas grenade. Since this is smaller, the amount of gas and time it lasts should be a fraction of a grenade. Shouldn't be reusable.

Electro-Dart: Something like a mini-prod, with "knock out" and "lethal" charge settings. Perhaps could minorly affect bots with lethal setting, maybe temporarily knocking them offline. Should affect cameras somewhat, as well. Shouldn't be reusable.

One of the other things I was thinking of was a Holo-Grenade. A grenade that could be programmed to broadcast a holographic image when thrown. You could possibly use several different templates, maybe needing to have detailed scans or something similar in order to program new template images. This could lead to humorous events. Imagine if you could throw a holo-grenade with the image of Walton Simons into a group of UNACTO soldiers.

I like most of your ideas but why would anyone use a gas grenade when there are gas darts available? Besides, I think prod darts would be a bit overpowered...

farmerbobconspiracist
22nd Aug 2008, 13:44
I like most of your ideas but why use a gas grenade when one can use tranq darts?


Can a single tranq dart immobilize multiple enemies instantly? Even multiple headshots (on aware enemies) with trans in DX took seconds to take someone down. Gas is instanteous. How many times have you come across two enemies talking to another and wanted to immobilize both instanteously and silently? Doing so with tranqs is not possible, the other will always be alerted to you once his friend hits the pavement. With a gas dart, it is possible.


Besides, I think prod darts would be a bit overpowered...

No, not really. Especially if you make the ammunition hard to come by and, as I said, not reusable. Plus, the main focus of DX is to give a choice to the players. If players don't want to go out of their way to find that ammunition to use it, and would rather use cloaking/stealth and simply use the prod - that's their prerogative.

Also, note that I said should minorly affect electronic targets. We're not talking about a combo EMP/electric-death-bolt here.

GruntOwner
22nd Aug 2008, 15:37
Unless your hit with a stunprod was spot on, people would only start twiching for a bit, so a stundart could be pretty fun. You see a flamer guy but don't have enough cover to move in and melee him silently before he opened on you, so you dart him, run in and finish off with the baton or knife. Silent but expensive, as they would be rare, probably exclusive to really high level police officers. Perhaps they have one or two men with them when they come to capture you, or only really good private security forces can afford them. I gotta say that I for one like the idea, provided that they're rare.

foxberg
22nd Aug 2008, 15:53
I have a better one for you - how 'bout an annihilation dart? Upon firing towards the enemy it clears out the entire area - no people, animals, trees or buildings left. It's just you with that little crossbow standing nearby...

jcp28
22nd Aug 2008, 17:08
I think you missed what I'm saying
I wasnt saying the gun itself was useless, It was one of my favourite weapons but the ammo was incredibly sparse.

Also on the "Mods" thats what I mean, ones that make the gun more accurate.
if for example you wanted to make the gun more accurate over range you'd use an extended barrell

Thats not something you could just apply in the field,
That would need to be done by an official gunsmith.

You actually missed what I was saying. I meant there were a few places where the sniper rifle was useful.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that pistol and shotgun ammo are more common anyway. On the other hand, I would like a few more places where I could use a sniper rifle, that would rock.

And props to Bob for his dart ideas!

GruntOwner
22nd Aug 2008, 19:04
I have a better one for you - how 'bout an annihilation dart? Upon firing towards the enemy it clears out the entire area - no people, animals, trees or buildings left. It's just you with that little crossbow standing nearby...

You've been watching the Fallout 3 trailer too much.

How about, for the higher level assault rifle: The Gatling Carbine. Same size as a normal rifle, 5.7mm caseless ammo fed from a 100 round drum, 3 barrels of pain. Cannot attach silencer, takes some time to warm up, then proceeds to cut just about everyone in front of you in half. Concentrate half a clip on a military bot's leg joints and you can bring it to the ground. It's perfectly feesable, with nano tech batteries. You would have to say the power changing was an off screen thing or it would get really boring, but if you have no care for stealth and really wanna go down in style, this thing would be great.

But whilst the subject of cruel and unusual crossbow bolts is up, the scorpian bolt: it fires like a normal bolt, hits the taget, but then it releases its payload: a sadistic little metallic snake which burrows into the target and blenders/juices them. Not stealthy, not cheap, but when you really need the job done in the first shot...

gamer0004
23rd Aug 2008, 06:10
Totally unrealistic and over the top. You really have no idea what the idea is behind machineguns (= not assault rifles!), do you?

Jerion
23rd Aug 2008, 06:25
Oooh, that gives me an idea. What if you could disable automated gun turrets, then break them off of their turret mounts and carry them around as disposable weapons (once the ammo is gone, the turret is no longer usable)?

Obviously you couldn't stash it in your inventory, but you could just throw it down on the ground and pick it back up later.

They wouldn't have explosive ammunition, of course; Effectively death incarnate for enemy infantry, greasels, lightly armored bots, and furniture (That couch in the DuClare Chateau piss you off? Problem solved. :D), but next to useless against more heavily armored obstacles.

GruntOwner
23rd Aug 2008, 13:22
Totally unrealistic and over the top. You really have no idea what the idea is behind machineguns (= not assault rifles!), do you?

Not unrealistic in the slightest. The bolt simply requires basic movement ability, and the gatling carbine is entirely possible. It would be heavy, yes, but it's by no means at all impossible. I'm not sure what you're talking about the difference between machine guns and assault rifles for, as making it an assault rifle was the plan and machine guns never came into the matter. We're talking about nano tech, so the battery would be easy to justify, now the only problem is ammo size, which was solved by the 5.7 caseless point. Most people refuse to accept that this sort of tech would be available because they have no idea what nanotech is for. Nanotech is the premise behind the space elevator, it's taking something that would otherwise be infeesable due to density and weight, and solving it by making extremely light, extremely strong materials. This is stuff made to the precision of 1nm=10 atoms. Having taken 5nm wide sheets of titanium you proceed to honeycomb them and layer them. The net result is very light, ungodly resiliant and uses the same stuff that would make cancer a thing of the paast.

gamer0004
23rd Aug 2008, 13:50
Not unrealistic in the slightest. The bolt simply requires basic movement ability, and the gatling carbine is entirely possible. It would be heavy, yes, but it's by no means at all impossible. I'm not sure what you're talking about the difference between machine guns and assault rifles for, as making it an assault rifle was the plan and machine guns never came into the matter. We're talking about nano tech, so the battery would be easy to justify, now the only problem is ammo size, which was solved by the 5.7 caseless point. Most people refuse to accept that this sort of tech would be available because they have no idea what nanotech is for. Nanotech is the premise behind the space elevator, it's taking something that would otherwise be infeesable due to density and weight, and solving it by making extremely light, extremely strong materials. This is stuff made to the precision of 1nm=10 atoms. Having taken 5nm wide sheets of titanium you proceed to honeycomb them and layer them. The net result is very light, ungodly resiliant and uses the same stuff that would make cancer a thing of the paast.

The point was that such a weapon (gatling gun) has a lot of firepower. Which means that it has to be used as a machinegun or it's quite useless. Assault rifles have enough firepower to clear a building or trench or whatever. Gatling guns would be too heavy and bulky for use in such environments. They can be useful as some kind of heavy machinegun; however there will probably no real warfare in DX so that's quite useless too.

GruntOwner
23rd Aug 2008, 13:58
I'm not saying it would be a common item at all, but there will always be a need fo rgreater firepower. The weight issue is easily solved by the nanotech. It's uses would be few and far between, yes, but if you're lacking an explosive then you could concentrate it on a bot, or if you just really want to leave a bloody crater where once stood a barracks, then this would be the tool. Humans are always looking for more firepower, it's in our nature. It makes us feel secure. When the first automatic weapons came about, we didn't stop, we kept on making weapons, because we knew that eventually someone would make a way of protecting themselves from it. Loof at some of the things in DX. The PeaceMaker military bot springs to mind. It had rocket launchers and chain guns. It was a huge, terrifying monstrocity that could take on an APC, but they had them patrolling the streets of a newly conqured and curfewed Paris, not because of the intimidation, but because they were part of the arsenal now.

farmerbobconspiracist
24th Aug 2008, 00:23
Not unrealistic in the slightest. The bolt simply requires basic movement ability, and the gatling carbine is entirely possible. It would be heavy, yes, but it's by no means at all impossible. I'm not sure what you're talking about the difference between machine guns and assault rifles for, as making it an assault rifle was the plan and machine guns never came into the matter. We're talking about nano tech, so the battery would be easy to justify, now the only problem is ammo size, which was solved by the 5.7 caseless point. Most people refuse to accept that this sort of tech would be available because they have no idea what nanotech is for. Nanotech is the premise behind the space elevator, it's taking something that would otherwise be infeesable due to density and weight, and solving it by making extremely light, extremely strong materials. This is stuff made to the precision of 1nm=10 atoms. Having taken 5nm wide sheets of titanium you proceed to honeycomb them and layer them. The net result is very light, ungodly resiliant and uses the same stuff that would make cancer a thing of the paast.

I honestly do not see the appeal of gatling/miniguns in games.

I'll just say that such a system would be so bulky, heavy, recoiling (and, no, I don't believe augmented strength would be enough to handle it), and expensive that it would unlikely ever be used.

The thing that they never tell you about these man-portable minigun systems you see in the movies are first-and-foremost used with blanks (read: nearly no recoil, just hot gases) and also have their cycling rate lowered about 1800 rounds per minute. And that, oh yeah, they've never been used in any real-world tactical exercise.

Jerion
24th Aug 2008, 05:05
Buddy, I think they saw the Ahhnold holding the minigun in Terminator 2 and went nuts over it. :nut:

iWait
24th Aug 2008, 05:42
Oooh, that gives me an idea. What if you could disable automated gun turrets, then break them off of their turret mounts and carry them around as disposable weapons (once the ammo is gone, the turret is no longer usable)?

Obviously you couldn't stash it in your inventory, but you could just throw it down on the ground and pick it back up later.

They wouldn't have explosive ammunition, of course; Effectively death incarnate for enemy infantry, greasels, lightly armored bots, and furniture (That couch in the DuClare Chateau piss you off? Problem solved. :D), but next to useless against more heavily armored obstacles.

Post of the century.

GruntOwner
24th Aug 2008, 07:20
I assure you, this has nothing to do with films, and I'm quite aware of the undue hype miniguns seem to get (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GatlingGood), though the idea appeared in GURPS UltraTech. Gurps is the RPG system which has a table concerning the passage of time depending your velocity relative to the speed of light. It is probably the only RP system you can ever take seriously unless it specifically states that it is taking the piss. I would thoughry recomend the designers get it just to take a a look at some of the things it has to offer, including "vortex preojectors", which propel gas at people very quickly, ice needle guns, about 7 varieties of laser (not that they deserve a place in DX at all) and a fairly realistic look at the progression of conventional firearms.

iWait
24th Aug 2008, 17:08
I agree that making a light minigun a nano-augmented agent could carry is feasible, but too over-the-top for Deus Ex. You must keep in mind that most of the people that are going to play DX3 have never played DX, and they will spread hype about the DX series based on their experience with DX3. They may agree with minigun a in the game, but it would be very unfortunate if the Deus Ex series becomes known as a hardcore straight-up shooter akin to Serious Sam.

Jerion
24th Aug 2008, 19:46
Post of the century.

Oh my god, it's offical folks! I have the Post of the century award! :D :o

jcp28
24th Aug 2008, 22:39
I honestly do not see the appeal of gatling/miniguns in games.

I'll just say that such a system would be so bulky, heavy, recoiling (and, no, I don't believe augmented strength would be enough to handle it), and expensive that it would unlikely ever be used.

The thing that they never tell you about these man-portable minigun systems you see in the movies are first-and-foremost used with blanks (read: nearly no recoil, just hot gases) and also have their cycling rate lowered about 1800 rounds per minute. And that, oh yeah, they've never been used in any real-world tactical exercise.

Because some people like shooting off several thousand rounds per minute.

And are you saying it couldn't be done with nanotech? That contradicts something you said in another thread about the space elevator, which you said could be built using carbon nano-tubes.

Yeah, they may not do it since the military probably focuses on weapons that are more useful to soldiers in addition to those that create a big-bang, but if there ever arose a need for "small minigun crews" which I kind of doubt from what I know of tactical priorities then we could certainly do it.

gamer0004
26th Aug 2008, 07:12
Besides the problem of the weapon being unnessecary how do you think this gun can be handled? If the gun is made lighter then the gun will jump into the air with every shot. It would be completely incontrollable. And if we do not get the weight down it's impossible to carry around.

Jerion
26th Aug 2008, 08:03
Besides the problem of the weapon being unnessecary how do you think this gun can be handled? If the gun is made lighter then the gun will jump into the air with every shot. It would be completely incontrollable. And if we do not get the weight down it's impossible to carry around.

How do we move something like this around if it's too heavy to carry around? :scratch:

Simple:

Skateboards. :rasp:

iWait
26th Aug 2008, 15:16
I'm thinking something like this could be implemented in the game. Not a minigun, but a heavy machinegun that takes as much space as a GEP Gun, using incendiary, armor piercing, or airburst rounds. It would have a decent rate of fire, be single-barreled, and would need you to set up a telescopic tripod before it could be used. Furthermore, it could be upgraded with a computer and sensor array to act like a turret, remotely killing enemies and acting as a distraction.

farmerbobconspiracist
26th Aug 2008, 23:08
Because some people like shooting off several thousand rounds per minute.

In Deus Ex?

I'm sorry, but that's really undermining the integrity of what the game stands for. If you like doing this, I really think Deus Ex is likely not for you.


And are you saying it couldn't be done with nanotech?

Where did I say this?

Mainly because it's already been done. The point I'm making is it would be worthless in real-life use. Other weapons would suit the issue better.


That contradicts something you said in another thread about the space elevator

No, it doesn't.

First, carbon nanotubes already exist - we've built and used them in construction. They aren't nanotechnology a'la nanites, either.

Second, tensile strength compared to recoil/heat/weight/portability is like trying to compare apples to ashtrays.

ewanlaing
26th Aug 2008, 23:20
I don't want to sound like a fanboy here, but I'm pretty content with the original ammo system from DX1. I would like to see ammo take up inventory space though, to encourage even more inventory management (one of my favourite aspects of the gameplay).
I think that having the more useful ammo (sniper rounds, rockets, tranq darts) harder to acquire makes the game more interesting and challenging. If you don't have the right ammo, you may have to resort to a firefight, or try to find another way around the problem.
Or you may have to give up on that particular mission.

It's all part of the fun.

Universal ammo, although much more pleasing at first, eventually became a disappointment, as I was no longer in a position to make tactical decisions based on ammo availability. It was just a case of "This gun works best, I'll use it from now on".

~[RTK]arkian~
28th Aug 2008, 07:45
I hope DX3 doesn't have Universal Ammo. This is because DX3 is a prequel so the game will be older if you know what I mean. UA works with DXIW because it's in the future, and it works out. But if DX3 has UA before DX1 (which has seperate ammo) then it won't work out.

Make seperate ammo types!

DXeXodus
28th Aug 2008, 07:48
arkian~;810520']I hope DX3 doesn't have Universal Ammo. This is because DX3 is a prequel so the game will be older if you know what I mean. UA works with DXIW because it's in the future, and it works out. But if DX3 has UA before DX1 (which has seperate ammo) then it won't work out.

Make seperate ammo types!

Excuse me? There has been no mention as to whether DX3 is a prequel, sequel, or something in-between.

foxberg
28th Aug 2008, 12:35
arkian~;810520']I hope DX3 doesn't have Universal Ammo. This is because DX3 is a prequel so the game will be older if you know what I mean. UA works with DXIW because it's in the future, and it works out. But if DX3 has UA before DX1 (which has seperate ammo) then it won't work out.

Make seperate ammo types!

There's no supporting evidence that DX3 is a prequel. If anything, there're more hints that this would be a sequel instead.

minus0ne
29th Aug 2008, 00:08
In Deus Ex?

I'm sorry, but that's really undermining the integrity of what the game stands for. If you like doing this, I really think Deus Ex is likely not for you.
Deus Ex was inspired heavily by the Ghost in the Shell mangas/movies/series, where characters routinely use rotary-machineguns and other heavy weapons to clear entire floors of anything that moves. It's also heavily entangled with cyberpunk science fiction (emphasis on fiction).

The fact that it's basically useless in real life doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in a game like DX(3), which is supposed to have heavy emphasis on freedom on choice and freedom to choose your own approach.

I'm a stealthy player myself, but I do not see the harm in having the option to go nuts on occasion (or on replays). If Arnold Scharzenegger was the only guy on the set of T2 who could lift and carry a minigun, an augmented player character in DX would surely be able to lump it around.

gamer0004
29th Aug 2008, 13:56
Deus Ex was inspired heavily by the Ghost in the Shell mangas/movies/series, where characters routinely use rotary-machineguns and other heavy weapons to clear entire floors of anything that moves. It's also heavily entangled with cyberpunk science fiction (emphasis on fiction).

The fact that it's basically useless in real life doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in a game like DX(3), which is supposed to have heavy emphasis on freedom on choice and freedom to choose your own approach.

I'm a stealthy player myself, but I do not see the harm in having the option to go nuts on occasion (or on replays). If Arnold Scharzenegger was the only guy on the set of T2 who could lift and carry a minigun, an augmented player character in DX would surely be able to lump it around.

Please. Just that it appeared in GitS doesn't mean I want it in DX. I've never seen GitS, but I do hope that it's not about people like us in a world like ours.
That's the whole point. I don't dislike games like Serious Sam, but that's not trying to be serious. DX is, and it's about normal people like there are on earth today and is only 50 years (slightly less) in the future. Why would mankind suddenly change from a race of which the scientists try to make efficient and effetive weapons to some kind of strange race where the scientists are merely trying to make guns that look good?
Like I said: "Besides the problem of the weapon being unnessecary how do you think this gun can be handled? If the gun is made lighter then the gun will jump into the air with every shot. It would be completely incontrollable. And if we do not get the weight down it's impossible to carry around."
Even if JC would be strong enough to actually wield a full size full weight minigun, he would be lifted into the air along with the gun. It's impossible. Very simple.

Besides, I'd like to adress the problem of firepower.
Assault rifles are meant to have enough firepower to clear a trench or a chamber. More firepower=stupid because you run to fast out of ammo, there is too much recoil (which means the gun has to be heavier or is uncontrollable) and the barrel gets too hot etc. Which is why assault rifles don't have such a high firepower. I mean, why do you think man has invented the burst option? Automatic fire isn't even always necesarry, let alone a gun with a rate of fire of about 2000 rounds a minute. If we go back to full automatic firepower and more rounds a minute is better than we're back into the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s.
Of course, we still have heavy machineguns. You notice something?
Yes, it's HEAVY machinegun. They have to be heavy to be able to shoot many rounds a minute while being accurate enough to pin down the enemy.
The idea is as following: there is always an attacker. He's got a disadvantage because he has to come closer to the defender. While doing so he can't have as much cover as the defender, because he has to move. To eliminate that disadvantage, the attacker tries to get as close as possible and fight on in man-to-man combat. The disadvantages are now gone. Assault rifles are perfectly suited for close range combat.

Of course, nowadays this type of fighting doesn't occur very often. Most of times it's immediately close combat. Think of urban combat. Heavy machineguns are pretty much useless in these kind of situations. Since DX is probably only going to feature urban combat heavy machineguns will be obsolete. So gatling guns will be very very useless.
Besides that, there is a reason the army still doesn't use miniguns after 40 years of use. Yes, they use them in helicopters. But those are fast moving platforms so bullets will spread more so you need more firepower. But you don't need it on the ground.
For shooting down planes there are AA guns, for close combat there are assault rifles and grenades (even though "a bomb's a bad choice for close range combat" :P) and even knives/bayonets, for mid-range there are heavy machineguns, for long range sniper rifles. A minigun simply doesn't fit in, even if it would be possible (and it isn't).

farmerbobconspiracist
31st Aug 2008, 00:30
Deus Ex was inspired heavily by the Ghost in the Shell mangas/movies/series, where characters routinely use rotary-machineguns and other heavy weapons to clear entire floors of anything that moves.

I remember seeing some outrageous stuff in Ghost in the Shell, but man-portable miniguns were not among them, IIRC.


It's also heavily entangled with cyberpunk science fiction (emphasis on fiction).


Fiction is fine, but fiction has grasps and roots in realism. What is being proposed here is fantasy.


The fact that it's basically useless in real life doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in a game like DX(3), which is supposed to have heavy emphasis on freedom on choice and freedom to choose your own approach.


Freedom of choice was the name of the game in DX1. Yet, somehow, people were able to make it through the game without a man-portable gatling gun that likely would've weighed more than JC himself with more recoil than a charging bronco.

Really, I think an assault rifle or two will suffice just fine.


If Arnold Scharzenegger was the only guy on the set of T2 who could lift and carry a minigun, an augmented player character in DX would surely be able to lump it around.

Arnuld was also firing BLANKS. Do you know how much recoil blanks have? None. It's just GASES, and even then, in the amount of firing we're talking about, you still have a lot of movement due to gas expulsion. Also, another thing they don't tell you is that they lower the cycling rate on the miniguns in movies. Sometimes by as much as 2,000 RPM. I honestly believe that firing at full-rate with live rounds would not be controllable even for a nano-augmented human in peak physical shape. It's just too much force.

I'm all for fiction, but again, this is more fantasy than fiction. Such a weapon can exist (and does), but the action of using one in actual combat nears on Looney Toons-esque. I really don't want to see something like this in DX3 because it just doesn't belong there.

mj12_agent13
6th Sep 2008, 11:30
Hi, didn't really know where to post this but one thing that irritates me about weapons in video games is when you shoot people like 10 times and they don't die, this happened a bit in DX and although i loved that game so much i felt the whole combat system was awkward at times...

Are we not at the stage where a single pistol shot to an unarmoured enemy in the middle of the chest will kill him in a game?

Although augmented i think our player should be more vulnerable and so should the enemies but then we could always have alot of enemies with good shooting skills making it extremely hard or even impossible to run around killing everyone and getting through the game quick.

Another idea is to make consequences when you kill people like having a wanted level from police in the game, mabie if other npc's see you kill someone they'll call the police, some people won't want to do business with you or even talk to you if they know you're wanted and if all else fails and you have to do a bit of old fashioned killing then mabie, if you are detected, a whole load of enemies will come at you at once... if there was a crazy killer coming into my secret bad guy headquaters killing my mates i know i would want to round up as many people as possible before going after him...

finally i know this all sounds extreme but if developers are going to spend so many hours making added content, why not encourage people to play the game properly and have more chance of finding all the little extras...

McGunnin
6th Sep 2008, 18:50
Choice A: Play Deus Ex 3 with universal ammo
or
Choice B: Smash man berries repeatedly between two cinder blocks.

I'll take choice B please.

Really though I won't even bother buying the game if they put universial ammo back in it.

I would love to see a game similar to DX1 but better, with a lot more weapon options. Instead of one pistol and one rifle they need several of each type, make some of then a lot harder to find and for craps sake use a different model texture.

I would love to see more of a RPG like story and character model, this could include nano upgrades.

I would love to see a more open and non linear sandbox like world.

Blade_hunter
11th Sep 2008, 19:56
Just take a look about multi-functional ammo
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=aq_y6kkDO7Y

Just take a look about some weapon systems

Concealable weapons :D
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=rNE4jHzNDaE
Caseless ammo and the famous HK G11
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=n6JWCEmCgD8
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPs7gXXaIis
The ejection system of the FN 2000
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=GeYKe_RyeUs
The Spas 15
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=wxa3Ypt4Nio
The Beretta M93R
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=7X5NQGUcCeg
Silenced SMG (look at the end of the vid and hear the noise)
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=xiMQ981lph0
Double action revolver
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=5QEv_YYitq4
Machinegun
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=GKrOdMJrk04
Look at the mechanism of the rifle and at some things
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=PV--qxEREhU
The Barret rifle
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=uy4uDZHhZME
Energy guns (we can see the blinding laser,
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=JOMsFzEGLrw
EMP
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=48lsiZR9TZs
Auto grenade launcher
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=wHf_vMd5MOQ
Dual wield :P
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=gCra4qOrjFw

Many vids are in japanese but the quality of them is good

Romeo
11th Sep 2008, 21:18
I hope that Deus Ex doesn't have universal ammo (even though I accredit them for trying something new), but something I do hope it has is shared ammo, such as ammo between pistols and SMGs, as typically today, most are both 9mm rounds.

Blade_hunter
11th Sep 2008, 21:50
Some weapons have ammo in common like smg's and pistols, some rifles and machine guns.
Pistols and SMG's can use 9x19mm but we have the 10 mm auto .40SW and the 45 ACP rounds and a smaller and newer are the 5.7 mm and the 4.6 mm
I tell only the most famous cartridges because all will be useless ...

Romeo
12th Sep 2008, 01:52
Still, many, many pistols use 9mm rounds, and the two most used SMGs on the planet, the Uzi and the MP5, both make use of 9mm rounds as well. Hell, I know Beretta SMGs can even share clips from their pistols, let alone bullets.

Blade_hunter
12th Sep 2008, 09:25
Yes the most used is the 9mm like the 5.56 mm for military rifles.

Abram730
26th Oct 2008, 08:37
I hope that Deus Ex doesn't have universal ammo (even though I accredit them for trying something new), but something I do hope it has is shared ammo, such as ammo between pistols and SMGs, as typically today, most are both 9mm rounds.

I like the idea of having a few guns for each ammo.
One pics look like metal storm and that nice :D 1 ammo per barrel nice :D not to have to reload for different ammo. only negatives would be the ammo only works with metal storm systems and electronic fire + emp = oops

one pistol looked like it may fire darts or taser as 2nd fire.:D

some 9mm's for ideas
VSK-94 9mm sniper
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/vsk94-l.jpg

LRM M169 9mm Suppressed Machine Gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWnvkaPwDVg

how an emp nad works.
http://www.countdown.org/end/pix/ebomb.jpg
capacitors not shown.
I'm not sure if you want emp nads in the game being a mech and all.

Abram730
26th Oct 2008, 08:41
9mm
5.56
7.62
30.06
50 cal
are quite common.

spm1138
26th Oct 2008, 15:55
I disliked Universal Ammo.

I can see what they were trying to do (be less prescriptive about what guns the player used) but I thought it was more trouble than it was worth.

It also detracted from the FPS portion of the game for me.

Separate ammo, different ammo types (I mean some of the guys you're shooting are squishy some are mechs and some are crunchy) , weapon attachments plx thz.

Attachments... either they should just be permanently available once picked up or they should be an inventory item you can attach to or remove from modular weapons.

If I've found sight X and sight Y which use rail system Z there's no reason I shouldn't keep them when I chuck gun 1 away in favour of gun 2 with the same rail system.

There are some exceptions to this but generally that's how I'd see it working.

Or maybe like Hitman: Contracts where you can stick loads of gucci stuff to your guns and then are able to pick and choose which to bring with you. That would be fun too.

edit
The VSK-94 doesn't fire pistol rounds. It's a necked up AK round designed especially for suppressed rifles.

LatwPIAT
29th Oct 2008, 21:20
I remember seeing some outrageous stuff in Ghost in the Shell, but man-portable miniguns were not among them, IIRC.

Batou, the really huge guy whom' Gunther Hermann is, apparence-wise, modled after, uses a man-portable minigun in the penultimate episode of Ghost in the Shell:Stand Alone Complex, the 2002 TV series. While a bit unrealistic, I always let it pass on the grounds that being so strong, he could negotiate the recoil. (In said episode he wasn't to concerned with acccuracy either, he used to lay down supressive fire in a tight corridor. It's basically a form of fanservice to people who like big guns but arent to concerned with reality. It's remedied by an earlier episode where the Major fires two pistols, one at a time and the slide locks in cocked position once she has emptied the magazines, just like in many real-life guns.)

Hmmmm. I now want a "standard issue big gun" firing SABOT rounds for use against tanks in DX3...

DUAL WIELD??? (Should be "Akimbo" by the way) Look, there is no way you can practically go akimbo in real life (Yadda yadda yadda, DX not being quite real life but an escapist fantasy, etc...) the accuracy you be reduced to bascially means that one gun would be sufficient to fire with anyways. The only instance of akimbo being practical is for laying down supressive fire with one-handed revolvers (because they were impractical to hold with two hands, a feature avoided on real-life guns), a technique used by russians during WWII but made obsolete by the advent of SMGs. Even then it probalby wan't very effective. Any bonus in increased rate of fire is overshadowed by the loss of accuracy. It's like including the Desert Eagle in a game; it shows that you whoever made it has no idea what they are talking about. Besides, it's cheesy and overused.
[/rant]

One feature from another game I liked (both the game and feature, no room for mistake there.) was the addition of "tactical" weapons. In Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, you could place "sticky cameras" on walls, and it would help you scout areas, could distract enemies, and release knockout gas. The game also had smoke grenades and flashbangs, great for the pacifist run, as well as an "Airfoil" round, a heavy, hollow, cylindrical projectile that was an instant knockout if you scored a headshot (and useless if you didn't)

Djenghis
4th Jan 2009, 19:09
Please No Uni Ammo!!!!!!!!!

Jerion
4th Jan 2009, 19:27
Relax. There is no Uni Ammo.

Romeo
4th Jan 2009, 23:37
I know I've already made this point, but I want to re-iterate it: I really hope that mods are visible this time around. If I put a scope on a weapon, I want to be able to see that scope. Same goes for different barrels, stocks, clips, etc...

Blade_hunter
5th Jan 2009, 00:37
I don't know if players when the come here if they read the news or even the "What René said about that"

There is no uni ammo it's official, we got weapon customization and separate ammo, but the how much is the only thing I can't define ....


*The no separation is the uni ammo

*The basical is by type, for example explosives for grenades / rockets etc
energy for lasers, electrical, etc and bullets for bullet weapons and sometimes shells
*The normal ammo separation can sometimes have dual uses but they still something like bullets can be common if the weapons uses approximatively the same caliber of bullets, Assault rifle / Machinegun, SMG / pistol, Assault shotgun / sawed off
*The advanced one can make a bit more differences about calibers for example 50 AE, 45 ACP, 9mm for the same weapon type but only dedicated for a particular weapon of the same class in this case pistols.
but like the normal separation we can find the same ammo in an other category like the 9mm cartridge in SMG

*The ammo by weapon separation is an other genre this one is a sort of one weapon = 1 ammo even if sometimes the alternate fire can be illogical, like the use of bullets to make a grenade a sort of concept made in blood we have other concepts like in unreal games ...
*An other separation is the fact one weapon have it's dedicated ammo but sometimes can use an other but in an other cannon this separation is an other view of the previous one.

*Multiple ammo for one cannon this is an old concept but this is one of the bests, some weapons can load an other ammo to change its effectiveness, some guns can have 2 cannons with ammo for both this is the most modern one and the last.

Deus Ex uses multiple ammo for one cannon even if the assault rifle are the weapon that works wrong because we can't use the main cannon for the 20 mm gun and even got the same amount of ammo in the clip

The Assault rifle in DX is designed approximatively properly but it's a bit too small and the operation mode isn't correct, some mods corrects that thing

I think the DX AR have normally a 30 rounds drum magazine and a single shot 20 mm grenade launcher

I just thinkwe should use again the multiple ammo a la system shock and if we have 2 cannons we can have different ammo types for both

Even if we have 9 mm sniper rifle they doesn't use the same ammo as pistols
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9_mm_caliber

The most common pistol ammo is 9x19mm the sniper is 9x39mm
We can find differences with 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_mm_caliber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_mm_caliber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rifle_cartridges

Like you Romeo I want to see my weapon upgrades in my gun if they are normally visible of course like attachments, scopes, or eventually sights

I don't think DX is a realistic game even if it has some realism and in DX we can introduce newer weapon concepts eventually the most known of them The advanced combat rifle or eventually direct energy weapons both are futuristic and upcomming

About cartridges and calibers I think we need to think about the use of one cartridge and its variations even if the 12 caliber shells is the most common cartridges for shotguns and this weapon have a lot of ammo types for most uses

Bah when I check some liks of my previous post some of them are broken :(

Jerion
5th Jan 2009, 00:39
Or, you know, a stylized AA-12.

Blade_hunter
5th Jan 2009, 01:07
http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh10-e.htm

the best real shotgun look is the jackhammer even if it exists only prototypes and it never entered in mass production ...
after all I think many shotguns can use the explosive cartridge but unlike the AA12 they weren't full auto

NK007
5th Jan 2009, 15:42
This may not be agreed by everyone but I think it should happen as I'm not seeing enough of this in game: make the ammo scarce. Not in the sense of really, really, scarce, but finding enough ammo for every gun that makes it not-unreasonable to kill every resident in a small country is not that fun IMO. I want to be able to think about when and where I shoot, and not have ammo scattered around places where it shouldn't be. I realize it has to do more with survival horror games, which don't do this well enough anyways, but I would really like to think where I spend my bullets and make every shot count in DX 3, sort of like the case of the sniper rifle in the first parts of DX 1. Ammo should only be plentiful, and even that is a relative term, where it would be in real life - i.e. ammo dumps. Security guards and such people that we happen to be fighting against would be armed with only a single magazine they already have in their rifle and its shells will be spent while they fire at us, and soldiers will have between 2 to 5 magazines. It will also make exploration essential to survival.

GmanPro
5th Jan 2009, 16:23
I have a feeling that EM is not going in that direction unfortunately. I do agree with you that it would make the game feel much more exciting, challenging and replayable but I think the final product is going to more casual than anything else. I am definitely a fan of handicapping the player's ability to shoot everything (skill points would have been great here :mad2: ). There are other ways to go about it though, like slow reload times/rate of fire to encourage the non-lethal/stealthy approach. We'll see.

Radius86
5th Jan 2009, 17:22
This may not be agreed by everyone but I think it should happen as I'm not seeing enough of this in game: make the ammo scarce. Not in the sense of really, really, scarce, but finding enough ammo for every gun that makes it not-unreasonable to kill every resident in a small country is not that fun IMO. I want to be able to think about when and where I shoot, and not have ammo scattered around places where it shouldn't be. I realize it has to do more with survival horror games, which don't do this well enough anyways, but I would really like to think where I spend my bullets and make every shot count in DX 3, sort of like the case of the sniper rifle in the first parts of DX 1. Ammo should only be plentiful, and even that is a relative term, where it would be in real life - i.e. ammo dumps. Security guards and such people that we happen to be fighting against would be armed with only a single magazine they already have in their rifle and its shells will be spent while they fire at us, and soldiers will have between 2 to 5 magazines. It will also make exploration essential to survival.

As I recall it, even regular guards in the first game didn't have that much ammo on them. I got most of my stuff from crates and armories if my memory serves me well. I agree wholeheartedly though. I'd love to dispatch an entire platoon with nothing but a hunting knife, like Sam Carter, if the game gave me no other option but that :cool:

spm1138
5th Jan 2009, 18:52
I never ran short of ammo in DX1. It's not that difficult if you're precise and choose gun cleverly.

I see what you're getting at, but I think it's a weak way of enforcing stealthy play tbh.

There should be subtler ways than that to make you consider using violence in a given situation or not.

Blade_hunter
5th Jan 2009, 19:07
I think the most common ammo are the pistol ammo and small caliber rifles ammo
http://world.guns.ru/civil/civ014-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/civil/civ009-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/civil/civ003-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/civil/civ007-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/civil/civ020-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/civil/civ018-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/civil/civ017-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/civil/civ015-e.htm

My fav is the HK SL8 but other models have interesting concepts and are sometimes close to military models

I post them only to show how common are the pistol ammo and some civil rifles can be used by civilians of course
Some rifles are a bit modern and even futuristic, because we can have civilian models and military models even with the same model
An other cool thing is to find unique customized weapons during the game.

And about the low quantity of ammo DX have a low quantity of it in the firsts levels.

I don't think the quantity of ammo is the only way to incite a player to think before use a weapon with ammo, if the weapon is inaccurate it can be a thing that can incite you to don't use your ranged weapon at all seen enemy
An other thing is the combat difficulty, you can got a ton of ammo if you use stealth tactics you can save ammo even if yoou use your gun but if you enter often in combat you can spend more than 3 - 5 cartridges.
If the weapon loose its accuracy after each shots it incite any player to shoot more carefully and make short bursts if we have an automatic weapon

I think we have a lots of methods to incite a player avoiding to shoot everywhere ....

Jerion
5th Jan 2009, 19:09
I have a feeling that EM is not going in that direction unfortunately. I do agree with you that it would make the game feel much more exciting, challenging and replayable but I think the final product is going to more casual than anything else. I am definitely a fan of handicapping the player's ability to shoot everything (skill points would have been great here :mad2: ). There are other ways to go about it though, like slow reload times/rate of fire to encourage the non-lethal/stealthy approach. We'll see.

There are arguably better ways to handicap weapons; you can have a weapon damage system somewhat similar to Fallout3 (though perhaps instead of rusting, your weapon can get shot). Also you can limit the amount of ammunition around the maps, as well as how enemies react to being shot in certain areas (Shoot him in the leg and he tries to take you down even as he falls). You could even add in a system where certain types of ammunition could be rendered useless if the clip/box of ammo is dropped in water (rockets might not be affected, but bullets would). I wouldn't mind any of these.

The problem with weapon skills/stats (a la DX 1) is that while they can be a handicap, they can also act as a booster. Once you upgrade something to Master it doesn't much matter where you hit somebody, a shot or two with any of your weapons and they go down. On the other hand, if you are untrained, you can't hit jack.

NK007
6th Jan 2009, 00:22
Rusting is so lame as it happens too frequently. Another pretty lame way was taking everything away from the play in the MJ 12 facility, only to give everything back later. You could also have stuff like personal-specific triggers like in Metal Gear Solid 2. But I really think limiting the amount of ammunition throughout the game is better, although not in an extreme way.

Another thing: Any ideas about ammo pool\tactical reloading? Or do you think it is too realistic for a DX game?

Spyhopping
6th Jan 2009, 00:53
If you were in a situation where you really needed a gun you would look after it, I'm not keen on degrading weapons in games. Although some realistic limitation is good- I watched a friend play far cry 2 and I liked the way the weapons sometimes jammed

Jerion
6th Jan 2009, 01:11
If you were in a situation where you really needed a gun you would look after it, I'm not keen on degrading weapons in games. Although some realistic limitation is good- I watched a friend play far cry 2 and I liked the way the weapons sometimes jammed

Yeah, but let me put it this way: if a couple 30.06 rounds put holes in your Assault rifle you probably won't be using it anytime soon. So I think while 'rusting' is stupid, having weapons be destroyed would be cool.

Spyhopping
6th Jan 2009, 02:35
But then the gun would have to have auto health regen :p

No I agree, damage possibilities such as that would keep you on your toes, just like malfunctions and jamming. I always thought that as Adam will have his mechanical 'moving parts' that it would be logical for his augmentations to occasionally malfunction, maybe due to damage. Just like Gunther's sticky actuator :cool:

Trying to survive for a while whilst augs have malfunctioned could be a challenge, perhaps scripted. But then things like that depend on the way that auto health regen is implemented. If all you need to do to sort yourself out is to duck behind a wall for a few seconds (worst case scenario)- it would put limitations on all of the challenges gained by damage and its consequences. But that is worst case scenario, I'm sure there are gentler, agreeable ways of implementing auto health regen

Err... anyway, I'm starting to go off-topic so I will stop going on now

NK007
6th Jan 2009, 02:48
Yeah, but let me put it this way: if a couple 30.06 rounds put holes in your Assault rifle you probably won't be using it anytime soon. So I think while 'rusting' is stupid, having weapons be destroyed would be cool.

But what are the odds, really? I have no idea how energy weapons work, though, so maybe there you could have overheating and damage problems. And too much overheating would have it blow up in your face or something.

Jerion
6th Jan 2009, 05:28
Um...I would think the odds are pretty high if you have 2 people opening up on you will fully automatic weapons. It occurred to me that it was a little odd that they always managed to hit you, but never the big clunky weapon you're holding right in front of you.

spm1138
6th Jan 2009, 09:47
Weapon decay worked in FC2 because it fit in with the setting (everything is rusty and broken) but it was annoying that you couldn't maintain weapons. It also worked because it was only really a factor with pick-up guns and your clean new guns didn't break down inside of ten magazines. The thing that was missing was being able to clean your guns in the safe-house.

OFC, since DX (and I guess 3) has you "off screen" between levels it'd be weird if you weren't cleaning your guns during that time.

FO3s scaling damage system sounds stupid to me.

What I'd like to see is violence having consequences.

We've already heard that if you just run around slotting everyone you will alienate certain factions.

Maybe they could take it further than that and have people react differently if you're a sociopathic death machine.

They could also make it so that people in the levels have friends and relatives and lovers and then make that actually apply in the gameworld.

I mean they might be mooks but someone somewhere loves them. What if you later on ran into that someone?

Radius86
6th Jan 2009, 10:27
That actually reminds me of the way KOTOR played out. The whole scaling of the character.

nsf001
6th Jan 2009, 11:19
I think the most common ammo are the pistol ammo and small caliber rifles ammo

http://world.guns.ru/civil/civ009-e.htm


My fav is the HK SL8 but other models have interesting concepts and are sometimes close to military models

Does anyone find that the HK SL8 is the G2A2 rifle in F.E.A.R?

NK007
6th Jan 2009, 13:42
Um...I would think the odds are pretty high if you have 2 people opening up on you will fully automatic weapons. It occurred to me that it was a little odd that they always managed to hit you, but never the big clunky weapon you're holding right in front of you.

I don't find it odd they hit you, since at the ranges they engage it's not too hard to be accurate with full auto (like what, 15-20 meters?), but I do find it odd how in games everyone always have their full auto on instead of single shots.

Blade_hunter
6th Jan 2009, 14:07
When I proposed weapon jamming most players says it was a crappy idea and now they want this because they play FC2
In diablo like games and even in Oblivion we have weapon / armor degradation ...

About the FEAR's G2A2 yes it's close to the SL8, but some details are different like the magazine and the SL8 is Semi auto only and FEAR uses mani real weapon replicas except they changed some details and the weapon's name

K^2
6th Jan 2009, 21:19
I don't find it odd they hit you, since at the ranges they engage it's not too hard to be accurate with full auto (like what, 15-20 meters?), but I do find it odd how in games everyone always have their full auto on instead of single shots.
I think you missed the point. If they are hitting the torso, they should also be hitting the weapon, because while the odds of hitting somewhere on the torso from 20 meters aren't that bad, you aren't going to be able to chose a particular part of torso to fire at.

And by the way, hitting a moving human-sized target from 20 meters isn't as easy as you seem to be suggesting. If you really think it is easy, you should go to a gun range and take a few shots at a stationary one, at least. It should give you some idea.

NK007
7th Jan 2009, 13:37
I'll give it a go from a 150 meters in a few months time. Obviously it wouldn't be 80% accuracy, but at least 40% of the bullets will hit the target. Either way, weapon degradation doesn't happen too often unless it's a really crappy, old used weapon, but I think armor degradation is a good idea. I honestly don't know too much about body armor, but I think it will begin to lose its effectiveness after being riddled full of bullets a couple of times, but that is something I don't remember seeing in a VG yet - having to swap bulletproof vests due to damage.

spm1138
7th Jan 2009, 18:05
Brigade E5 and it's sequel 7.62 have vests with removable plates (ceramic AND titanium - the ceramic stop better but the ti don't break as quick).

Ghostface
7th Jan 2009, 22:58
Deus ex needs liquid armor

spm1138
10th Jan 2009, 23:33
This looks like it's straight out of DX http://www.magpul.com/pdfs/PDRtech_PR.pdf !

iWait
11th Jan 2009, 03:54
There are arguably better ways to handicap weapons; you can have a weapon damage system somewhat similar to Fallout3 (though perhaps instead of rusting, your weapon can get shot). Also you can limit the amount of ammunition around the maps, as well as how enemies react to being shot in certain areas (Shoot him in the leg and he tries to take you down even as he falls). You could even add in a system where certain types of ammunition could be rendered useless if the clip/box of ammo is dropped in water (rockets might not be affected, but bullets would). I wouldn't mind any of these.

The problem with the dropping bullets in water is that almost all bullets work fine even after being exposed to water today, including tracers and incendiary rounds.

If there is a system of weapon degradation implemented, there should also be a way to clean/maintain your weapons. It's not really fair if your gun spontaneously breaks down (not jams) without your ability to do anything about it.

NK007
11th Jan 2009, 06:48
I would really hope that western armies would learn from the AK in the future, as it appears they don't. I don't know the status of the current weapons, but M16 I know jams a lot. Why not just everyone copy-paste the AK 47, change the bullet size to 5.56, add a couple of fancy slots for cool modifications and call it a day? There was a story in Weaponology where some guys innards decayed INTO the AK and it still managed to fire. I wonder if that thing can fire in outer space.

iWait
11th Jan 2009, 07:29
I would really hope that western armies would learn from the AK in the future, as it appears they don't. I don't know the status of the current weapons, but M16 I know jams a lot. Why not just everyone copy-paste the AK 47, change the bullet size to 5.56, add a couple of fancy slots for cool modifications and call it a day? There was a story in Weaponology where some guys innards decayed INTO the AK and it still managed to fire. I wonder if that thing can fire in outer space.

I mostly agree with you.
1. Why change the bullet size to 5.56?
2. How the hell do your innards decay into an AK?
3. Yes, it can fire in outer space, it can also fire in the sun, or on the moon, or in a vacuum.

The M16 doesn't jam often any more, they fixed it after Vietnam :mad2:

NK007
11th Jan 2009, 07:57
But it does jam, and that is absolute atrocity in combat, I imagine. Why try to fix something that shouldn't be fixed? Why not take something that works?

1. Change it to 5.56 because it is a better anti personal bullet round, while the 7.62 seems to be the better anti-armor-wearing round, and NATO is probably too full of itself to change the standard bullet size by a milimeter.

2. As I remember the story (I think it was in the green beret episode), appearently this VC guy died, and landed smack on his weapon as he did. All participants soon left said battlefield, leaving the body to rot. A Green Beret than walked through the area, inspecting the body (I guess he's a pretty stupid green beret, as it was a pretty common trick to put explosives under bodies). Then, he took the AK from under him, separating the sticky pieces of flesh which decomposed and into the gun, and pulled the trigger. A resounding firing sound of success, the AK still worked, making it the best gun to date.

Again, I don't know the full status of all the guns being deployed regularly in Western (and I guess formal, organized, Eastern) armies today, but from what I know there is still problems with jamming and the like.

Blade_hunter
11th Jan 2009, 10:47
I preferred weapon maintenance a la SS2 but with lower speed degradation ...
And we haven't any real weapon in DX 3 and in any DX

K^2
11th Jan 2009, 12:55
DX3 is near future. There are bound to be some AK47s and M16s floating about in the 2020s. So it would make sense to bring some of these into play.

NK007, are you sure you didn't get 5.56 vs 7.62 pros and cons mixed up? Smaller diameter of a slug has to do less work to penetrate armor, while bigger diameter slug can cause more damage to the flesh.

I wonder if that thing can fire in outer space.
Any fire arm can. If anything, vacuum and lack of gravity will make jamming less frequent.

spm1138
11th Jan 2009, 13:06
But it does jam, and that is absolute atrocity in combat, I imagine. Why try to fix something that shouldn't be fixed? Why not take something that works?

1. Change it to 5.56 because it is a better anti personal bullet round, while the 7.62 seems to be the better anti-armor-wearing round, and NATO is probably too full of itself to change the standard bullet size by a milimeter.

2. As I remember the story (I think it was in the green beret episode), appearently this VC guy died, and landed smack on his weapon as he did. All participants soon left said battlefield, leaving the body to rot. A Green Beret than walked through the area, inspecting the body (I guess he's a pretty stupid green beret, as it was a pretty common trick to put explosives under bodies). Then, he took the AK from under him, separating the sticky pieces of flesh which decomposed and into the gun, and pulled the trigger. A resounding firing sound of success, the AK still worked, making it the best gun to date.

Again, I don't know the full status of all the guns being deployed regularly in Western (and I guess formal, organized, Eastern) armies today, but from what I know there is still problems with jamming and the like.

7.62x39 (AK round) <> 7.62x51 NATO.

One is an intermediate round (intermediate in that it is between pistol rounds and full length battle rifle rounds - the terminology originated in WW2), the other is a full length cartridge suitable for use in sniper rifles. The NATO round has much more penetration than the AK round.

The AK is not very accurate. I believe this is partly down to it's loose production tolerances. This also makes it very reliable and isn't an issue if your weapon is meant to equip a very large conscript army or be a tool of revolutionary struggle. On the other hand if you're equipping a smaller, professional all volunteer army who can shoot straighter it's not necessarily what you want. It's a trade-off in design terms.

It's also worth noting that the M16 as first issued in Vietnam is missing a whole raft of improvements you can see on the newest models some of which were included on WW2 weapons but left out of the first issue of M16s :/
I think I even read that it was thought by a lot of soldiers to be "self cleaning" and issued without cleaning kits.

Crazy, huh?

Blade_hunter
11th Jan 2009, 16:52
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/6420/003daftl9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Look at this ....

Lilith
11th Jan 2009, 18:20
Soooo much text.

Coming late into this community cause frankly, if I did earlier I'd be on here non-stop and my life would halt (Ok, my wow guild would halt).

So sorry if I step on anything already said and covered.

I understand there will be skill points used to upgrade weapons. All for this, attachment to guns is a big deal. I, loved, my stealth pistol, and my sniper. I was seriously attached them, I upgraded my assault rifle so much it was just excessive and I loved being able to have that much control of how the weapons ended up. Deus Ex is an RPG, not a pure FPS, in a pure FPS you have little attachment to an actual specific weapon, and more so to a type. With a big pick up, throw away mentality. DX1 was win for having you feel badass about what you had under your baggy jacket that made you seem bigger then you really are.

As for specifics again, I'm still bringing myself up to date so don't really know how much has been released. I would feel, that the guns in this being it before DX1 in the near future would HAVE to have some kind of incline towards what we saw in DX1. I don't know how different the world would be, but today there is a lot more focus on smaller arms because of urbanization. The assault rifle showed that, being small, the other thing. This added to the game for me, maybe not for everyone, but bar the GEP and Plasma pretty much everything was logically able to fit under JC jacket that made you seem bigger then you really are.

Ammo, I think this is pretty goddamn clear cut. Eidos Montreal. If, you, dare, insult, us, with, universal, ammunition, I, will, kill, you. This is a case of real life, vs, in game balance. Sure no way you could cart around 25 rockets, 120 shotgun shells (two types mind you) sniper, pistol assault, flamer, riot prod, three darts, etc. That said, if you restrict it too much, you close in the open end side of the game. So a mix? Honestly I'm all for just sliding with game play here. Balance is incredibly important, this is a RPG core game. So, classification. Small, Medium and Large arm ammunition and core it through that no?

Example - Carrying ammo as you progress through the game without the weapon means you can pick up that weapon near the end and account for lack of skill with ammo and rip, it up. i.e don't use the GEP gun till A51 and then GEP everything, made the climax feel like you could have done it then rescued Gunther.

Solution - theoretical.
Max rocket cap - 25
restricted to 5 without the GEP gun on you.

With small gaps for ammo types. Something along the lines of 75% drop for large, 50% drop for medium and 25% drop for small.

Mods?

Me I think this should really go old school, UNATCO and centralization meant that everything was very, here is your kit, put it on your weapon. Now your weapon works better.

Go more, 'you know understand how the weapon works better' so you can use this knowledge to try something out, but cut out some realism for set RPG game play mechanics. i.e do you want to use the knife to cut out the side of your handgrip to make switching out your hand faster for faster swap out and reload time.

I'm sure this has been thought out pretty hard, but two options are without materials and with, and a limited amount.

DX1 was super special awesome for open ended content, but I hope Eidos realizes something here.

THIS WAS BECAUSE OF THE STORY PRIMARILY.

Open ended game play, to us mean being a smart ass. Having options keep those open, but whats important to me as a gamer. Was having these options having long reaching effects, I want to know that by sneaking in this door, and breaking that open I got something, skill points and comments over the intercomm worked for this. That was what immersed us.

Game play is a big deal yes, but then so was having a set in our minds for JC originally, when I played through most recently, I though. Ok, lets make JC a cold bastard, but not vindictive. That is an RPG major element focusing your imprint onto the character.

Relevance to weapons? Eidos, do not be afraid to make the game have lock out choices, we all unless you fail horribly. Will be re-playing this game, trying out new things. Don't be afraid you'll piss us off if you don't let us become -master- jack-of-all trades.

And, please, special weapons need stories too.

Blade_hunter
11th Jan 2009, 22:15
About ammo transport I proposed a sort of management but it seems to be too complex in some minds this is an ammo item in the inventory and the ammo box have a max capacity, if we want more ammo we need an other box, this box isn't a true box we need to have. it's a sort of symbol in our inventory, that symbolizes the ammo presence
for example an ammo box can give us the capacity to have 20 rockets and 2 ammo boxes give us the capacity of 40 rockets.

In system shock 2 and Stalker we have those things even if they are in diffrent way than my proposal ...

But nothing more and you can be ertain about one thing there is no uni ammo in DX 3 but I dont know if they want to do the same thing as in snwoblind or in DX / SS / Stalker ...

Lilith
11th Jan 2009, 22:41
About ammo transport I proposed a sort of management but it seems to be too complex in some minds this is an ammo item in the inventory and the ammo box have a max capacity, if we want more ammo we need an other box, this box isn't a true box we need to have. it's a sort of symbol in our inventory, that symbolizes the ammo presence
for example an ammo box can give us the capacity to have 20 rockets and 2 ammo boxes give us the capacity of 40 rockets.

In system shock 2 and Stalker we have those things even if they are in diffrent way than my proposal ...

But nothing more and you can be ertain about one thing there is no uni ammo in DX 3 but I dont know if they want to do the same thing as in snwoblind or in DX / SS / Stalker ...

I am a massively against this, sorry.

I dislike the idea of having both upgrades on the gun and the inventory like this.

Lets say assault rifle.

Un-upgraded 30 bullet clip - Max amount lets say 180 bullets thats 6 clips

Fully upgraded 60 bullet clip - Max should stay the 180 bullets 3 clips.

Increasing the amount of ammo you can carry it segments the game weirdly when you do it.

Because you miss it, you're ****ed.

You'd need something like with the Dragon's Tooth, but I can't see anyway to have a box be that appealing.

Upgrades through experience? Narh I don't think it'd work.

Its an RPG so its long term in what you choice to do. I liked in DX1 you can be maxed out on ammo at the start of a map, do half of it and have been passing ammo, get to the en and be out because of a fire fight and using it. I think what needs to happen is a mix and some tunnel vision.

No -skill- means the weapon is all that upgrades.

So, in theory if you're SKILLED enough you can beat the game without doing much to your guy. So you can if you say are an amazing shot use pistols/snipers and upgrade them evenly. Or specialize.

Basically unless you're playing Rambo style, in which case pretty much any weapon/ammo will do as long as you can pump it out whilst walking around like a tank. Its when you want a single shot for a stealth pistol/sniper from 90yds away silently that weapon upgrades will shine I think.

NK007
11th Jan 2009, 23:09
I am a massively against this, sorry.



Because you miss it, you're ****ed.




A beautiful concept rarely used in games today.

qJohnnyp
12th Jan 2009, 01:29
Depends in DX 1 you have the assault rifle and the sniper rifle.
they have the 30 - 06 and the assault rifle uses the 7.62x51 mm
these rifles bullets are significantly the same calibers, but they haven't the same uses.
The difference is in the cartridge length, the thirty-aught-six is 7,62x63, more powerful. And remember the barrel length of an AR and a sniper rifle.


This is a reason to give some particularitys to each weapon each ammo and each skill mod
for exemple you have 2 assault rifles
assault rifle 1
assault rifle 2

Great ideas here. But i'd reverse the ammo types used, as a sniper functionality would require a rifle cartridge, not intermediate cartridges.

And a funny observation: Deus Ex actually predicted current trends in rifle design. The 7,62x51 NATO is preffered over 5,56x45 NATO in Afganistan and Iraq. Current developments of HK417 and SCAR-L (and their sales) are a clear indication of this.
And I'd make the type of sights used optionary in each weapon if I was a dev.


back to the argument about knocked out people
:
It worked in Splinter Cell, could work in Deus Ex. Hiding bodies would be of more use.
Wasn't there a set of voices for characters in DX1, reactions to dead bodies and unconcious people. Was it used? Can't remember. NPCs ignored friendly casualities, didn't they?


So, the ammo I'd be happy to see (not seen in DX1) :) :
Flachette ammo against armored targets (as in Steyr ACR and AMR)
Burning bullets (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7955-invention-burning-bullets.html ) and Dragon's Breath ammo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon's_Breath), maybe with napalm or pirogel twist :)
Guided bullets, yes (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/11/what-if-a-snipe.html )
Delayed Explosion bullets (like those Major used in the opening sequence of Gits), just for the fun of it
Non lethal bullets and slugs, electric bullets (http://www.impactlab.com/2004/02/26/announcing-non-lethal-electric-bullets/ ), glue shotgun cartridges,
Supercavitative ammo (for use underwater)
Door buster/breaching rounds, also to knock people unconcious
EMP and explosive ammo for shotguns and grenade launchers, but not for small cartridges. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g77sLmw-UcY yes, that's a shotgun)
Caseless ammo
And just 2-3 types of ammo for one wapon a player can carry, so that he chooses ammo type for his play style.

Weapons I'd be happy to see:
OICW/AICW type weapon, with the three components (AR, GL and sights) found separately in the game
A distinguished PDW and a full-sized SMG
A carbine and a full sized rifle with their advantages and disadvantages
A dream sniper weapon like the Mauser-Taxischied Kompromisslos http://section9.8m.com/guns/maus.html
Bionic hornet scouts (http://news.cnet.com/Report-Israel-developing-bionic-hornet-weapon/2100-11394_3-6136468.html)

Lilith
12th Jan 2009, 05:37
A beautiful concept rarely used in games today.

I don't understand.

I get that in a game having a high level of skill is great, and having the player make mistakes the put him in hot water later down the track is brilliant, that sort of thing I mentioned with the ammo.

I don't think having a single item being a major upgrade that without you're going to feel some major draw backs without having. If you put in a box then its going to become a focus point I would think. Not perhaps a huge one. But enough that it could stand out as a little silly.

The reason is that the effect it creates. Nano Augs in DX1 didn't because they're spread through out the game.
Minor max ammo upgrades would be possible I guess.

I just makes the game too much of an FPS. Which I think most of the older fans and new players whom are looking for a new game to break open like DX1 did back in the day. They're not looking for a huge FPS element. Look at Fallout 3, one of the biggest complaints I heard was it was too FPS. Far Cry 2, that it was too much a shoot this shoot that mechanic.

Blade_hunter
13th Jan 2009, 10:41
The difference is in the cartridge length, the thirty-aught-six is 7,62x63, more powerful. And remember the barrel length of an AR and a sniper rifle.

I know that but the power is less different than the difference shown in DX
the 7.62 mm NATO isn't so less powerful than a pistol bullet when we compare the damage dealt in the game and the reality.
the 30-06 has a good power in the game and IRL but that's not the case of the 7.62 mm ammo ...
And we use more 5.56 mm bullets for the bullet weight instead of the efficiency ...

And about the shotgun, it's one of the most versatile weapon in therms of cartridges with the a grenade launcher.

I suggested a mean to carry ammo in a sort of "RPG" view And I expected a negative response ;) if we read my post carefully be cause I've said the same before and I got a strong opposition against this.

My play style is more brute force than stealthy but I'm much versatile than many persons thinks, because I play both games, I played some infiltration games like splinter cell for example and totally brute force games like serious sam. but DX was the rare game that allow me to use both tactics in a same playthrough and even by making an other game after finished it ...

spm1138
13th Jan 2009, 11:46
7.62 in DX was peashooter strength.

Blade_hunter
13th Jan 2009, 16:32
Yep I think some weapons needs to be more powerful even if some guy's complaints about the contrary I think a weapon need to be dangerous not to force a player to use always the alternate ways, that isn't the objective of DX.
I never want a focused genre like many persons seems to want.

The ammo must a representation of the possibilities we can got offensive ammo like standard guns uses or even some extra like the explosive ones, incendiary or less offensive like tear gas cartridges, rubber, EMP ...

If we got EMP rounds we need to fire some shells to disable a bot or an electronic device like a camera or a turret

I think we should look with the reality and even with the fiction ...

Spyhopping
13th Jan 2009, 16:52
You could also blow apart doors with a single sniper rifle round :D

Blade_hunter
13th Jan 2009, 18:22
Yes if it's a high caliber sniper why not.
DX 2 has some cool things even like the glass destabilizing, EMP or fragmentary projectiles, but I think to got those things as I suggested before it's an alternate ammo not a weapon mod except in the case of the weapon add on

And about opening closed doors with a gun, why we need always to blow up the door or lockpicking it ?
If we can destroy the lock even with a pistol by firing some shots.

I will explain the balance to don't make the lockpicking useless, some doors locks can be very hard to destroy or invulnerable to balance with the destructible ones
I think destroy a lock can be possible in some doors but not at all of them

Spyhopping
13th Jan 2009, 18:34
glass destabilizing

I loved this weapon mod. :whistle: hint!

If the possibility of hiding in shadows had not already been struck off I'd love to be able to shoot out lights

Blade_hunter
13th Jan 2009, 18:42
Anyway the ammo must give to us alternate way's to use a weapon and maybe change the function of a gun into a tool, like tools can become weapons.

And instead of destroying lights imagine we can remove the lamp of its own placement imagine the possibilities we can do by this option :D

NK007
13th Jan 2009, 23:12
I really think a SAW would do DX 3 well. There was no such heavy weapon in DX1, maybe because most heavy weapons have been standardized to smaller versions, but it could still exist in DX 3 as a heavy weapon, sort of like the GEP but less powerful and it could slow you down.

KaiTenSatsuma
13th Jan 2009, 23:51
And about opening closed doors with a gun, why we need always to blow up the door or lockpicking it ?
If we can destroy the lock even with a pistol by firing some shots.

I will explain the balance to don't make the lockpicking useless, some doors locks can be very hard to destroy or invulnerable to balance with the destructible ones
I think destroy a lock can be possible in some doors but not at all of them

How about a sonic screwdriver ;)

Oh geez, I just got geek all over the keyboard. :rolleyes:

Blade_hunter
14th Jan 2009, 13:16
Many things can be added into the game sonce they aren't too fantasist.

About the rocket launchers I have a thought about them because some guys seems to complaint about its power but I don't think this gun is too powerful it deals a correct damage even if its very powerful, but what we can expect from a rocket launcher ? have the same power as a shotgun ? like we can see in some games, I think a rocket launcher needs to be powerful.

A light rocket launcher (small caliber) can be a good choice for players that wants a light rocket launcher that uses a low amount of space in an inventory and doesn't deals too much damage.

I think we need some specific weapons like in the first DX the disposable weapons like the PS 20 and the LAW, the weapons can fire multiple shots but it's not reloadable and a defect from DX is we can't carry more than one weapon of that kind.
I think we must have the ability to carry more than one even on the same amount of space, but something like 5 - 6 in the same amount of space for the LAW and 10 PS 20 for example
Ok I think the PS 20 wouldn't appear in the DX prequel but we can use other disposable weapons, like a dart pistol, many weapons can be added and be disposable.

I think DX should propose more than one weapons per kind of weapons but that's just my thought ...

GmanPro
14th Jan 2009, 17:50
There is nothing wrong imo with having weapons like the GEP gun in DX3. Overpowered weapons are a fact of life, and it would be silly not to include them in a game that is trying to be reasonably realistic. I think the best way to nerf a gun like the GEP gun is to limit inventory space/weight etc. Some games have decent systems set up for it where you can only carry a few weapons at a time. But none of them have it quite right. The Witcher did a decent job of it, but thats still not quite right imo.

Basically, if carrying around an epic explosive weapon slows me down, takes up space and is heavy, <- and is tweaked enough to the point where I have to give up space for other really usefull items, then it works. Sometimes in DX1 I found that I had enough space to have every gun that I wanted, including the GEP gun, and still hae plenty of space for all of my spy-gadgets so I could be both the stealthy agent and the Rambo agent during the same play-through. You gotta restrict that stuff imo. Make the game challenging please.

iWait
15th Jan 2009, 02:38
How about a sonic screwdriver ;)

Oh geez, I just got geek all over the keyboard. :rolleyes:

It would have to be a John Pertwee/Tom Baker generation sonic screwdriver. The recent ones are way overpowered. I'm sad David Tennant is leaving though, he reminded me of Tom Baker with his eccentric character.

God, I feel like a nerd right now.

Jerion
15th Jan 2009, 10:03
Don't worry. There's nothing wrong with that. :D

Now, uh, who the hell is Matt Smith?

iWait
16th Jan 2009, 00:37
Now, uh, who the hell is Matt Smith?

I dunno, and I'm scared of change. :(