Curse

WasAGuest · May 28, 2006, 03:09 PM // 15:09

I was on the fence about guns even fitting into the game; then I saw the "keg" comment and thought about it more. They would fit in. The old blunderbuss hand cannons come to mind.

The class itself (and weapon use) could simply be another ranger like character. Since during this proposed era, the rifles were slower than bows (more damaging bot lower rate of fire) till the six shooters and repeating rifles, it may balance itself out if put in that way.

Do we need another ranger like character? Probably not. Would it be fun to play? Probably, and it's all about the fun isn't it?

I like idea, let Anet work out the balancing.

Anyway, interesting read for those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_powder

Kaldor Meshekal · May 28, 2006, 03:14 PM // 15:14

I dislike it. Why put guns in a fantasy? Swords and bows are good enough.

Rikimaru · May 28, 2006, 03:25 PM // 15:25

Damn.. Black Powder is easy to make.

"Why add guns to a fantasy game"? Well, as some of us have already said, many fantasy games do have guns. Also, guns are cooler than hell in games!

And the rifles should be slower and more damaging than a bow, but the Dual-pistols would be faster and less damaging, not because you're firing either off really fast, but because each are somewhat fast and you fire them one at a time (Right: Fire - Left: Fire - Right: Fire - Left: Fire), they'd end up with a speed roughly equal to daggers. Of course, the skills attack multiple times quickly, probably by using gun tricks as I mentioned earlier.

I just realized something else. It's pretty rediculous to say that guns are "too high-tech" when Luxons have giant crab machines carrying cities of people across the Jade Ocean, and Kurzicks building weapons that launch giant fireballs.

BahamutKaiser · May 28, 2006, 11:54 PM // 23:54

I would have to say the damage spread would be totaly fake, a gun shot kills no matter what, people survive by not getting hit.

Old guns do not have quick reload action, thus even dual pistols of an discovery period would have realy bad reload time, once you start introducing quick reload weapons of any type your already introducing rather modern guns which in reality would totaly wipe out any other combat class in real warfar, even against magic.

In fantasy games where the sword weilder can shoot blade beams out of his sword and the magic wielder can block bullets with magical shields on a constant basis, yes guns are a bit of flavor, but in a game where we do not use super saiyan martial artists and Cloud Strife, it is totaly fake to pretend that combat would retain it's exsisting balance wile certain people are firing at them with guns.

There are explosives and even cannons in GW, just because they could be in the game doesn't mean it would be an improvement. There is no argument about it, Guns rewrite the balance of warfare, and "weaker" guns are simply fake.

Gunblades, dual pistols, hand cannons and mini rifles are all great in FF, this is GW, and they would suck.

WasAGuest · May 29, 2006, 01:00 AM // 01:00

Something else to add, though it's just my opinion: As I stated above, I was at first against adding guns to GW, but the more I think about it, the better it sounds.
Lots of technical issues can be argued against adding them, rate of fire would be not right; damage would not be realistic, ect ect.

Look at what we have in GW now. A warrior slamming a sword or axe into someone should drop them like a rock. An arrow on fire nails someone dead on and they keep on moving. Then we can add in the magic spells... The best fantasy pulls from a real life source and makes it fantasy, that way we can relate to it. Putting in guns and making fit into the GW would be possible in the same manner - at least in my opinion... for what that's worth. lol

Cjlr · May 29, 2006, 01:03 AM // 01:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by BahamutKaiser

I would have to say the damage spread would be totaly fake, a gun shot kills no matter what, people survive by not getting hit.

First of all, it doesn't. A shot to the extremities, and even most shots to the torso, are not fatal. Second of all, even if it were, it is no more or less so than any of the myriad ways to die already existing within Guild Wars. The vast majority of death from injuries, in ancient and medieval times, came from infection of the wound. As long as it's not a bad head wound, a severed major artery, or serious internal damage, your body will heal if it gets the chance.

Our characters are routinely stabbed hundreds of times an hour. A gunshot to the head will kill you, true. But so will an arrow, so will an axe, so will a sword, so will a hammer, so will daggers, so will meteors, fireballs, lightning, boulders, etc... Any of the physical means of damage in the game are fatal. The non-physical means (many Necromancer, Ritualist, and Mesmer skills, as well as a Monk's smiting) are harder to gauge, but probably would be fatal as well.

A full suit of armour (that is, most warrior armours) would stop most bullets from 15th/16th-century guns (which is around the level I assumed would be implemented in the game, if any). Depending on what Ranger and Assassin armours are made of, even they'd have a slight chance. Casters would be slaughtered, of course, but they realistically would be by most stuff in-game anyways. Since they don't, in fact, keel over after two sword swings, we can assume the occasional gunshot wouldn't kill them either.

Rikimaru · May 29, 2006, 01:34 AM // 01:34

I'm glad there's still discussion going on in this thread, but you're just bringing up an argument that has, atleast in my oppinion, already been proved wrong, Bahamut. Either way it's been pretty thoroughly discussed.

So to keep this thread from going back to an argument on that and just repeating itself, I'll change the subject:

....Damn, has any aspect of this class not been discussed? I'll keep trying to think of something...

Overnite · May 29, 2006, 09:11 PM // 21:11

Looks like somebody read too much Dark Tower.

Rikimaru · May 29, 2006, 10:41 PM // 22:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overnite

Looks like somebody read too much Dark Tower.

Haha, actually I've never read them, I want to though.

Verlas Ho'Esta · May 29, 2006, 10:55 PM // 22:55

No, I don't think guns would fir into GW. The first guns were just bamboo tubes, but those were more fore fireworks/special effects than combat. True weaponized firearms didn't come about until the end of the renaisance/early industrial revolution. The tech curve in GW is FAR from that point in history, and I don't see it changing.

Besides, it tends to spoil the feeling of "high fantasy," that GW has going.

/signet of unsigning.

Rikimaru · May 29, 2006, 11:19 PM // 23:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Verlas Ho'Esta

No, I don't think guns would fir into GW. The first guns were just bamboo tubes, but those were more fore fireworks/special effects than combat. True weaponized firearms didn't come about until the end of the renaisance/early industrial revolution. The tech curve in GW is FAR from that point in history, and I don't see it changing.

Besides, it tends to spoil the feeling of "high fantasy," that GW has going.

/signet of unsigning.

Yeah, I remember that time in history class when we were covering the 1500's and we learned about the invention of the giant Dragon Cannon, the Walking Fortress, and the Mechanized Ore Mines. /end sarcasm

Gandalf The Monk · May 29, 2006, 11:55 PM // 23:55

To all ye saying guns wouldnt work "because of the style of the game" when Japan invented guns people were still fighting with swords and horses~ so it could actually work

Cjlr · May 30, 2006, 12:10 AM // 00:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandalf The Monk

when Japan invented guns

The Japanese did not invent firearms. The Chinese did. And it was Europeans who developed them to a useful (ie, better than longbows) level. But that took hundreds of years. For a long time, guns were just another weapon.

And another thing I thought of... Should this class have some sort of way to switch to a bayonet mode? I don't know how they'd implement two attack modes on a single weapon, so maybe it would just be for certain skills. Something that required a gun equipped, and melee range. Seems cool to me.

Edge Martinez · May 30, 2006, 12:16 AM // 00:16

The BIG problem I see is that guns are too effective. Even the earliest, crappiest gun had enough advantages over other ranged weapons to make it worthwhile. Even the flintlocks that the French and British used in the new world was enough to fight off the native tribes.

So what's the big deal? Simply put, if the next expansion chapter takes us to a place with guns, within a short period of time, everywhere we've been would have guns as well. Why would the Kurzicks and Luxons still shoot arrows? Why would Stone Summit rangers use bows when they can just use rifles that double as a melee weapon if needed? Quite simply, guns SHOULD imbalance the game world.

Now ANET can just close their eyes, cover their ears and go LALALALALA real loud and ignore this truth, but that's dumb.

EDIT: On the other hand, it's a great way to make people buy new chapters. Joe the Warrior decided Factions and the other chapters weren't worth his time, so one day he's out farming Ettins... and they pull out MAC 10's and bust some caps in his ass...

Joe just might buy the chapter with guns.

Rikimaru · May 30, 2006, 12:31 AM // 00:31

They don't have to be in all of the older chapters, I don't even understand that logic. There arent enemies in Tyria using assassin or ritualist skills. I might've missed what you mean.

And I really don't know how it could be explained any better, and it's been said plenty of times; guns wouldn't hurt people anymore than magic or a sword. The reason guns beat out things like swords is that they could kill someone from a distance, but a sword wound would kill someone EVEN MORE EASILY THAN A GUNSHOT would if somoeone were actually hit by it, and people are hit by swords and stuff like that all the time in this game.

If you people still don't believe this, why don't you get a few manikans, shoot one with a pistol, slash another one with a real sword, and light the other one on fire, then try telling me guns wouldn't make sense in this game because their too powerful.

BahamutKaiser · May 30, 2006, 03:29 AM // 03:29

No actually gun shot wounds to nealy any part of the body is fatal, you might survive the wound, but you don't survive it without medical attention and you don't continue fighting.

Yes, there are a mirade of attacks which should do even more damage in a real combat situation, but whether or not someone can survive those attacks isn't the real point, the real point is that it doesn't take a fraction of the skill to use a gun, a line of farmers armed with guns is lethal.

Sure the very first rifles were very slow loading, and inaccurate, but since natural miss rate isn't a reasonable part of the damage for a weapon, that isn't a good addition, and suggesting revolver action quick pace dual pistols automaticly throws the whole slow loading original flintlocks out of the picture, if you have a quick action pistol you have a quick action rifle, that's simply how it works.

The reality of guns in warfar is that it doesn't allow other kind of combat to exsist, swords, bows, even magic would get outclassed by severly less talented fighters equipted with modern weaponry. They can inflict most lethal wounds without serious training and skill, 3 months of boot camp vs 3 yrs of martial arts, and guess who is more lethal? Guns rewrite battle, and anything other then that is fake.

And if you think you can continue fighting after being shot, you watch to many movies, you get shot, you go down, knocked down like a hammer blow, bleeding like a sword slash, deep wound like an Axe, Damage like a spell, and that is without use of a handy dandy skill, an ordinary shot kills.

With all those other sword slashes and hammer blows, even fireballs, your armor and ability to fight can overcome much of the damage, when you get shot, it is all about whether it hit you or not.

Yeah, sword beat a pistol my ass, you get a sword and I'll get a revolver, and at point blank, I guarrentee I will kill your ass. Good chance I kill you from a distance, I guarrentee you will die point blank. And guess what, it takes less skills and strength to hold a pistol and pull a trigger then it does to simply swing a sword, yet the sword does less damage.

There is only one allowance for guns in GW, and that is totally fake mechanics.

The bows already have slow fire rate so they can do significant damage per hit, for a realistic flintlock your talking about much slower, much strong damage, that could be considered, but pretending to send bullets a flying with dual rapid fire pistols is a joke, your already throwing out the oldschool rifle period, and they are more likely to have gatlin guns then flintlocks. And with that kind of warfar ends the age of swords and bows.

Of all the better options that could be excersised, people struggle to push the broken idea just because they like it. They can have slower attack rate ranged weapons with more damage without having guns, all you need is a javalin throwing job. I would even perfer a mini cannon or mortar class that a gun class, at least it is alot less reliable and easy to overcome.

I might even understand if there was a pirate or seafairing type class that had skills which drew a gun and did some hefty damage, but with the realistic fire rate of an acceptable flintlock type gun, you wouldn't be firing it on a continuous basis of any sort, it would be skill activated only, like a spell, or better yet, a signet.

You keep telling me that guns could be worked into the game then ride this totaly broken suggestion, it realy is rediculously broken, people just throwing down and shooting volleys on a continous basis with rifles, or better yet, "weak" pistol attacks at rapid fire rates, it realy is fake.

You need a rapid attack medium ranged weapon which doesn't kill in one shot, use a whip, there are so many better weapon options which don't seeth with fakeness that it just staggers me.

But let me give yal some insight on what a gun can really do. In the military, you never strap your helmet to your head, because even if the rifle round doesn't pierce through the helmet, if you have your helment straped, it will break your neck, it is better for it to fly off you head and deflect a bullet than strap it on and break your neck. Yes, all those war movies with the GIJoes with strapped on helmets, fake.

If you get hit in an extremity and it hits a bone, it will kill you, it will break the bone, causing sever internal bleeding, and without serious medical attention you will die.

In the marines, the first thing you do when you ground on enemy territory is drop your plate armor, it woln't block shit and you will get hit easier moving slowly with that heavy plated armor on. Even with the most advanced state of the art body armor, you only have a chance of surviving a shot, and it depends on what gun you get shot with, there is always something strong enough to pierce whatever armor you may obtain.

And lastly, suitable armor to defend against firearm damage always lags behind weapon power, everything from armor of earth to Knights Armor would be pierced by a rifle round, and if you can wear thicker armor, the gunman can bring stronger calibur weapons.

I find it stiffling that people can accept gunslingers as a class for GW, yet say that being able to play a dragon is overpowered. People just decide what they wan't and don't care if it is reasonalbe or not.

Rikimaru · May 30, 2006, 04:04 AM // 04:04

Quote:

Yes, there are a mirade of attacks which should do even more damage in a real combat situation, but whether or not someone can survive those attacks isn't the real point, the real point is that it doesn't take a fraction of the skill to use a gun, a line of farmers armed with guns is lethal.

A line a farmers swinging swords would be more dangerous than with guns when they got up to the other people.

And if you think that a single gunshot wound would always take someone out of battle and a sword/axe wound wouldn't, or that being set on fire/struck by a fireball wouldn't then I think the problem is that you play too many RPG's, not that we watch too many movies.

Quote:

Yeah, sword beat a pistol my ass, you get a sword and I'll get a revolver, and at point blank, I guarrentee I will kill your ass. Good chance I kill you from a distance, I guarrentee you will die point blank. And guess what, it takes less skills and strength to hold a pistol and pull a trigger then it does to simply swing a sword, yet the sword does less damage.

If we were right in front of eachother and you had a gun and I had a sword, then it would be possible for me to dodge the gun, since it's as obvious as a freaking neon sign where your aiming, and I'd just cut your ass in half

Also, if someone had a strong enouph sword and enouph skill, it isn't at all unreasonable for them to block a bullet with the sword. You keap imagining that you would have to react after the person pulls the trigger to dodge/block a bullet, but what you should really be doing is reacting to where they're aiming, just before they fire. someone can't fire a gun the instant they raise it and be very accurate unless they have insane skill (and even then someone with an equal level of skill with a sword could react to where they're moving before they stop), then you would just place the sword in front of the area you know they're firing at and stand in a position that won't knock you down or break your wrist when the bullet hits the weapon. Of course that is all assuming that it's a 1 on 1 fight, but all you would need is more skill if it were multi on 1, and you couldn't possibly say it's unreasonable for a fantasy character to be more skilled than a real person has ever been known to be.

For the love of god, quit pushing the "fake" thing, when was the last time you saw a guy wave his hands and send a meteor at a guy he didn't like?

Quote:

You need a rapid attack medium ranged weapon which doesn't kill in one shot, use a whip, there are so many better weapon options which don't seeth with fakeness that it just staggers me.

The pistols aren't medium range, they're around the range of a spell (within aggro bubble) which is shorter still than a bow.

You also keap giving examples of how modern guns can pierce anything. While I hate the idea of using flintlocks, I still don't expect this to be using "hand-cannons" and 6-inch bullet assault rifles.

Lampshade · May 30, 2006, 04:14 AM // 04:14

The point of point blank is you can't miss....if the barrel is touching you it's hard to move before the bullet goes through your skull. Realism is not needed here (rez, no blood, don't get tired, fireballs)

Rikimaru · May 30, 2006, 04:26 AM // 04:26

If you're going to say the guy with the gun would have it right on the guy with the sword, then for that comment to work the other guy would have to have his sword right on the other guy, and they'd just end up killing eachother. The same thing would happen if both people had swords or if one had a bow.

And unless you don't see it coming/expect it, which in the middle of a gun fight you would, it is possible to dodge a point blank shot from a gun if you actually know how to dodge well (which the average person has no idea of). 1st, you see it coming so you start moving just as they get the gun on you, 2nd, you don't just try moving out of the way, you move in a way that would get you out from in front of it while actually making as small a motion as possible, like turning to the side as you move, and you move the hand closest to the gun towards it at the same time, knocking it away as you dodge, causing it to move in one direction while you move in the other.
You'd likely still end up with a graze if you succeed, but that's the best you could hope for if your in the same situation with a sword, in which case they had it against your neck.

Rikimaru · May 30, 2006, 06:35 PM // 18:35

I just finished a LOT of rebalancing of the skills, and improved some of the names and armor stats.