honestly it really just sounds like you have a problem with metas.
CS:GO and Escape From Tarkov mainly
Descriptions of both games:
“Escape from Tarkov is a tactical first-person shooter video game”
“Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is a multiplayer first-person shooter video game”
Unturned II intends to use a very similar modification system as Escape From Tarkov, Survarium, Fallout 4, Fallout 76, etc.
Escape From Tarkov: Unbalanced mess
Survarium: Unbalanced mess
Fallout 4: Unbalanced mess
Fallout 76: Unbalanced mess
Unturned 2.0 with a basic version of that system: Unbalanced mess
Unturned 3.0 with a slighly less basic version of that system: Unbalanced mess
I can only see 1 result here if 1 developer tries to +1 a system he can’t seem to balance the basic version of.
Meanwhile CS:GO doesn’t have a modification system and oh what do you know, its weapon balance is very well received.
What is this conclusion based on?
congratulations, you’ve ripped 100% of the nuance from both games and just gone with the most basic ■■■■■ description for each to try to fit your argument even though literally everyone with a functioning brain can see right through it with ease. i can do that too!
“Battlefield 4 is a first-person shooter video game”
“Doom is a first-person shooter video game”
see?
well…
you seem to pretty blatantly just state as such, for one.
A fair is a place where you ride rides and eat cotton candy.
An idea will fail until someone puts in the effort to correct it.
It’s possible but it depends on the scenario. Head to head, the Sabertooth will probably win. If the guy with the Sportshot has much more skill and a good position he can win the fight though.
Your idea takes away a major mechanic from the game, that’s what it has to do with your idea. 3.0 currently rewards people that take time to travel even though they will have a very high chance of running into someone they can’t fight against well.
Bigger thing there is if YOU know what I meant there. With a game like Fortnite (developed by Epic incase you have absolutely no clue of what it is), your system would be one of the best ways to handle weapons in the game. Fortnite is a somewhat fast-paced game so people don’t need to be wasting their time focusing on little things like the difference between two grips or which scope works best. The matches can end fairly quickly and people are gathering loot for long-term survival.
You’re in the minority of people who complain about the weapons system like this. It seems unbalanced but why should everyone be on an exactly even playing field if that isn’t how it is for anything in life. Games can be a way to throw out real-life and indulge in imaginary concepts but if nobody appreciated anything remotely realistic then simulator games wouldn’t exist. If you don’t like a fundamental system in a game, put together a comprehensive list of evidence for why it won’t work and establish a sophisticated discussion on it if you can’t resist complaining. This clearly isn’t the kind of game you personally want so go somewhere else or put together a better argument for why you think your idea is superior.
1 Like
A lot of this is just a fallacy. I get how you’re trying to improve the game, especially for this first post, but your logic is full of holes and, as you can probably see from the posts, the vast majority, if not all, of the replies to this thread are against your proposal.
Despite providing a lot of evidence and thoughtful discussion, you have yet to actually provide any evidence that can happen to change my mind. What advantages does a system like this have over a system with removable and attachable attachments? You keep throwing the word “balance” around and how your system is “balanced” and how other systems are “unbalanced,” and whatnot, but what does this really mean?
Personally, I believe weapons fall into what I call a “niche,” an area in which the weapon falls into in the grand scheme of things. And based on my interpretation, weapons aren’t meant to be “balanced.” They’re supposed to fulfill a specific role, such as a Kalashnikov being a medium-range, moderate firerate all-rounder of an assault rifle, and a MAC-10 being a high-firerate, high-recoil, close-range killing machine.
Even when balancing comes into play, to nerf a stupidly overpowered weapon or something, it’s because it upsets the gunplay. It is thus pointless to suggest a system for balancing based on a predetermined idea of a game when the balance has not even been established yet. You’re literally digging a hole in a sand dune, trying to expose the problems with something that doesn’t even remotely exist.
1 Like
If you couldn’t tell by the it wasn’t exactly the most thought-out comment nor was it supposed to be but thanks for taking the bait I guess
You’re not very nice btw but that’s the internet for you
I have something against badly designed systems, yes.
You can try to turn this on “Oh you just don’t like the Maplestrike because everyone uses it”
Which, in my opinion, is a pretty hostile approach if you open with that
Also not very nice
Truthful statements aren’t always as nice as you’d like. Back up your claims more or drop them. If you go for a comparison try to find something in the same category as what Unturned II is aiming to fit into.
3 Likes
“i was only pretending to be retarded”
i have something against idiotic statements, yes
see what i did a second ago? 
also you haven’t really proven to anyone that unturned’s system is inherently bad. you’ve just made the claim that it is. moreover, you haven’t proven to anyone that your suggested system - doom balance, basically - would inherently benefit unturned more then the gunplay system it’s currently adopting. you’ve just made the claim that it would.
even if you had proven either of those things, you haven’t proven that your more balanced system will automatically make the game better. you have, again, just made the claim that it would.
and perhaps the biggest thing is that you haven’t provided a reason for why your system would even make any amount of sense in a survival game focused on looting. frankly i haven’t even seen you claim that it would.
basically, i don’t care, because you haven’t given me a reason too care.
…ok?
“oh wow, you made an observation about something i said? that’s not very nice. in fact, i’d say that’s pretty hostile!”
even if that made even the slightest amount of sense…i don’t care, and it doesn’t prove me wrong.
also PBFFFTHAHAHAHAHHA
1 Like
Yeah fair point, I could try to explain it better, I thought I did but I guess I didn’t which caused confusion, let my try my best:
A simple system like CS:GO’s where the weapons aren’t customizable and the weapons just have set-in-stone statistics that can’t be changed by attachments or modifications, the developers have far better control over the equal lethality of each weapon. One weapon isn’t obviously more powerful than another because the developers tweaked the statistics in such a way that makes it all fair.
Meanwhile games like Escape From Tarkov try this excessively complex modification system that’s just so difficult to have control over with a limited team because certain combinations of modifications on certain weapons can quickly be MUCH MUCH MUCH more powerful than other weapons and combinations because they had this MASSIVE pool of modifications to make equally lethal, aka balanced. Which just turned out to be a chaotic mess of unfairness.
Now if I imagine Nelson, 1 developer do this in Unturned II while he has this far more basic system and yet still has it be an unfair mess, imagine what will come of Unturned II’s modification system.
That’s the point I’ve been trying to make this whole time and I hope you understand now.
If you like sacrificing fairness for extra customization options, that’s fine, but I personally would MUCH rather have each gun be equally lethal so everyone can have their favorite weapon without it just being some weapon that’s obviously the best in the game
Balanced doesn’t necessarily mean equally lethal. If someone wants to have their favorite weapon they should consider the benefits of having it instead of just how it looks or feels to them. If you want logical priorities you clearly don’t want the weapons system to be a major part of it.
1 Like
Yeah, I keep trying to find the words but I just can’t quite find them
Either way, I’ll be thinking about what each of you said, you’ve all made some good points and I’ll be taking them into consideration.
The post is far too confusing and open-ended to interpretation and it could use some solid information rather than word of mouth.
I’m going to leave it up for a good while and really try to make a far better post. Once the newer one is done, I’ll be deleting this post. You can save it if you want, I’ve got no probems with it
Sincerely, Winged_Hunter256 (aka Henry)
Yeah, if only if it were that easy.
I have a problem with your logic.
“Cmon, we all know this system i propose is better and everyone likes it more that what you propose!”
poll says everyone likes the other system
“Pfft, that poll made for and by the community and consumer base doesn’t mean a thing! My proposition is still obviously what everybody likes and is superior!”
A three (Not four.) option poll where the people playing the game vote is exactly how you research this. It doesn’t matter how well received the systems in other games are, and how much you personally think they fit the game, it’s us, the players, that decide what fits the game and doesn’t. Whether the systems work in other games doesn’t matter, it’s whether they work in this game. And they absolutely do not.
2 Likes
I am totally fine with using item variations to change how weapons are balanced, and what role(s) they fill, rather than doing this exclusively through the attachment system, but I don’t see why item variations should completely replace attachments. I would definitely like to see different types of barrels on the Eaglefire as variations, rather than quickly swappable attachments, but if the quickly removable barrel of a takedown AR-15 or of a AR-15 derived SAW/LMG/LSW would be appropriate to make the Eaglefire better fill (one of) the role(s) it is intended to fill in a particular map, then variations of the Eaglefire that accept barrels as attachments should be included in the spawn tables of that particular map. If that variation wouldn’t fit with a certain map, then it shouldn’t be included. If that variation would only be appropriate to the role with certain attachments, then other attachments could be excluded from the map, or a variation with limited attachment compatibility could be introduced.
3 Likes
Instead of removing all the customization that most players love, you nerf and balance the effects that the attachments and skills have on how your firearm preforms
I don’t see how that would be the case, I would just say thats an uneducated/biased assumption
Thats not due to the system being to hard to balance, its due to the developers choices and game design (or that the developer team is just pure garbage at making games)
And what is your facts behind that statement, saying that 4.0 can’t be realistic just because 3.0 isn’t is not a valid argument, If you haven’t been living under a rock you would know that 4.0 is going to be a lot different from 3.0 and feature a lot more realistic mechanics.
I’m sorry, but that is just not a good comparison sinc they are 2 totally different games, CSGO is a competitive FPS game that is fit for ESports, Escape from tarkov on the other hand is a realistic hardcore open world combat simulator FPS game.
So they do not compare to each other sinc they are totally different games that are miles away from each other when it comes to gameplay.
This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.