Weapon characteristics & other suggestions.

[WILDFIRE]

Yes I think it could be a cool gameplay feature if you have to find or to buy the different scopes (from weapon dealers) for the rifles first or your aim is limited just like in real life. If you have a rifle without any scope you wont hit a target and if the enemy is far away a scope will be absolutely necessary or the rifle will be useless. 

 

Also in game you should see that. Please integrate simple crosshairs for pistols, shotguns and rifles that have no scope. But if you find an iron sight, red dot, scope the crosshair could look exactly like these. Maybe your vision could also be blurred when you aim (in combat mode) if you dont have the right scope for the distance.

[Hendrix]

13 hours ago, WILDFIRE said:

If you have a rifle without any scope you wont hit a target and if the enemy is far away a scope will be absolutely necessary or the rifle will be useless. 

I can hear iron sights screaming: Am I a joke to you?! 😂

[Solaris_Wave]

I have never known a gun to be 'useless' due to only having iron sights! If you want to keep your firearm simple, as light as possible and robust, it can be worth just having irons and nothing else. I am thinking more about handguns, SMGs and assault rifles in this case.

[Hendrix]

24 minutes ago, Solaris_Wave said:

I have never known a gun to be 'useless' due to only having iron sights! If you want to keep your firearm simple, as light as possible and robust, it can be worth just having irons and nothing else. I am thinking more about handguns, SMGs and assault rifles in this case.

I blame gaming and movies for getting people to think you need 20 times magnification scope for your rifle to be able to hit anything further away than 50 meters.

I have personally shot a FN FNC and FN MAG with iron sights up to 400 meters at half silhouettes, hitting was not an issue. True it was only training and not some combat situation, but I think iron sights are better than many belive. Ofcourse assuming the iron sights are made for accuracy.

I would even go so far as to say that good iron sights can be more accurate than a red dot sight at range.

A scope would increase a rifles potential however.

@WILDFIRE reading through my post I think it might sound like I am bashing your post about scopes, that was not my intention.

[Solaris_Wave]

I am not bashing @WILDFIRE's post either. I understand what he is referring to.

I know what you mean about games and movies giving the idea that all guns need optics now. It makes you wonder how anybody managed to hit anything when all there was was iron sights!

Some people shoot better with irons than they do with the standard issued optics for their rifle but games and movies just show them for the cool factor. You know the soldier is a 'real' operator if they have an optic, suppressor, foregrip, light and laser, plus night vision goggles on the front of their helmet. You also know that the bad guy is definitely a bad guy if he carries a basic AKM with nothing else, shouts angrily, smokes a greasy cigar and wears big black Ray-Bans. Also, depending on his wealth and status, he might have loads of medals, braids and ribbons plus several Swiss watches on his arm. A beret might top it off. And yet, his AKM remains plain.

These movies and games depict shotguns the same way too. An absolute cone of death wiping out anything in its path…up to about 20 feet, at which point after, it becomes 100% useless.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Solaris_Wave

[WILDFIRE]

In my last post here in this thread there was a essential word missing and I could not edit anymore, so the whole sentence lost its true meaning.

 

If you have a rifle without any scope you wont hit a target sometimes. I know a lot of guns and rifles very well so I know that you can surely aim and hit a target also on longer distances with an iron sight. But with some scopes like ACOG and other red dots you have good alternatives and more flexibility. 

 

As I mentioned that rifles get useless without any scope I was talking about real high distances like 600 meters and higher. There you normally wont hit a target with an iron sight. You need a bigger scope. I never really compared iron sights and red dots. Only the context got lost. So both surely have their own suitability.

[Hendrix]

1 hour ago, WILDFIRE said:

I never really compared iron sights and red dots. Only the context got lost. So both surely have their own suitability.

First of all this post assumes that everything is installed and sighted in correctly.

Red dot sights are definitely faster, since the dot in the sight will show you were you hit. You do not need to align your eye perfectly to the scope, as long as you see the dot, there's were you will hit.

The "trouble" with red dots are that they will hide the area behind the dot in your sight. The dot size are defined in MOA (Minute Of Angle) 1 MOA being 29,1 mm at 100 meters. So a 1 MOA size dot will cover a circle roughly 3 cm in diameter at 100 meters and at 200 meters 1 MOA will cover 6 cm. I personally don't know anyone who has or uses a red dot sight with a dot sight lower than 2 MOA, 4 being most common. The one I own myself is a 2 MOA but I would prefear a 3 or 4 size instead, I personally find 2 MOA to be a bit hard to pick up fast enough. But a 4 MOA sight will cover almost 12cm at 100 meters. A good iron sight does not cover your target since (atleast the way I was taught to zero them) you want to hit just above the front post of the sight. The downside of irons of course being the need to align your eye properly through the sight.

[Solaris_Wave]

There are pros and cons to having only iron sights and for having red dots (along with anything similar). Iron sights are slower as you have to line up the front and rear sights, plus the sight picture is smaller. Also, most iron sights are just plain black or dark metal, which isn't great when trying to see them in the dark. At that point, you are going more by feel.

Red dots and similar are faster, have a larger sight picture and are good for most lighting conditions as you can adjust the brightness of the dot. On the negative side, optical sights can get damaged, add to the weight of the gun, can be bulky and block certain angles of view. A lot of the negatives come down to older red dots and also cheaper ones (especially imitations). Battery usage affects older and cheaper models more too. Cheap sights also have high chance of parallax shifting so the dot moves around if you don't try to look through the optic straight on.

I don't understand how some people buy a gun and then mount an airsoft clone sight, of all things. I know proper sights are expensive but it seems weird to take the airsoft route, even if your gun is only to be a 'firing range toy'.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Solaris_Wave

[Hendrix]

6 hours ago, Solaris_Wave said:

Iron sights are slower as you have to line up the front and rear sights

I was taught for short ranges and quick shooting with iron sights, to look above the rear sight and line the protective ring of the front sight at the center of the target. Worked very well actually.

[Solaris_Wave]

Night Combat (Part 1):
 

While not strictly related to weapons, I was wondering about combat that takes place during night time? The reason I have posted this comment in this particular thread is because I have been thinking about the use of tactical lights mounted on firearms.

Tac lights will illuminate what is in front of it and can be very useful in dark interiors and outdoors, especially if it is a moonless night. However, keeping the light switched on, is not a good idea as it also gives away the position of the user.

The use of light during night battles, in turn-based squad games, doesn't seem to amount to more than to make an area visible or not. Each character will have a surrounding aura of light around them to show awareness but there doesn't seem to be any other factor, such as being blinded by powerful lights, having night vision disrupted by lights or a mounted light giving away the position of the one using it.

This will be something that only a JA3 developer can reveal but those above factors could hopefully be included into the game. I know it is yet something else for the developers to consider but maybe one or two of those could be included for night battles.

A character moving from indoors to outdoors could have a delay of several turns for natural night vision to appear. Until then, their visibility is reduced except for what they can see lit up by street lights, search lights, a flashlight/torch or a mounted tactical light. The immediate surrounding area of a character will not be affected as this will be their situational awareness. It is important to note that nobody else can see that situational awareness. While that light aura might light up for that character, the aura is not visible to anybody else.

If a character is outside and underneath a street light, if they end a turn under that light, their night visibility is lowered for one turn afterwards. They can however, see anything else illuminated by artificial light.

I don't know how or if, being blinded by a light could be included in the game, with the exception of using flashbangs, because even if you make a character look in that direction, how do you know what their eyes are looking at? Maybe a character's visibility could suffer if they are directly facing a beam of light up close. This doesn't include street lights but would include search lights, car headlights, flashlights and tac lights. Basically, any light that is powered in one directional cone or beam.

Light beams from search lights, car headlights, flashlights/torches and tac lights will naturally provide a cone of illumination that has a maximum range. Everything within that light cone will be revealed. The important thing to note is that this light can be traced back to the point of origin. A shooter can aim for that light and try to destroy it.

This is one of the reasons why mounted tac lights often have a pressure switch alongside or instead of an on/off switch. While it is handy to light up an area you can't see, you don't want to be continuously doing it as your light can be seen by others.

Equally important is the distance and facing of that source of light and something that I hope can be programmed into the game. If Man A, with the tac light is up close and illuminating someone (Man B), it will be hard for that illuminated person (Man B) to look at the light (tactical lights can be very bright!). If they try to shoot at Man A, there should be a penalty to accuracy as the light is being shone in their eyes. If Man B is not in close range, let's say, out of the cone of illumination, their eyes are not dazzled by the light source. At this point, they actually get an accuracy bonus to hit because they can shoot at the dot of light. This would also apply to any other person who would wish to shoot if they were at a similar distance.

If Man B was to the side of Man A, there should be no bonus or penalty to hit. He is not being illuminated and hence dazzled. Also, he will not see the point of light to aim at.

If Man B was behind Man A, because of some reason, there should be no bonus or penalty at shooting at Man A. Yes, he could follow the cone of light back to the source but he wouldn't have a dot of light to aim at and I don't think there would be a worthwhile bonus to hit, unless something like 5-10%.

It must be said that detecting that point of light (to get the accuracy bonus) is only valid if they are not lit up by anything else. You must see that dot of light in the darkness to target it.

To finalise, is it worth mounting lights on guns if they can potentially give away your position? Definitely. Your natural night vision will never compare to the visibility gained from artificial light. Even night vision goggles aren't superior as they don't create the same visibility (and are more expensive).

It comes down to how stealthy you want to be and how well you are able to take advantage of natural and ambient light. Some areas you will simply struggle to see, and if navigating terrain used by hostile animals that can see you in the dark just nicely, you will want to illuminate it. If you are approaching a compound with street lights, you can probably leave your own light switched off and let those other lights do the work for you (while also letting you see guards walking past them).

[Solaris_Wave]

Night Combat (Part 2):
 

The second part covers muzzle flashes. Muzzle flashes will give away the position of the shooter when they were previously surrounded by darkness. You will see this from any angle so you can aim for those flashes from whatever position you are related to the enemy.

Muzzle flashes are not constant and not every bullet fired will produce the same flash, all the time. You are more likely to see those flashes at night, even though they can still be seen during daylight.

Some guns will produce a bigger flash than others and it depends on the following:

• Whether the gun has a flash hider in the first place.
• Whether a gun is firing fully automatic.
• Whether a gun has a shortened barrel and is firing a round meant for longer barrels.
• If a gun is firing more powerful ammunition.
• If a gun is larger calibre.
• If a gun has a compensator.

 

Some guns don't have or need flash hiders as standard (almost all handguns, revolvers and even most SMGs) or, in the case of an assault rifle, they might have come off, if they are a poorly maintained weapon. Flash hiders also vary in quality with aftermarket flash hiders being better quality (and more expensive).

The main use of a flash hider is actually for the benefit of the shooter themselves as it prevents them from being blinded or dazzled by the notable flash, caused by such things as gunpowder and gases when the bullet leaves the barrel.

Short-barrel rifles often have a bigger muzzle flash than their standard barrel counterparts. While shortening the barrel length will make the gun lighter and more manoeuvrable, you are increasing recoil, muzzle flash, noise and blast, wear and tear, while also reducing velocity. Standard issue carbines try to find the sweet spot before the whole idea of shortening the rifle becomes detrimental. Compact carbines often accept the loss and their uses are limited to certain scenarios.

Over-pressured ammunition such as +P will create a higher muzzle flash.

Compensators, either built-in to the gun or mounted externally are designed to reduce recoil. Their downsides will create a higher flash, more noise and a bigger blast. Built-in compensators can reduce velocity too.

Flash hiders will only work so much at hiding the muzzle flash at night, to anybody looking at where to shoot back. Mounting a sound suppressor will work to a greater effect (as well as obviously reducing the gunshot). It doesn't entirely eliminate it but is very effective at reducing it. The downside of a suppressor is reduced velocity, which affects maximum range, accuracy at range and damage per bullet (due to slower travel).

Other than affecting the game cosmetically and needing to have the guns produce bigger or smaller muzzle flashes, what actual gameplay effects do these muzzle flashes have at night? As I mentioned near the beginning of this post, it will give away the position of the shooter to anyone else. Ways around it would be to fire semi-auto as even though a flash will still occur, firing a burst is going to multiply what is happening; have a good quality flash hider; mount a sound suppressor.

While it would be unrealistic to light up the shooter as if they were standing under a street light, there should be an outline of where they are detected, kind of like sound detection. Maybe a red outline of a human being would work. This outline only lasts for one turn and will only re-appear if the shooter was to fire the next turn, and so on. Because the muzzle flash is quick, there should not be a bonus to hit the detected shooter, unless they are firing full automatic (providing a more consistent muzzle flash). It is otherwise only a point of reference for your merc to actually target something.

How will the shooter's eyesight be affected by their own weapon's muzzle flash? If the flash is bright enough, caused by the points I listed above, it should reduce natural night vision in the same way that artificial light was covered in Part 1 of Night Combat. To further assist the merc, they could buy protective eyewear like shooting glasses. These can still be worn at night, unlike sunglasses.

[Solaris_Wave]

This post is not strictly related to my previous posts on night combat but does have a few things that will be in conjunction with it:

 

Laser sights won't give away your position that easily, either from the point of origin or what is being aimed at. While visible, a laser point isn't that easy to see unless it is moving around. Mounted laser sights produce a small dot and it is only under certain lighting and atmospheric conditions that you can see the beam itself. Big, visible beams panning around the area is for Hollywood movies.

I am guessing that audio detection is in the game, where noise can give away the position of someone, whether they are moving through bushes or over wooden floorboards. What about smells? A bonfire, the smell of tobacco, strong deodorant, body odour or coffee could announce the presence of human activity. While not particularly being able to precisely locate such activity, it could prompt one of your mercs to whisper that they can smell something in a certain direction.

Cigarettes, cigars and pipes would give away a position at night as well. You might not see a guard standing still in the darkness, until at some point they decide to use their lighter or strike a match to smoke something. Not only that but cigarettes and cigars would occasionally continue to glow at night, everytime that person takes a puff.

The inclusion of tobacco in the game is obviously down to the developers and publishers, especially in this day and age, even if it isn't truly advertising the use of it. While I have always been a non-smoker and can't stand the stuff, it is nonetheless still in wide use, and probably more so during the timeline that JA3 is set in, so I included it here for the sake of authenticity and another way of revealing a position.

[WILDFIRE]

I hope the loot system is also as complex as in JA2. Random loot in every sector can push the replayability and makes exploring way more exciting.

[LoboNocturno]

On 1/23/2023 at 9:02 PM, Hendrix said:

I blame gaming and movies for getting people to think you need 20 times magnification scope for your rifle to be able to hit anything further away than 50 meters.

I have personally shot a FN FNC and FN MAG with iron sights up to 400 meters at half silhouettes, hitting was not an issue. True it was only training and not some combat situation, but I think iron sights are better than many belive. Ofcourse assuming the iron sights are made for accuracy.

I would even go so far as to say that good iron sights can be more accurate than a red dot sight at range.

A scope would increase a rifles potential however.

@WILDFIRE reading through my post I think it might sound like I am bashing your post about scopes, that was not my intention.

Many movies and games (almost all) gives us a false impression which i totally agree with, also agree with the iron sight theory that can works well but it needs some serious practice and your hands also needs to be very still. Even to shoot a normal handgun to a target with a very good accuracy with just iron sight from 30 to 50 m its not a very simple thing for the average shooter, if its a moveable object even far more difficult. Moveable targets or to shot while moving is always way harder.

 

Yes assault rifles can hit the target well from 400 m or even further with iron sights, but if you can also hit a smaller target (size of a tennis ball as example) with high accuracy? Its questionable, unless you are a real marksmanship pro (sniper level), iron sights would be also totally useless in the night which is a huge disadvantage.

 

Scopes are surely playing a big role for us to see the target from far and at nights they help us as well with night or other visions as example.

[Solaris_Wave]

Some irons are definitely better than others. I like the standard iron sights on the AR-15 series of rifles and the MP5. I can't say I was keen on the rear ranging sight on the AKS-74U. It is different to the standard AK rear sight.

Some guns have better iron sights for low light visibility. Handguns in particular can have tritium inserts but they are available for long guns too. You can have ghost ring sights on shotguns with tritium inserts and some rifles, such as the SIG 550 series have a flip-up front post night sight as standard. Aftermarket night enhanced iron sights are available for other long guns.

Fibre optic sights aren't as good for night time but are better for bright light than plain sights.

I am not sure but I think that the Heckler & Koch PSG-1 sniper rifle was one of the first rifles of its kind to have an illuminated telescopic sight. That also went into its high price and exclusivity. Such a thing is more common in availability and price many years later.

[WILDFIRE]

I watched some JA2 gameplay lately and in the combat I noticed a very special detail. The mercs always sway with their arms from the left to the right while they are aiming.

 

That is a detail that for some might not stand out big when they look at the combat but it really gives these firefights a realistic look. So please Devs let the mercs/enemies sway with their arms just a little bit while they are aiming that will give the combat an authentic and realistic touch.

[Solaris_Wave]

Do you mean that you like that they are animated in general, so they feel more alive, or that you specifically like that animation you described?

Various idle animations would be an important feature (and something I am sure would always be intended to be included in such a game these days). If they are behind a low wall/fence or next to a wall corner, I'd like to see them peering over/out occasionally.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Solaris_Wave

[WILDFIRE]

I like that the character model simulates real aiming. The arms with the weapon and the body is moving just a little bit from the left to the right while aiming.

 

No one stays totally stiff in that process only in the last few moments when you shoot at the target. That animation in JA2 looks really nice so why not integrate that in JA3 also, it gives the combat a realistic look.

[Solaris_Wave]

 

Inventory Slots:
 

The following post is a copy of a post I made in The Portraits thread. I have put it here also (with slight alterations) to try to keep everything in one thread, instead of having related text posted in other threads that normally cover other subjects. Additionally, some of this text, I already tried to cover in a previous post in this thread. The following text is an update on that.

 

There needs to be separate inventory slots for helmets/headwear, eyewear, hearing enhancements/protection, face masks, torso wear (i.e. load-bearing vests, body armour, bandoliers, etc.), belt with pouches, holster on one side, something else for the other side and then the backpack.

I stated how important it would be to have a holster slot where a sidearm would go. It would be important because if your primary weapon jams or needs reloading, drawing your sidearm should take less action points than to reload or inspect/clear the jam. This would be critical if you were under fire or in close proximity to an enemy, or even moving indoors.

This keeps handguns relevant, as in real life.

 

Also, looking again at the screenshot of the inventory of JA3's work in progress, what actually is a slot? How big is it? Not every object is the same size. Again, something I touched upon in my thread, is a need to have a grid for many locations. You can carry more 9mm magazines than you can carry 5.56mm or larger. They are thinner. One singular item shouldn't necessarily take up an entire slot, no matter what.

I really hope that the inventory system will be expanded upon and to give certain locations and objects a sub-slot(s) or once again, a grid for certain areas. Objects are important because some helmets can have night-vision goggles clipped to them. Other helmets have got armoured face plates (which isn't really an eyewear slot as those face plates can't be worn separately with anything else).

Night-vision goggles that are separate are still head wear as they are strapped over the head. Eyewear would be sunglasses, shooting glasses or standard goggles. Gas masks would probably count as eye wear and prevent anything else being worn over the face. However, a dust mask or shemagh scarf wouldn't prevent glasses being worn.

Grids could be used for the backpack instead of slots (why should an RPG take up exactly the same space as one grenade or magazine?) like in the game, Silent Storm. A belt would benefit from a grid as well (obviously smaller than the backpack grid) as items could be clipped here. This could be ammo, medkit, grenades, toolkit, lock pick set, knife or water canteen.

Load-bearing vests could be either (or both) sub-slots or a grid as magazine/cartridge pouches would be fitted (and again, different ammo sizes matter as to how much can be carried). Armour plates fit behind, so other than weight increase, they shouldn't prevent ammo pouches being present. A knife might go here as well.

The holster would be on the right side of the leg (for game purposes, we could assume all mercs are right-handed). This is a slot as only a handgun or knife would go here. Despite some handguns being bigger than others, you can only fit one per holster. Some holsters also have a pocket for pistol magazines. I'm not sure how that could be done unless you complicate things by having a holster sub-slot or changing the holster to a grid.

As an alternative to having a slot holster, the developers could make it so any handgun or knife can be quickly drawn for less action points, no matter where it is unless it is in the backpack. This would be a handy compromise and would in effect simulate the fact that knife sheaths or handgun holsters can be strapped to vests, the belt or the thigh. Also, not all holsters are the same.

If the underlined method is used, the developers can then have a small grid for both legs. That means you have space on both thighs to mount what you can. If the merc likes to dual wield pistols, you have that option or multiple knives can be carried (throwing knives for example), medkits and so on.

Anything in the backpack takes a long time to get out. Whatever you are getting out should take a lot of action points, due to the process of it. Regardless of the size and weight of the item, there definitely should be a penalty for having to remove the backpack and getting something out. How the developers could approach this, I am not sure as you might want to get multiple items out in one turn, such as more ammo, explosives, mines, mortar rounds, rockets, etc.

An ammo bag would be grid based as well. How this would be fitted is once again something for the developers to decide, as the bag could be on a shoulder strap, worn on the belt or strapped to the thigh. Wherever it is, it would give additional room without a penalty to retrieve an item like with the backpack. The ammo bag would be important for mercs that carry machine guns and squad automatic weapons as ammo drums are bigger and wider than standard rifle mags. An ammo bag would also provide the best way to carry lots of shotgun cartridges.

 

Finally, guns themselves need slots. One for a suppressor or compensator at the muzzle (or possibly muzzle-loaded grenades or bayonet). Two for the handguard (allowing a laser and/or light, and a foregrip or grenade launcher). Lastly, one slot for the fitting of optical sights.

There could be slots to modify the gun itself, such as allowing for tritium night sights, match trigger or another butt-stock. That depends on how technical the developers want to get. I would class things like that as nice to have in the game but far from necessary, unlike the situation with the inventory.

Not every gun will have slots, especially older guns. The majority of long guns should have one slot for optics but not every gun has a threaded barrel or lugs for suppressors. Not every gun has a mount for lights and lasers either.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Solaris_Wave

[Solaris_Wave]

17 hours ago, anon474 said:

@Solaris_Wavefeedback:

1 weapon weight and size - 100% completely COMPLETELY disagree. if you start going down the "everything should be realistic, and lets derive stats from realism" path, you'll run into all kinds of walls and problems that make it to where everybody only equips 1 weapon type because that weapon type is objectively 50% better than next other weapon type, and then some other weapon type will be so objectively bad nobody will use it. realism is not good game design. edit: pistols maybe should take less AP to fire...but that's not because they're small but because they do less damage and count as a side arm instead of a primary arm.

Realism balances itself surprisingly well. It often balances a lot more logically than arbitrary game balancing because it is…well, realistic. When a game has a certain gun act a certain way 'just because', it can be stupid. It can also be confusing for us guys who have an interest in the real steel.

I really can't understand your comments here unless you didn't read my own comments correctly in the first place. My points were that there would not be a weapon or weapon type that renders all others useless, as long as things are modelled on realism and not just balanced for pure gameplay purposes (which is often when you do see one weapon dominating all the others until it gets patched).

Do weapons in real life only have one type that dominates all others? No. Smaller, shorter, lighter weapons are faster to aim and easier to manoeuvre, which is the ideal choice in close quarters. You want to use a weapon that has those advantages when going into buildings. The same cannot be said if you want to engage in a firefight at longer ranges. You then want something with a longer barrel that fires a more powerful cartridge. That means the firepower and/or damage potential is a lot more but at a cost of a longer, heavier weapon. That will increase time to aim. Not a great lot but enough to make a difference if you don't have clear, open lines of sight (i.e. indoors).

The only weapon type that tries to fit all requirements are carbines but they really are 'jack-of-all-trades and master-of-none' weapon platforms.

 

17 hours ago, anon474 said:

2 weapon reloading - u wot m8. seriously bro. you want people to save action points on one bullet lolllll ok. beancounting express here we come. what next, do you want running to be 1% less APs if the merc didn't eat his lunch that day? I get what you're saying in principle, but buffing reload AP because of one bullet is not smart.

To begin with, please refrain from being obnoxious. I don't appreciate the "u wot m8" or the lol as if I am stupid.

It is not about saving action points, it is about the natural mechanics of real firearms. Reloading a weapon is faster if there is already a cartridge in the chamber. You are changing the magazine over but you don't have to pull back and release the slide or charging handle to load the top round from the new magazine. If you fire a weapon until it is empty, you have to perform a longer reload. It is extra time needed. Maybe not a lot but it is still extra seconds and hand movement. That adds up in a life and death firefight.

If you think you are running low and have the opportunity to do so, you perform a tactical reload and swap out the magazine.

In JA3's case, a tactical reload would cost less action points compared to a full reload.

There is nothing wrong with what I requested in my opening post and games that try to feature realism as much as they can do in fact have tactical and full reload sequences as separate features. If they are not in a game, you would be surprised how many complaints there can be.

 

17 hours ago, anon474 said:

13 overpenetration is meh, and again an example of how realism is not good game design. I don't think it matters, and I don't think most people care. Want to play a 100% realistic tactical sim, go play another game, but here's a warning: you won't have fun, and it won't be fun.

14 wall and material penetration - can be an ok idea, but it has such limited application. When will you ever be in a position that you'll be wallbanging somebody. Only if you have some squadsight type stuff but that's a bit unrealistic for a 90s era setting like in JA.

Over-penetration is a serious issue in reality, with certain bullets more likely to over-penetrate than others. That requires more planning on what you are going to use. This isn't just restricted to mil-sims, it has been featured in turn-based squad shooters. Realism is perfectly fine as a template for game design. There are various levels of realism without causing game design to suffer. I have experience in both.

Maybe you personally don't like games that focus more on realistic elements but there are lots of people that do. They find it fun, which is why such games are clearly popular.

As for wall penetration, that too has been featured in turn-based squad games. Silent Storm handled it to great effect. It was both an excellent and memorable feature. Your commandos and the enemy could use it to deadly effect. It was immersive and…there's that word again: Realistic.

 

17 hours ago, anon474 said:

Basically I didn't finish reading all of this, some of these are good ideas, other ones are good because they're new ideas, not necessarily because they're good ideas. JA is a RPG first and a realistic mil-sim second (if at all). Therefore you need to put in good systems based around items, progression and loadout, like different ammo types, different optics, different skills/stats and different weapons with vastly varying stats. Realism is great and all, but it can't come at the expense of good fun progression based systems.

 

It's a shame you didn't finish reading all of my post first because you would have understood things a little clearer in what I am hoping for. Not only that, you would have realised that certain things you want to see, as noted in your final paragraph, are what I already covered.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Solaris_Wave

[Solaris_Wave]

1 hour ago, anon474 said:

"Realism balances itself surprisingly well." That's a total error.

Example: in realism, higher caliber weapons that do more damage have higher recoil. Higher recoil = harder to shoot = what's the point of upgrading caliber? You gain more damage but lower accuracy.

Another example: In realism, most calibers have same energy, meaning goodbye progression. Every single 556 gun has almost exactly same stats as any other 556 gun. But then where do you get progression? Higher calibers? See point 1.

Example: In realism all bullets are basically the same, because as long as you get pen, and a dude isn't hit with something as small as a 22LR or 32ACP (pre .45ACP/9mm calibers), they're going to go down from a single hit. Even in very extreme cases when 9mm didn't have stopping power, ok, let's move up to anything over 9mm like 10mm. 10mm definitely has stopping power. So according to you, we should have realism, where everybody has 1 HP, because everything takes 1 shot to down.

Why is it a 'total error'? You make it sound as if I am utterly stupid while you are totally clued in to everything. I have to be honest and say that in the short space of time that you have registered and posted in these forums, you have been rude in response to several posts from others and particularly with me. I don't mind criticism and am always open to it. What I don't appreciate is ridicule and until you came along, there was none of that in these forums. Your posts sometimes act as if several of us were wandering around clueless until you arrived with your sage words.

Yes, higher calibre cartridges do produce more recoil (which heavier weapons can also compensate for as weight reduces it) but what is the point of upgrading calibre? To do more damage. It depends on what you want to hit. Bigger bullets (and shells) travel farther too due to less resistance. You don't always get lower accuracy either. Sure, there is a trade off and you have to get the right balance, as well as design a weapon for an intended target. You make it sound as if small calibres are the only choice.

Calibres don't all have the same energy, or even similar energy. A 9mm Parabellum round has a lot less than 5.56x45mm, which is different to .50 BMG. Even if I was to stay only with 5.56mm, not all rifles and carbines are alike. In fact, due to barrel length, weapon components and grain weight, velocity can drop enough in a 5.56mm bullet to stop it from fragmenting as effectively. The major factor in the lethality of the small 5.56mm bullet is with fragmentation.

Any bullet can kill with a single hit, even .22 LR and .32 ACP/7.65mm Browning, if it hits the right place. Bigger bullets aren't a guarantee to kill in one hit, depending on a multitude of reasons, even if they do logically increase the likelihood. They might just incapacitate, then again they might not. That is fact and history has revealed that. Obviously, I am not talking about being hit with very powerful bullets and shells. You reach a point where even if a large, powerful bullet hits you and doesn't kill you outright, you could have blunt trauma at the very least and at worst, you are looking down at yourself with missing limbs or organs.

 

1 hour ago, anon474 said:

So according to you, we should have realism, where everybody has 1 HP, because everything takes 1 shot to down.

You are trying to put words in my mouth as if I am stupid. I obviously didn't say anything of the sort. As I have said elsewhere, there are different grades of realism and you can still be realistic without resorting to some stupid rule that you have created (and pinned onto me) where everybody is neutralised in one bullet.

 

1 hour ago, anon474 said:

These are just some of the issues with realism. In realism enemies die from 1 hit, everybody runs out of energy after 10 feet of running in-gear, nobody can carry armor above kevlar because it weighs too much for more than 5 minutes of carry, guns become pointless because everything above 10mm downs an enemy and the same caliber does the same amount of damage, you need to worry about food supplies of the merc force, people can't recover from a bullet wound unless they're given like months, and so on.

Running out of energy after 10 feet? Maybe you do but you don't speak for everybody, even though you seem to be trying to.

There are different levels of body armour and not just kevlar.

Again, the same calibre does not not necessarily mean the same damage each time. There are also different types of cartridge within the same calibre designation.

 

1 hour ago, anon474 said:

If you actually played a realistic strategy, you would hate it because it'd be extremely boring, everybody would cap out their progression at level 1 or level 2, and there'd be no point to upgrading anything after you got a gun bigger than 10mm.

I have played realistic games and I quite enjoy some of them. I even worked on one years ago.

It isn't about 'upgrading' to a better calibre. It is about using the right weapon for the job. That is something I didn't learn from playing games.

 

1 hour ago, anon474 said:

Also this: " It often balances a lot more logically than arbitrary game balancing because it is…well, realistic." tell me you have a bad argument without telling me you have a bad argument. "Realistic balancing is good because it's realistic! you see?" Also real life isn't balanced noob. Lmao.

Again, you are resorting to insults and being downright obnoxious with it. Save that for when you are with your friends at school. Don't attack me and don't call me a noob. I am nothing of the sort.

 

2 hours ago, anon474 said:

"Do weapons in real life only have one type that dominates all others? No." Yes. ARs are final version of weapons. All spec op forces carry an AR and a pistol in case the AR fails. You don't need anything above an AR, an AR pens body armor, and an AR is comparatively mobile and easy to handle. There is no need for anything beyond an AR, and DMRs or snipers are very very rarely used, only in very specific circumstances because of how difficult real-life marksmanship past even a medium distance.

Assault rifles are the final version of weapons? Where on earth are you getting this silly information? Technology is always moving forward. Wars of the past have demonstrated that, regardless of whether you accept and believe it or not. There will always be something to counter what is currently working, which then renders that device obsolescent or obsolete. It then comes down to researching something better and so the cycle continues. If we followed your line of thinking, not only would firearms never have progressed but there would have been no need for firearms because the longbow, the crossbow and the halberd were excellent killing tools.

 

2 hours ago, anon474 said:

"The only weapon type that tries to fit all requirements are carbines" Do you mean assault rifles? Why are you using the term "carbine". Say assault rifle. I just looked up what "carbine" means, it's a modification of a gun that is modified to have a shorter barrel. So you basically told us you have no idea what you're talking about, again, congrats.

I have ample idea what I am talking about and have done so for many years. You on the other hand, with your rudeness and inability to see anybody else's viewpoint, without resorting to insults gives the impression that you are young in years or at least immature.

Carbines do have shorter barrels but assault rifles that have shorter barrels can also be classed as carbines. That has always been the nomenclature. You can call it an M4 rifle but M4 carbine is wholly sufficient. Before you try to insult me, maybe do some more research. Don't just do a quick Google on it.

 

2 hours ago, anon474 said:

"To begin with, please refrain from being obnoxious." I don't think I'm being obnoxious, I think maybe you're being obnoxious by getting easily mad over very light criticism/ridicule and somebody objectively analyzing your statements. I'm not the one posting 20 page suggestion posts expecting them to be read.

If you don't see yourself as being obnoxious by using lots of LOLs, LMAOs, calling me a noob and saying I have 'no idea what [I am] talking about again, congrats' then you need lessons on how to communicate with people in a respectful way. I certainly wouldn't call that 'light criticism'. I don't mind criticism if it is done constructively but you are just trying to dismantle my words as if they are just uneducated nonsense.

I posted those in-depth suggestions based on experience and knowledge for people to read if they so desire. Many people have read the posts from beginning to end and if they had something to contest about it, they did it politely and constructively. Only you have come in and just blurted out, "LOL, naaaah, LMAO" or whatever you think works in this day and age. Everybody else has commented with decent criticism.

I posted everything I did because I want to see JA3 be as good as it can be. As much as I love JA2, there is room for improvement in regards to combat mechanics, the inventory system and more, hence why I decided to register and post in the first place. If nobody suggests anything, then things can get missed. When a game is in development, that is exactly the time to suggest as many things as possible. It is then up to the developers to decide what they might want to add.

 

2 hours ago, anon474 said:

"It is not about saving action points, it is about the natural mechanics of real firearms." This goes back to the whole "realism is bad for systems design" argument, which it is. I'm not interested in making all mechanics realistic, I'm interested in making them fun first and foremost. If you have JA2 or JA2 1.13 (where you have 100ap points per turn) level ap applotment, then sure you can have reloads cost less if you don't have to pull the charging handle. But the question is then, how could you strategize around that. You can't. So at most, what you're suggesting should 1 only give us a very light AP buff and 2 would be a great example of disruptive beancounting that would force you to constantly beancount the amount of ammo left in each merc's gun (which is not even possible if you have JA2 1.13 type features where you can't see the amount left), and FURTHERMORE, would occur completely according to luck. Also the completionist in me hates unemptied magazines. So there's about four different ways in how the feature you're suggesting is not fun, and entirely luck based, and is untrackable, and is annoying.

You don't have to strategise at all, you just use common sense. You reload when you have opportunity to do so. You don't want to be using more action points to reload when you have suddenly come into contact with previously unseen foes. What about during CQB? You have less time to react so it makes sense to quickly swap mags during a quieter moment if you know that plenty of bullets have been fired.

Besides, having tactical and full reloads won't ruin the game. If the gun is empty, it costs a few more action points to reload. If the gun doesn't have an empty chamber, it won't cost as much. Simple as that. You make it sound as if you have to perform mental gymnastics or have a notepad and pen handy.

 

2 hours ago, anon474 said:

"If they are not in a game, you would be surprised how many complaints there can be. " From you and your alts? Lol

Again, you are resorting to petty insults. This kind of thing definitely suggests you are of a young age and probably do this often online or in a forum like GameFAQs.

 

2 hours ago, anon474 said:

"Maybe you personally don't like games that focus more on realistic elements but there are lots of people that do. They find it fun" Wrong, they don't find it fun and there are very few examples of games that actually have a very high level of realism where everybody has 1 HP and recoil is realistic and guns don't matter and you can't sprint for more than 5 seconds and you definitely can't run in full gear and you're basically over-encumbered if you have full kit on.

If people don't find those games fun, why are games like Squad, Insurgency, ARMA 3, Ready Or Not, Escape From Tarkov (in certain ways) and the older SWAT 3 and 4, and earlier Rainbow Six games popular? Sure, the latter series had erratic AI and all those games are FPS but it still shows that the desire is there. Also, while not my sort of thing, lots of people like the busywork of survival games even if they are not realistic.

 

2 hours ago, anon474 said:

People like you always rely on these excuses. "Oh if you don't like it it's not because there's something wrong with it, it's because it's a matter of personal taste". You're just doubling down to spite me my friend. I insulted your cooking and you're going to eat the chargrilled pizza and pretend to like it just to spite me.

People like me? Look kid, you don't even know me. You have less than 24 hours worth of experience of my existence but somehow you know exactly the kind of person I am? I am not doubling down on anything. I was cordial with you until you started with the insults and went farther than criticising my posts. Judging by the posts you have made in response to others, while not going anywhere near as far as you have with me, I nonetheless quickly spotted snide remarks here and there.

 

3 hours ago, anon474 said:

"As for wall penetration, that too has been featured in turn-based squad games. Silent Storm handled it to great effect."

Funny you should mention that - Silent Storm's wallbanging system was 100% unrealistic, and there is no way you could tell somebody's position behind a wall with that level of precision that you could fire on them. Even HEARING people behind a wall is often very difficult, and would require the environment to be extremely quiet (i.e. not in a gunfight).

I was thinking more in terms of "what would the benefit be to incorporate a wall pen system in most contexts for most combat scenarios" and there wouldn't be one. Imagine you have a enemy behind a short wall, who you can already see and fire upon, XCOM style. And then imagine they're behind an impenetrable wall like a wall made out of clay or bricks (which are a lot of walls). Now what. I'm not entirely against the idea if there was some way to know where an enemy was behind a wall, if they ducked into cover on last turn for example (and its very easy to program), or if you wanted to incorporate extremely precise hearing, I'm just not sure you had that in mind when you wrote what you wrote about wall pen lol. Wall banging in almost every scenario is extremely luck based and unlikely to return results.

There was plenty of good things about Silent Storm's wall penetration and even being able to hear somebody in another room, through a wall. I don't think it should be too precise but it should be sufficient to hear someone on the other side of a wall, provided they are wearing certain attire such as boots and could be on a surface like a wooden floor.

I would rather have walls that can be shot through than to make them impervious to bullets and explosives, even just for the sake of immersion. What was in Silent Storm and even JA2 was beneficial to overall gameplay. Most walls are far from being impenetrable and larger calibres will do more damage. A quick example of this is that, although 5.45x39mm rifles are standard issue for Russian troops, they have gone back to older AKMs, that fire 7.62x39mm, on more than one occasion, due to preferring its advantages in shooting through cover.

[Taurean]

Some good ideas there. Good post.

I am usually in the lane of not programming too many factors into a game, because it becomes so much to take into consideration that it may lower the fun factor. A game is supposed to be fun. But at the same time, if it is programmed well, and easy to decipher and understand, then it can be a good thing, because then you can comprehend greater calculations in a faster manner. That is a big part of why i like JA 1+2, the information provided is quick, short, informative and easy to comprehend, while not being patronizing or superficial. That is something they absolutely must stay away from. If i have to start reading and deciphering a lot of text just to get on terms with the game, the fun goes out the window for me. That goes for NPC and merc interaction too. One of the things i really liked with JA2 was how the NPC's could cut you short if you patronized them or acted in a wrong way around them. Meaning you have to use your head when interacting with people. Just getting too much too quickly means you are being treated like an idiot and won't have to work with your head, and i as a gamer want to be challenged and use my head.

The point about battle fatigue is something i also think is realistic. But that should mean that we should be able to have a bigger total number of mercs as in JA2, where there was only 18. If you keep a team of 12 in constant engagement over many days or weeks, then you necessarily need to swap out the entire team. That means you need to have them ready. Or it could possible be so that you could hire them for that duration, and then have them go on leave. This could open up for interesting personality characteristics behaviour, and also payment options. You could pay them less if they wanted to stay in the country and rest. I always also thought, in JA2, a lacking part of the game (though not meant as criticism) was restrooms or habitats for resting or wounded mercs. This is something i feel should and must be implemented in JA3. Spending money on that, i.e. recreational and workout facilities would mean mercs thrive better and recouperate faster. Which all factor in to the player's leadership ability, treating the mercs well, means they perform better. But it requires economic funding.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Taurean

[Solaris_Wave]

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

 

"Why is it a 'total error'?"

Because it is, realism makes you run into huge walls. I explained this. Go read what I wrote. Under realism everybody would be able to run 10 squares at most, everybody would make tons of noise, guns wouldnt matter, armor wouldnt matter, and tons of other issues.

That's your opinion but it is only your opinion. It isn't gospel. I did read what you wrote and I read it carefully, unlike you who proudly said you weren't going to read all of my posts. After I read it, it didn't change my mind. Not only that but what you wrote in the paragraph I just quoted, doesn't clarify much. People are of varying fitness, in the military and outside of it. I have several old friends that would emphasise on the former. Not only is fitness varied but not everyone carries the same kit. That would be especially apparent if you were a mercenary, as with Jagged Alliance.

Yeah, people can be noisy and stealth is overplayed for games and movies, but as history has shown, if you intend to be stealthy, you leave a lot of your gear behind.

Guns wouldn't matter? Armour wouldn't matter? Sure, whatever. Reality says otherwise but just do what you always do and just believe your own mind and type 'LOL' as your defence.

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"You make it sound as if I am utterly stupid while you are totally clued in to everything." You keep doubling down on a mistake 😕 Also you make rookie errors like calling rifles carbines, and talking about bullet "quality". And then you say "yes i want realism but also i don't want realism" because I explain to you how realism is actually a really bad idea, and you go like "yes but its not all or nothing" well if its not realistic then its not realistic, why talk about realism in that case ...

I am not doubling down on any mistakes at all or making rookie errors. You really are living in a dream world, aren't you? One where you are in blissful ignorance of truth. How have you survived this long?

I still stand by having grades of realism because those who argue that realism hurts games start going to stupid extremes like saying, "If you want realism, then when you die, you should quit the game and delete it." There doesn't have to be tiresome realism where your gun gets stuck on a door frame because it is too long or going the complete opposite direction and saying that bunny-hopping should be in a game because 'why not forget about realism?' There are various grades in between. You then decide how much realism you want in the game and adjust from there. Any sensible person will understand that. But don't worry about that. Just type, "LOL, noob, LMAO!" and you can sit back in your chair confident that you are somehow correct again.

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"What I don't appreciate is ridicule" you're not special. You keep using terms that tell us about your psychology. You think you are a king of the forums. You have small-town hero syndrome. You're used to being the biggest dog on the block and don't like it when your monopoly is threatened. "Ridicule". You are not a king. You are basically telling us all to treat you with "respect" and to address you as "sir". I am not going to address you as sir. You are going to get used to that. You're mad because I don't make you feel special.

I never said I was special. It is all about showing respect to others online and in real life. If you want to be respected, you must show it to others first. Now I know that is awfully hard for you to understand but that is a good model to follow.

Where do I think I am king of the forums? Have I ever said as such? No. I only joined the forum in the latter half of 2022. There are forum goers that are far more experienced than I. You know what? Shock of all things! I don't actually mind it. I try to be humble in life and the only time I change that mode is when I come across self-satisfied children like you. 

You don't like it because it is bruising your fragile ego and unlike people you hang around with, I won't soothe it for you.

'Biggest dog on the block? Having a monopoly?' I know you mentioned in other thread about others needing to see a therapist if they didn't agree with you, but damn, kid…it is you that needs to see a therapist. You have serious issues. At the very least, you talk absolute nonsense. I have met quite a few people like you throughout my life and they think that they are superior to others without anything to show for it. They are quick to aggression because they worry that their ego is going to be threatened, even when no threat exists. That causes them to act in a damaging way around others.

I don't want to be a 'king' and I don't want to be a 'sir'. I don't even want to be special. Only you have said that. Only poor, little you. And calling me 'special' is rich coming from you. I bet Mummy said you were special and you have gone through your young life believing that. You need to wake up, kid.

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"Yes, higher calibre cartridges do produce more recoil (which heavier weapons can also compensate for as weight reduces it)" Compensate to which amount, not by a lot. Also soldiers don't like carrying heavy guns around. There's a reason there's no 50 cal assault rifles out there, Gepard M6 notwithstanding (and probably being a good example of why there are no ARs out there).

I know that. I never thought otherwise. If you are saying I thought any different, you are yet again trying to put words in my mouth.

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"but what is the point of upgrading calibre? To do more damage. It depends on what you want to hit. Bigger bullets (and shells) travel farther too due to less resistance." Jesus, another 1 IQ take. Bigger bullets don't "travel further" due to less resistance. Bigger bullets still have a significant amount of energy at long distance, despite losing the same % of energy in travel. Bullets, assuming same ballistics but different size, will lose the same % of energy at 1000 feet, if they're 1000 ftlb of energy or 10,000.

My IQ is fine, thank you. But thanks anyway.

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"but what is the point of upgrading calibre? To do more damage." Yes? The point in JA is to get bigger guns that do more damage. Do you...not want to do more damage or something? In isolation to everything else.

Putting words into my mouth again to suit your baseless argument. I am well aware of how JA plays. I played the game a lot in the past and hence why I am here. I am fine in wanting to do more damage to something in the game. What I didn't like was the weapon progression in JA2. Why do you start with handguns only and then shotguns and SMGs turn up, only for battle rifles and assault rifles to appear successively? Sure, progression, I understand. I didn't like how it made earlier weapons redundant. Once you have the assault rifles, you don't need the earlier weapons in the game. I would prefer to keep all weapon types relevant and have better quality firearms succeed the lesser quality ones.

But hey, why don't you carry on reading between the lines of everything I write and then carry on putting words into my mouth to suit your hapless arguments?

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"It depends on what you want to hit." Bruh..."it depends what you want to hit" thanks captain obvious.

Sometimes I have to be obvious because you have repeatedly demonstrated how pig-headed you are.

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

Stop using the term "carbine". STOP IT. DID YOU NOT READ WHAT I WROTE TO YOU. the word "carbine" is a basically unheard of term that was mostly used in late 20th century and hasn't been used or seen since, and refers to a MODIFIED VERSION of a rifle, which is already very rare.

No, I will continue to use the term 'carbine' because it is perfectly valid to do so. Get off your own pedestal. I can read fine, thank you. You are the one that arrogantly will not accept that the nomenclature exists. That says more about you and your problems than it says about anything else. I am amazed at how pathetic you are behaving. It actually worries me because of the people around you in your daily life.

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"In fact, due to barrel length, weapon components and grain weight, velocity can drop enough in a 5.56mm bullet to stop it from fragmenting as effectively." Uh ammo ain't supposed to fragment.

Lol WHAT.

A BULLET IS NOT SUPPOSED TO FRAGMENT.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.

I think I found a very delusional forum dweller in you. No offense.

"The major factor in the lethality of the small 5.56mm bullet is with fragmentation."

Now I am amazed and alarmed by you. How can you not know about 5.56mm ammunition that uses fragmentation over a certain velocity to produce its maximum damage output? This knowledge has been around for decades! Are you deliberately choosing to ignore what is right and wrong, what is true and false, just to validate yourself? Well hey, if you convince yourself enough, then all things must be true because you believed it to be so. Grow up, kid.

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

I think I found a very delusional forum dweller in you. No offense.

Bro you're like falling down the tree and hitting every branch on the way down. Its impressive how wrong you are.

I was actually thinking the same about you. I would even laugh about it myself, if I wasn't genuinely concerned about your mental health. You might need to get that looked at.

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"Don't attack me and don't call me a noob. I am nothing of the sort. " Okay noob haha

Definitely a kid. Mummy's special little boy. She said so!

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"Technology is always moving forward." Kind of a general statement. Technology is moving to tanks and drones, not to small arms infantry.

It was supposed to be a general statement. The debate at the moment is currently whether tanks are still valid. I think they are but there are people that are looking at the Russia-Ukraine war and thinking that tanks are giving way. Drones, I agree with you on. Small arms infantry tech will still move forward, as will all military tech. The race is constant and some equipment that is valid now will become obsolescent or obsolete in the future unless there is advancement in that particular field.

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"and inability to see anybody else's viewpoint" just yours "without resorting to insults gives the impression that you are young in years or at least immature." Age insults, I thought you said you were above said insults? Haha

I do believe you are young in years, judging by how you type and what you type. That isn't an insult, that is sadly fact. But you don't believe facts, do you? Because you are special.

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"That has always been the nomenclature." It has NOT been the nomenclature. I just told you what the nomenclature was. You're going to start using my nomenclature or be wrong, it's up to you. "You can call it an M4 rifle but M4 carbine is wholly sufficient." M4 carbine is a bit of a expression, probably perpetuated on TV or news shows that have no idea about firearms. M4 is an assault rifle.

'You're going to start using my nomenclature or be wrong…'

I am going to? Who do you think you are? You pompous little child. And you have the cheek to say I think I am a king. I'll say it again: Grow up, kid.

I will continue to use the term 'carbine'. As is correct. In the real world. Not your fantasy one.

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"If you don't see yourself as being obnoxious by using lots of LOLs, LMAOs, calling me a noob" Ok the fact that you're actually mad at me saying "lol" or calling you a noob for fun is like a massive self-own. You're just making yourself sound like a person who doesn't know how to talk to people, socialize, and to have fun. Everything has to be very "serious" and very "formal" or it triggers you lol. I apologize for the lol at the end there. No I actually I'm not LOL hahahahahaha

My social life is fine, thank you. I meet lots of people all the time through work. I am just past all that childish talk, which I never used when I was your age, anyway. But no, I don't always take life seriously unless it is necessary. You though, seem to have a cavalier attitude.

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"and saying I have 'no idea what [I am] talking about again, congrats' then you need lessons on how to communicate with people in a respectful way." But my friend...you both don't deserve respect because your opinions are bad, and you also have no special status here. We are all adults (well, at least I am an adult) and are all equals. I don't care how special you think you are.

You again, highlight the fact that you think you're a king and that people should take to you with respect, address you as "sir", and treat your opinions in high regard. I spotted this mindset a few messages ago.

"I certainly wouldn't call that 'light criticism'." If I were to go hard I'd go much harder than that my friend I assure you.

First of all, judging by your behaviour, I am not your friend, either genuinely or sarcastically. I am surprised if you can even make friends because I reckon most people would be quickly tired of your self-satisfaction.

I will repeat what I said earlier, if you want respect, yourself, you have to show others respect first. It has nothing to do with thinking I am a 'sir' or 'king' (again, that's rich coming from you). It is just the best way to do things. You might not like it but it doesn't hurt to show courtesy, especially when it isn't somebody you know that well. Even if you don't think it is necessary because there are lots of other people around. You will naturally understand this as you grow up (thankfully).

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"I don't mind criticism if it is done constructively" I am giving it to you constructively. You are refusing to accept you lost and are pretending that your position still makes sense. You are now saying some kind of "I want realism but I dont want realism because realism is not all or nothing" position, when realism is realism, it's not "all" or nothing but its pretty close to being "all" or nothing.

I don't need to refuse to accept that I lost because I didn't lose anything. And yet, you seem so obsessed with winning and losing, like a child would do. I am not so high and mighty that I refuse to accept when I have made an error. You only learn from mistakes and it is important to stay humble so you can accept mistakes. It is when you arrogantly go through life thinking you are awesome, like you seem to be doing, that you won't listen to criticism. Again, like you seem to be doing.

I haven't made a mistake in any 'competition' with you so far but I will let you know if and when I do. I was open enough with another member on this forum when I made a mistake. He corrected me and I was fine with it.

You on the other hand, will not accept anybody else's opinion other than your own. You have truly learned everything there is so far in human history, haven't you. You are a legend in your own mind.

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"Many people have read the posts from beginning to end and if they had something to contest about it, they did it politely and constructively." As did I, you are only probably really mad because I made more sense than other people.

There's that sense of self-aggrandisement and ego again. You believing you are better than other people on this forum. When you mentioned the terms, 'king' and 'sir', are you sure that wasn't about you and how special you think you are? Maybe you thought I was threatening your lofty and mighty position. Like I said earlier, I won't soothe your ego.

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"When a game is in development, that is exactly the time to suggest as many things as possible." To an extent you don't want to spam devs

Says the person that wouldn't stop saturating the forums with one post right after another. Then, when I tried to be helpful, you turned hostile in short order.

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"You don't have to strategise at all, you just use common sense. You reload when you have opportunity to do so." But then why implement a mechanic which is entirely based around luck, and which will make people get mad because they constantly miss lower AP reloads. Things you can't realistically keep track of should not be a important factor in the success of a mission.

It isn't luck. Are you saying that everyone that chooses a tactical reload is relying on luck? Everyone that does it in a life or death situation? Does training and memory not count in this situation?

 

20 hours ago, anon474 said:

"Again, you are resorting to petty insults. This kind of thing definitely suggests you are of a young age and probably do this often online or in a forum like GameFAQs." Again the level of self importance on display. Why are you scared to talk like a normal person. That's not even an insult, if I wanted to insult you I'd tell you to get AIDS or something.

No self-importance here. Just pointing out that I noticed it with you. I talk fine, by the way. Just maybe not the way you want it to be. Well, everybody is different and we come from all classes of society. I'd say I was somewhere in the middle. Definitely no self-appointed sir with an elevated opinion of myself.

 

You still say that bullets can't shoot through cover, especially external walls. I saw that video you posted, some time ago. It is a very well made video and they went to a lot of effort to produce important results. However, what I was referring to is the eventual destruction of cover. Repeated impacts. Bigger bullets will obviously do it more quickly. I am glad that we can both agree that one bullet hitting a brick wall won't have much effect. Some, as that video shows, just produce an entry hole and no exit. Sadly, they didn't use anything over 5.56mm and they only fired one round each test. That wasn't really what I was driving at, especially when I was talking about the Russians switching back to 7.62x39mm.

Now I have wasted enough time with all of this. You will probably always be belligerent and unwilling to change so the best thing for us, other forum users and the developers themselves, is to ignore each other's posts unless strictly necessary. That way, the forum can carry on being what it was: a place for everyone to talk about Jagged Alliance. If you can accept that and grow up and move on, that's excellent. If not, then that's on you.

Edited March 22, 2023 by Solaris_Wave

[Taurean]

Jeez guys take it easy ^^

[LoboNocturno]