B18 Feedback: Melee vs Ranged Balance.

[SpaceDorf]

@Boston.

I see your point, that there is a difference in Military Weapons and Civilian Weapons, even that there are option to enhance those weapons for melee.
Which are not described or accounted for in Rimworld, or the rifles you quote would do piercing damage as well. ( Bayonette = Knife )

Having served in my countries militaty I also know that this is not the case for every military gun,
and not every part of the military gets the same training or equipment.

Finally. Thrusting, Bashing and Hooking with your gun still keeps the weakpoints of a rifle out of the fight.

If I compare this again in a fight against a sword the sword has
a.) reach
b.) less weak points
c.) can be wielded with one or two hands, against two hands for the rifle

If you try to block a sword strike with a rifle you will :
dent the magazine intake,
deform the lock, the loading mechanism or the safety switch
break the stock
bend the barrel
or damage the rear sight and grain .. not to mention anything electronic

while the worst thing that will happen to a sword is some dents in the edge.

You might win the melee, but you will need a new rifle ..

[BasileusMaximos]

No. Military firearms (so, the bolt action rifle and the assault rifle) aredesigned to be used in melee combat.

Now tell me more about every gun in the game being a high-grade military equipment.

They are. At least all weapons that have the quality standard of normal or above are. Until the game says otherwise, there is no reason to question whether the weapons in Rimworld are any better or worse in terms of quality than the weapons they are based on.

There is a reason people on the Rim are still making bolt-actions in the future, they are timeless and practical designs.

[Granitecosmos]

Until the game says otherwise, there is no reason to question whether the weapons in Rimworld are any better or worse in terms of quality than the weapons they are based on.

Except the game actually suggests they are worse. It's easy to prove, just look at the market values. A real sword that's made for actually cutting (a.k.a. not a decoration) costs about 500-600$ IRL. A proper long-range accurate sniper rifle with optics starts at around 3000$. In-game the longsword's market value is 305 while the sniper's is 480. The price difference IRL is a LOT greater than in the game which suggests the sniper rifle in the game is a lot worse in quality compared to the gun it's based on IRL.

The price differences prove the guns' inferior quality. If they were meant to be really that good they'd cost more compared to the melee weapons simply because noone would buy melee if good quality guns were cheap. And yet you still see melee weapons in traders' stocks and outlanders/pirates use them too, even though they have access to guns. And you'll find people using melee who are not brawlers so don't even think about using that for a counter-argument.

[Jibbles]

Comparing the melee vs range stats seems to a bit off to me too.  Maybe it was changed this way with intentions to benefit the player. Most players mainly use ranged weapons anyways, and it helps them not get shred up when their shooter gets caught up in melee.

[SpaceDorf]

I thought the diskussion had nothing to do with the quality of the weapons.

It has nothing to do with Gun Range and the damage bullets do.

It is just the fact that a dedicated melee weapon should be superior in melee to a ranged weapon like a ranged weapon is superior at range than a melee weapon.

[Vlad0mi3r]

I actually think the issue here is looking at DPS as the marker. I will take bruise damage all day over edged damage. 20pts of damage from a long sword in one location over 4 bruise attacks in 4 locations is a big difference.

Yes charging across open ground to engage the enemy with no armour is probably not going to end well. Using cover and play style can bring melee characters into their own.

Now some have mentioned shield belts. Well yes with a shield belt the sword is mightier than the gun. I always take two dedicated melee types on caravans (Late game, always one early early). Not only can they use cover and wait for the gun wielding twit to come around the corner (SUPRISE MOTHER f*CKER) but super handy when dealing with mad animal/man hunter pack.

I remember one outpost attack (late game) where my two melee guys (one with bionic legs I admit) were chasing down the snipers. slow reload of sniper rifle verses shield belts didn't end well for the raiders.

[BasileusMaximos]

Until the game says otherwise, there is no reason to question whether the weapons in Rimworld are any better or worse in terms of quality than the weapons they are based on.

Except the game actually suggests they are worse. It's easy to prove, just look at the market values. A real sword that's made for actually cutting (a.k.a. not a decoration) costs about 500-600$ IRL. A proper long-range accurate sniper rifle with optics starts at around 3000$. In-game the longsword's market value is 305 while the sniper's is 480. The price difference IRL is a LOT greater than in the game which suggests the sniper rifle in the game is a lot worse in quality compared to the gun it's based on IRL.

The price differences prove the guns' inferior quality. If they were meant to be really that good they'd cost more compared to the melee weapons simply because noone would buy melee if good quality guns were cheap. And yet you still see melee weapons in traders' stocks and outlanders/pirates use them too, even though they have access to guns. And you'll find people using melee who are not brawlers so don't even think about using that for a counter-argument.

You do realize you are using actual literal silver to trade for weapons, right? Not paper money. Certainly not modern American paper money. That entire comparison is retarded.

And what do you know of the real value of a bolt-action in a world were interstellar travel is fairly common and there are far more effective weapons? That's right, jack shit.

[Boston]

Most of the value of the "sniper rifle" is tied up in the optics, anyways. The actual rifle itself is going to be relatively cheap. More expensive than a service rifle, yes, due to being accurized, and therefore of closer tolerances than a service rifle, but still: bolt action rifles are cheap because they are simple and easy to manufacture.

[Granitecosmos]

And what do you know of the real value of a bolt-action in a world were interstellar travel is fairly common and there are far more effective weapons? That's right, jack shit.

So what do YOU know of the real value of a bolt-action in a world where interstellar travel is fairly common and there are far more effective weapons? That's right, jack shit.

Two can play that game. 

Besides, who cares about silver versus dollar? Dollar is a currency. In RimWorld, silver is a currency. If a gun costs 57% more silver than a sword it doesn't make any difference whether we use dollars or silver because the unit price of silver in dollar isn't gonna change for any of those weapons just because they are guns or melee. The price difference will be the same and that is my point. Currency has nothing to do with that.

Most of the value of the "sniper rifle" is tied up in the optics, anyways.

If you take a look at the weapon's graphic in-game you can clearly see optics being attached. But even if we cut the price in half and thus get 1500$ for a proper sniper rifle, that still makes it 3 times more expensive than a sword. Meanwhile in RimWorld, the price is only 57% more.

Besides, like SpaceDorf has pointed out, using a rifle in melee against a sword might make you equal but you'll need a new rifle afterwards. I'd be fine with melee weapons damaging ranged ones in a melee fight, although I'm sure 90% of the playerbase would rather see melee simply being better in melee instead of having to recraft their guns all the time.

Remember, no mods; this is about vanilla balance.

[BasileusMaximos]

And what do you know of the real value of a bolt-action in a world were interstellar travel is fairly common and there are far more effective weapons? That's right, jack shit.

So what do YOU know of the real value of a bolt-action in a world where interstellar travel is fairly common and there are far more effective weapons? That's right, jack shit.

Two can play that game. 

Besides, who cares about silver versus dollar? Dollar is a currency. In RimWorld, silver is a currency. If a gun costs 57% more silver than a sword it doesn't make any difference whether we use dollars or silver because the unit price of silver in dollar isn't gonna change for any of those weapons just because they are guns or melee. The price difference will be the same and that is my point. Currency has nothing to do with that.

I do know actually. Its around 265 silver pieces for a normal quality bolt action in mint condition. The game told me.

I'm not sure what your so hung up on regarding the price of guns. That they should be worse because they are so cheap? In some places in the world, you can get an AK-47 for what is equivalent of a few dollars. That's a lot less expensive than buying an actual functioning sword in today's society as there is no demand because actually fighting with swords is fucking stupid when you can buy an assault rifle for a few dollars.

[SpaceDorf]

I even think the price or material price of the weapon is important.

I write this to make my point, not to start another side-track
Crafting a quality sword or quality gun are equally involved processes,
forging, balancing and sharpening a sword is a process that takes days,
as is drawing and ballistic rifling a guns barrel, creating precise mechanics, forging bullets and producing gunpowder.

the swords actually requires more pure metal materials than the guns. ( it's whole wheight in refined steel plus something for the grip and the sheath .. )
while with guns it is even sensible to replace many parts with different materials, like plastics or wood for the stock and grip under the barrel.

And I agree that DPS is a stupid measurement, invented for grinding mainly in Diablo2 or other similiar rpgs,  that should be ignored in this discussion.

Valuable Values to compare are :

Raw Damage
Damage Type
Attack Speed
defensive value ( which is only implemented by dodging and armor and nothing else at the moment)
and
real abilities.

real abilities are for example stopping power and dismemberement.

A Shotgun blast or Sniper Rifle can remove complete bodyparts and can be fired in melee.
I think swords can as well, as can animal bites.
Maces only create bruises, and I don't know for the moment if they can create broken or crushed bones.

Lets discuss it from here.

[Sliderpro]

There is another problem, which people tend to miss, like here.

Melee weapons were useful mostly before industrial age and guns. BUT the period which game spends between start and industrial age (if you play as a tribe) is very very short. You can basically force research in a matter of days.

If you play industrial+ level from scratch, its fine.
If you start as a tribe, there is a whole era missing.
Need longer medieval period. With VERY longer research. Preferably between each period. Say, research to go from neolityc to medieval to be worth 50000. From medieval to industrial 250000, from industrial to spacer 1000000.

I think this has to be in vanilla game. Because transition is WAY too fast. As a tribe, I never had to use bows and swords, because outsiders supplied with plenty of higher-tech weapons

[Reviire]

I wouldn't mind if melee got considerable damage buffs. I'm fine with it being hard to get into melee range, but being in melee range should be very, very bad for the person with a gun. A spear or a sword should ruin you.

I wouldn't mind seeing melee padded out with more options, though. Combination ranged/melee weapons like gunlances, shocking sticks/swords, that sort of stuff. Hell, maybe even better shields. Go for the classic, send 6 pawns with large shields ahead slowly. Completely invulnerable until their shield breaks, but walk slow.

[SpaceDorf]

Well I have been watching some TV lately, and interestingly I found that even in our Industrialized Age, Knives are still a very common weapon used in fights between people.
Especially in Countries with strict gun control.

I think the mistake is trying to measure the small tactical fights that happen in Rimworld against
the doctrines and history of Medieval, Modern and Future Warfare.
Your tiny collection of 10 to 50 people is nothing compared to a country.
What we have is Medieval City States at best. It's Vienna vs. Prague, Venice vs. Florence.
At best.
Some troops sent to harass the other and make a statement ..

We are nowhere near wars like Rome against Karthago, Britain against France,
or the Crusades .. and that are still medieval wars ..

If you argue war doctrine the only answer was and will be : logistics.
The thing that hurts you most when trying to attack a enemie outpost or sending a caravan anywhere.

The Weapon does not matter, if it does not reach the enemy.

Back on topic ..
after the logistics of getting a knife near the throat of a sniper happened .. thats is the point.

and actually there is a fantastic example of swords and guns in the same war :
The Great American Civil War.
Following that the mystical Wild West .. which is the feeling which Rimworld wants to inspire ..
where the modern Army was represented by the Cavalry of the United States, who rode into battle with rifles and sabres.

[Granitecosmos]

I do know actually. Its around 265 silver pieces for a normal quality bolt action in mint condition. The game told me.

I also just happen to know what the value of a steel longsword is. It's 305 silver. The game told me.

The value of an item represents its usefulness. A longsword is a lot less useful than a bolt-action rifle right now. So by your logic, obviously the sword should be worth less, a lot less! That, or guns are seriously underpriced. Remember, games need to keep their balance in check.

Until the game says otherwise, there is no reason to question whether the weapons in Rimworld are any better or worse in terms of quality than the weapons they are based on.

The game doesn't say they are weapons comparable to modern-era military-grade counterparts either. By your logic, I could easily state they are improvised trash-grade or hundreds of years old looted crap, "until the game says otherwise". Your argument regarding that point is inherently flawed because anyone can come up with anything and then say "unless the game states otherwise". For example, just because someone says Randy has a thrumbo fetish doesn't make it true, even though the game doesn't say otherwise. See the flaw in your logic yet?

But this isn't the real point here. The problem isn't the prices of the weapons in-game, the problem is that the best melee weapon's performance is only slightly above the standard guns' performance in a melee fight. This isn't how you balance a game; and let's not forget it, RimWorld is a game, therefore any arguments regarding IRL modern guns vs melee performance are moot. You want realism? Remove mechanoids, we don't have mechanoids IRL. Remove the charge rifle, remove cryptosleep tech, remove half the game. This is not a simulation game that intends to be as realistic as it can get.

My only problem with guns (and even bows; good luck justifying a shortbow beating a mace in melee) is how they can pretty much beat melee weapons in a melee fight. The reason for this is because there is no point whatsoever to use or even craft a melee weapon right now. If a melee unit manages to run up to a ranged unit without taking damage then the ranged unit did something wrong and should be punished for it. This is how game balance works and RimWorld is a game.

A17 had this balance right. B18 introduced better melee for ranged wepons without compensating melee weapons. Better melee for ranged weapons isn't inherently wrong but by not buffing melee weapons accordingly, the melee balance of the game is in ruins right now. This is my problem, nothing else.

Melee weapons were useful mostly before industrial age and guns.

Personal shield technology exists in the game and should make melee viable. The very fact it's a late-game tech means it should make melee viable for late-game. The problem is, it doesn't. And not because it can't tank enogh. But because guns are on the same level for melee DPS as the melee-only weapons are.

Why do we even have melee in the game then? Because it's supposed to work. And it did, up until B18.

I will take bruise damage all day over edged damage. 20pts of damage from a long sword in one location over 4 bruise attacks in 4 locations is a big difference.

Indeed it's a big difference but unfortunately now how you think it is. Blunt damage performs a lot better against any mid- or late-game enemies that aren't tribal.

For an unarmed target, a longsword deals ~6.82 sharp damage melee DPS while a standard gun deals on average ~5.00 blunt damage melee DPS.

Now, add a normal quality armor vest. Suddenly the longsword's DPS is ~3.07 and the gun's melee DPS is ~4.00 so the gun outperforms the longsword. Of course, an armor vest only protects the torso which is ~40% of the body. So the true DPS would be ~5.32 for the longsword and ~4.66 for the gun in melee. So the initial advantage of ~30% is further down to ~15%. And this, for the best craftable melee weapon in the game. An already too small difference reduced to basically a 50-50% chance with some RNG. For the best melee weapon vs a pistol. A pistol!

I'm fine with it being hard to get into melee range, but being in melee range should be very, very bad for the person with a gun.

This is my point. Why is it so hard to understand?