Salem

I was having a wonderful little newbie time with the crafting and building, and then I got to a description of how Firearms worked.

The notion of firearms having wildly varying damage depending on YB was so unrealistic I'm having trouble caring about my character anymore. The whole point of early firearms (and crossbows) was that they did their full damage after a recruit received a few minutes of training. Sword and bow OTOH take a lifetime to learn. Without that change, we'd still be living in feudal societies instead of republics defended by citizen soldiers.

Hand a child a sword and put him into a duel with a master fencer and he'll be ground beef. Hand a child a pistol in a duel with a Special Forces commando and it's a crapshoot who walks away. The US Army's own research on this recently confirmed the ONLY thing that mattered in pistol-range combat was how quickly one dove for cover. Excessive target practice with pistols was actually harmful; turns out being an expert shot made it more likely you'd die, because you were more likely to stand still and take your own shot before running.

Why even include guns if they're just more fanservice for high-level players? They were called "equalizers" for a very good reason. It's fine for high-level characters to be hard to hit, but a headshot from a firearm should be a fatal blow to anyone it does hit.

And no, I'm not mad 'cause somebody killed me. I'm way out in the boonies and have hardly even seen any other players, much less been shot at. It's just a philosophical objection, as your system is practically the opposite of how guns really work. And you've clearly put in so much work getting so many things right.

You are confusing fun and absolute realism. The weapon is not the issue here. A sword, gun, large rock, take one solid hit in real life. It is not fun to get one shotted ever time you fight, especially in a perma-death game. The is not Salem the sniper fight mmo.

idk i personally enjoy this idea it is america so enforce our 1st amendment rights or whatever it is, no gun control pls

No, there are other games that do decent guns and still manage to be fun. Fallen Earth, for example. And I don't think a single headshot should cause permadeath, only KO. But those are just details.

My objection is about the social structure Salem will get with this system. Without firearms as an equalizer, the servers will just end up being another feudal aristocracy, like most PvP games do. Long-term players get to be nobles, untouchable by all but other nobles. The newer players become peasants, living and dying at the nobility's whim. Firearms gave peasants equal power one-on-one, and that's what brought down the whole global feudal system. That's why places like Japan fought desperately to keep firearms out; to preserve their social structure.

Maybe that's what the devs want. But if so, the settlement of North America seems like a strange place to play that out. The equalizing power of one farmer with his Kentucky longrifle is a critical part of the American story. But now that I'm researching combat here in the forum and on YouTube, Salem actually plays out more like the middle ages: Untouchable knights mercilessly toying with peasants armed only with wooden tools.

So it probably isn't the game for me. No offense intended to anyone who likes it this way. The crafting system was so realistic, though, I was just assuming the combat would be too, and was disappointed.

Honestly, though, I really do like your idea to a certain extent - I think that guns could very easily be equalizers, but there needs to be some semblance of balance. This could come in many forms, but the easiest ways I can imagine are firearms (1) not one-hitting players in a permadeath game and (2) there still being some advantage to higher humored players.

Back in the day, when swords did 50% per hit, I was able to kill jorb. It was a little too extreme of a setup, but an element of % based damage would go a long way to level the playing field in the current state of the world.

Fact, guns at this time were so inaccurate that if you were further away than about ten feet you might as well use them as a club.
Secondly, man up! Face your opponent! Dont hide behind a rock and one hit kill.

ysbryd wrote:Fact, guns at this time were so inaccurate that if you were further away than about ten feet you might as well use them as a club.
Secondly, man up! Face your opponent! Dont hide behind a rock and one hit kill.

reeks of e-honor

IronicToast wrote:

ysbryd wrote:Fact, guns at this time were so inaccurate that if you were further away than about ten feet you might as well use them as a club.
Secondly, man up! Face your opponent! Dont hide behind a rock and one hit kill.

reeks of e-honor

I see what you did there

ysbryd wrote:

IronicToast wrote:

ysbryd wrote:Fact, guns at this time were so inaccurate that if you were further away than about ten feet you might as well use them as a club.
Secondly, man up! Face your opponent! Dont hide behind a rock and one hit kill.

reeks of e-honor

I see what you did there

wait until you see the whites of their eyes

I think military history demonstrates how well that worked

Dont make guns one shot one kill. I agree that the damage done by guns should not depend on a charcters biles, but a fixed damage, or make the damage depend on where the hit is made?