Musings on ammo

Started by TrashMan, October 06, 2014, 06:33:41 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ShadowDragon8685

Whenever you're thinking of adding something to a game (whether tabletop or vidja,) think "Does this unfairly favor the players or the NPCs?" If the answer is that it unfairly favors the players, proceed with all engines ahead full! The players should be having fun, and if they're unfairly favored, you can ramp up the intensity relatively safely.

If it unfairly favors the NPCs, then hit the brakes hard. Remember that the GM (or the vidja game,) has an unlimited number of NPCs. You can throw NPCs at the players until they fail, and it's no fun. Adding mechanics which favor the NPCs more exacerbates that situation.

It doesn't matter if the bandits' armor breaks. There will always be more bandits. It doesn't matter if their gun runs out, he was just bandit #425 of ∞.

It does, however, matter if Sophie Whattaface runs out of bullets, because she's #2 of your, what, 5 colonists? 10? 15 if you're lucky? 30 if you're playing on Randy Random or some mod which allows for moar colonists? When she runs out of bullets, your colony's fighting capability takes a nosedive, which proceeds directly into the death spiral of unrecoverability. Not Fun.
Raiders must die!

stefanstr

Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 08, 2014, 05:25:13 AM
Whenever you're thinking of adding something to a game (whether tabletop or vidja,) think "Does this unfairly favor the players or the NPCs?" If the answer is that it unfairly favors the players, proceed with all engines ahead full! The players should be having fun, and if they're unfairly favored, you can ramp up the intensity relatively safely.

If it unfairly favors the NPCs, then hit the brakes hard. Remember that the GM (or the vidja game,) has an unlimited number of NPCs. You can throw NPCs at the players until they fail, and it's no fun. Adding mechanics which favor the NPCs more exacerbates that situation.

It doesn't matter if the bandits' armor breaks. There will always be more bandits. It doesn't matter if their gun runs out, he was just bandit #425 of ∞.

It does, however, matter if Sophie Whattaface runs out of bullets, because she's #2 of your, what, 5 colonists? 10? 15 if you're lucky? 30 if you're playing on Randy Random or some mod which allows for moar colonists? When she runs out of bullets, your colony's fighting capability takes a nosedive, which proceeds directly into the death spiral of unrecoverability. Not Fun.

You forgot that "Losing is fun".

On a more serious note, I think that every such change should be considered in connection to other changes that would have to follow. I.e., adding limited ammo would require more constrains on enemy assaults to mirror the increased difficulty of dealing with them.

I think the tension of having to count your bullets might potentially add to the depth of the story. But it could become tedious, unfair and irritating. That is why I suggested that this be limited to mortars and other cannons - this way you get the additional tension without excessive micro and possible total defenselessness of the colony.

keylocke

Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 08, 2014, 05:25:13 AM
It does, however, matter if Sophie Whattaface runs out of bullets, because she's #2 of your, what, 5 colonists? 10? 15 if you're lucky? 30 if you're playing on Randy Random or some mod which allows for moar colonists? When she runs out of bullets, your colony's fighting capability takes a nosedive, which proceeds directly into the death spiral of unrecoverability. Not Fun.

the logistics part of a battle involves making sure that "Sophie Whattaface" will have more bullets than the enemy and will always have spare armor nearby to switch out from.

while the X number of raiders ends up with dwindling resources and be forced in a battle of attrition, desperation, or retreat.

this is how fewer colonists can win against a larger force (without turrets) as long as they have a good supply of armor, bullets, and the ability to use guerrilla tactics.

ShadowDragon8685

There's already enough logistics to take care of re: making sure Sophie Wattaface is A: Healthy enough for combat, B: not about to have a fucking mental break in the middle of combat, C: equipped for combat with a weapon, etcetera, etcetera.

Too much realism does not add fun. You know what else is realistic? 3+ people generate a lot of shit. Literally. They'd have to be going to the john every day or so, at least once a day, and that would mean they'd have to dig up new latrine pits every few days.

It's realistic. You wanna add that to the game, too? Having to micromanage everybody's trip to the hopper, keeping new latrine pits dug up and filling in the old ones, etc?
Raiders must die!

skullywag

Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 08, 2014, 05:49:16 PM
There's already enough logistics to take care of re: making sure Sophie Wattaface is A: Healthy enough for combat, B: not about to have a fucking mental break in the middle of combat, C: equipped for combat with a weapon, etcetera, etcetera.

Too much realism does not add fun. You know what else is realistic? 3+ people generate a lot of shit. Literally. They'd have to be going to the john every day or so, at least once a day, and that would mean they'd have to dig up new latrine pits every few days.

It's realistic. You wanna add that to the game, too? Having to micromanage everybody's trip to the hopper, keeping new latrine pits dug up and filling in the old ones, etc?

Whole new meaning to "Rim"world.
Skullywag modded to death.
I'd never met an iterator I liked....until Zhentar saved me.
Why Unity5, WHY do you forsake me?

keylocke

i don't mind getting toilets. some people have suggested it before, iirc..
but no need to dig for latrines. that's too low tech. (try pixel piracy for more lulz)

i also don't mind adding thirst, hygiene, and recreation into the needs.

there's usually a fine line between "hardcore", "casual", and "insane"(?)
but i think these things, still fall within the "hardcore" category.

fun > realism tends to be the motto of "casuals" these days..

it's like comparing the original DayZ mod vs State of Decay.
it's a matter of preference. some people prefer one over the other, while some people don't care.

gameplay-wise, i think ammo logistics is manageable for most players.
development-wise, it's mostly up to tynan.

we usually just chew the fat around here, so there's really nothing much to get riled up about.
agree to disagree, and all that jazz..

Funkmachine7

An Ammo count for mortars and other large weapons is understand able, one shell/ missle per shot is simple and we then have a reason to buy ammo.

Having to buy ammo give the player a money sink and a cost to using artillery in defense.

Now ammo will probably explode if it caches fire or is damaged, so you'll need a safe place to store the ammo.

Ammo for larger weapons i.e. missile launchers, make sense  it's a way to limit there damage but let them as much fire power as need to balance them.

Mathenaut

Quote from: keylocke on October 08, 2014, 08:40:11 PM
i don't mind getting toilets. some people have suggested it before, iirc..
but no need to dig for latrines. that's too low tech. (try pixel piracy for more lulz)

i also don't mind adding thirst, hygiene, and recreation into the needs.

there's usually a fine line between "hardcore", "casual", and "insane"(?)
but i think these things, still fall within the "hardcore" category.

fun > realism tends to be the motto of "casuals" these days..

it's like comparing the original DayZ mod vs State of Decay.
it's a matter of preference. some people prefer one over the other, while some people don't care.

gameplay-wise, i think ammo logistics is manageable for most players.
development-wise, it's mostly up to tynan.

we usually just chew the fat around here, so there's really nothing much to get riled up about.
agree to disagree, and all that jazz..

The part of too much 'realism' is that it often isn't realistic.  It's just an excuse to add inane elements that add nothing to the gameplay or character of the game, they just tickle a nuance niche of some people who don't care to notch up the difficulty.

Varnhagen

Wow, that escalated quickly Shadow...
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 08, 2014, 05:25:13 AM
If it unfairly favors the NPCs, then hit the brakes hard. Remember that the GM (or the vidja game,) has an unlimited number of NPCs.
Quote from: ShadowDragon8685 on October 08, 2014, 05:49:16 PM
There's already enough logistics to take care of re: making sure Sophie Wattaface is A: Healthy enough for combat, B: not about to have a fucking mental break in the middle of combat, C: equipped for combat with a weapon, etcetera, etcetera.


Your argument is based on quite some wrong assumptions.
First: The Numbers of NPC's are limited in Rimworld. They've got names and if you play long enough, you'll see the same names popping up every Raid. In the same game I've had Redfields participate in 3 attacks in a Row (getting killed all the time), and he visited the colony once as part of a friendly faction.
Because there are currently so many raiders needed to somewhat level the playing field, a reduction of raider number via the increase of the gameply challenge works fine. The "strength in number" escalation was temporary I'd gather and a placeholder mechanic to create some kind of combat dynamics.
Rimworlds NPC's are no Zerglings, they are Characters.
Second: Sorry if I sound patronizing, but if "Health", "Mood" and "Weapon" is already too much "Realism" for you, perhaps you'd be better off playing chess. These are basic mechanics which don't hassle the players but break up the routine and fill the void with things to do. Just like Ammo would.
So Sophie Whatsherface runs out of ammo, because you didn't procure or craft any since the start of the game? Tough luck, you'll know better next time. She runs out of ammo, because you forgot to resupply her between the last two raids? Tough luck, and you'll know better next time. She breaks in a fight, because you made her eat crap-food, have her living in a hideous hole, overworked her and she can't bear the view of all the gore? Tough luck. Respect your pawns needs next time.

I think you're overreacting, and constructing shitty strawmen (pun intended) won't help arguing against ammo.


Quote from: Funkmachine7 on October 08, 2014, 09:48:29 PM
Ammo for larger weapons i.e. missile launchers, make sense  it's a way to limit there damage but let them as much fire power as need to balance them.
Ammo makes sense for all weapons. Players could decide which weapon to use, based on ammo stocks and not just base their decision on bulletcount and damage. If Sniper rifle ammo was low and expensive, if minigun ammo was low and 9mil was abundant, would players opt for their standard minigun + M24 setup or equip some folks with pistols for minor threats because it's cheaper?

If you run out of ammo in a firefight, lure your enemy into your base and kill him with melee. A secondary weapon slot would be needed for that. Or a compulsary power claw enhancement programm for new recruits.
But either way: Enriched gameplay and meaningful decisions.

stefanstr

Quote from: Varnhagen on October 09, 2014, 04:39:56 AM
Ammo makes sense for all weapons. Players could decide which weapon to use, based on ammo stocks and not just base their decision on bulletcount and damage. If Sniper rifle ammo was low and expensive, if minigun ammo was low and 9mil was abundant, would players opt for their standard minigun + M24 setup or equip some folks with pistols for minor threats because it's cheaper?

If you run out of ammo in a firefight, lure your enemy into your base and kill him with melee. A secondary weapon slot would be needed for that. Or a compulsary power claw enhancement programm for new recruits.
But either way: Enriched gameplay and meaningful decisions.

This is a very interesting point. Ammo would potentially make various weapon types more useful. It might be more interesting then the current "get everyone an M-24" drill.

TrashMan

Quote from: ShadowTani on October 07, 2014, 08:34:45 AM
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought you meant ammo where exclusively in the form of ammo crates? Or was it meant as a container that is more compact than regular storage areas that ammo is hauled into? I agree to keeping things simple, and managing storage of single bullets will get tedious fast, hence why I think ammo should come in ammo boxes. The difference is that while a crate is a huge thing that needs to be hauled around a box is small enough to be carried in a colonists inventory. This is just a personal opinion though, I'm not making the claim it's the better idea - and if it's talk about a container then both ideas is actually possible.


I mean ammo crate as an item that holds x units of ammo and be placed/moved. It can be crafted. It can be re-filled.

So really, the only thing the player would have to take care of is to have a non-empty ammo crate near the action.
FFS! Dwarf Fortress has you craft each individual arrow!
If a mechanic as simple as this is too much for some people, I wonder how they can even lay the game at all.

keylocke

Quote from: Mathenaut on October 09, 2014, 12:02:41 AM
The part of too much 'realism' is that it often isn't realistic.  It's just an excuse to add inane elements that add nothing to the gameplay or character of the game, they just tickle a nuance niche of some people who don't care to notch up the difficulty.

i believe dwarf fortress and gnomoria also allows manufacture of ammo. (as someone else pointed out), so it's still within the "hardcore" spectrum of a game.

thirst/hygiene/recreation needs also still fit within the "hardcore" spectrum, rather than going over to the "insanity" level.. (ie : i think surgeon simulator, toribash, etc.. fit in the "insane" category, but extremely fun nonetheless..)

it's not everyone's cup of joe. but since most people who play rimworld also plays dwarf fortress and gnomoria, it's not really much of a hassle to deal with since a lot of people here already knows how ammo logistics play like.

Geokinesis

Why not compromise and have it so every X amount of shots a character has to spend 30 seconds (varies by weapon?) reloading their weapon but reloading is just downtime and doesn't require physical ammo to be present. Also have an option to force reload so can have everyone ready for a full assault or whatever.

You still have to manage that suddenly in the fire fight if you've given everyone m24s you'll be sitting ducks as you all take 30 uninterrupted seconds to reload, but without having to create an entire manufacturing line for ammo or too much extra busywork.


Funkmachine7

Part of the problem is that a man can carry a lot of ammo, sure a load of 180 rounds in 30 round magazines is common but so is more.

In the Vietnam war US soldiers often carried 1000+ rounds and more ammo for machine guns, a few hand grenades.

Why did they carry all that ammo? because when your ammo runs out you are no longer in combat, you are dead.

If you have a fixed position then it will have its own ammo stored there.
If your expecting a fight you'll carry more ammo, so raiders will probably come with a lot of ammo for sieges.

Mathenaut

Quote from: Funkmachine7 on October 09, 2014, 04:35:30 PM
Part of the problem is that a man can carry a lot of ammo, sure a load of 180 rounds in 30 round magazines is common but so is more.

In the Vietnam war US soldiers often carried 1000+ rounds and more ammo for machine guns, a few hand grenades.

Why did they carry all that ammo? because when your ammo runs out you are no longer in combat, you are dead.

If you have a fixed position then it will have its own ammo stored there.
If your expecting a fight you'll carry more ammo, so raiders will probably come with a lot of ammo for sieges.

Moreon, this changes defense from something flexible and dynamic to just replacing 'turrets' with 'entrenched colonists'.

If 'reelizm' is the only reason behind this, then it isn't a well grounded idea.