You’re implying assault rifles would be objectively better than pistols and pistols would then need a buff. That’s not the case, pistols are far better close range than an assault rifle, particularly if you sneak up on him.
The point isn’t if you can and are better than someone, it’s that they got lucky and got a free advantage. If they decide to not take that grip (because they want to have maximum draw speed, maybe?) then you’ll be at slightly more equal ground, both close and medium range. But they will take the grip, if what you want comes true, because there’s no reason not to. Now he gets a free advantage again.
First, you’re assuming all guns follow a tier system just like the attachments you want and one gun is either better or worse than all others, rather than unique, different to other guns, and fit a specific playstyle, as they should be, and so you find one gun and have to take it because it’s better than the one you have. Hey, lookie there! Less player choice. More linear gameplay. That’s not what people want in an open world game.
Also, no, luck should come to play with the gun you find. Putting too much luck based stuff, IE free advantage attachments is bad. Finding a good gun out of some luck is what makes a survival game fun.
Yeah, school backpacks are made of lightweight cloth and are small. Military backpacks are made of military-grade kevlar (Quite a bit heavier!) and are massive, clunky and cumbersome. Are you saying when you wear a backpack full of stuff in real life, and say run to school, you run the exact same speed with the exact same amount of effort as without one?
Uh, for armor? You understand this is an apocalypse, right? Ever seen Mad Max? People will do some stuff that may be considered weird now to not die.
I assume you’re referencing this:
My point was, with your proposition it’s possible to be the best at everything and be completely unstoppable in any situation. Does that sound balanced, to you? Shouldn’t there be some way to take on a guy like that, like say because of all that armor and storage he’s going to be slow?
Or maybe the game isn’t balanced?
Yeah, and that’s a dumb system. That’s my point. Stop repeating yourself.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I said it should be possible to be at a disadvantage in some particular situation any time. I think people should have advantages and disadvantages to balance the game, you think everyone should just have all the advantages with no disadvantages. If everyone’s super, no-one will be. But that’s a terrible system for a multiplayer videogame, for there to be just worst, bad, better, best stuff. It’s called a meta. Look it up, people tend to not like it when it comes to open world games.
Here’s what i found from a google search.
" A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will. In contrast to a progression-style game , a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks."
Unturned is the definition of sandbox game.
I’m not forcing them to be equal, i’m giving opportunity to the player. If someone has a gun, smash him over the head with a bat. You want that to not be possible, because you think guns should be the best. I want it to be possible, because having things be the best is bad.
Yeah.
Bad ones.
As Deus said,
I think that sums up the idea pretty well.