Just saying, I don’t get how picking that for your example would prove or disprove my idea, cause it’s kinetic energy is so high, you can’t measure it’s penetration in anything but solid metal. So saying it doesn’t matter cause a .50 BMG would still kill you is irrelevant.
the BAR fires .30-06 (7.62x63mm), not 7.62x51mm NATO
also for the sniper rifle category something like an AWM (or i guess C14 Timberwolf, since this IS Unturned) would’ve been better then the WA2000. the WA is unique, sure, but i’d say it’s far from iconic.
Shit, I was thinking of the FN BAR D. Sorry.
I picked the WA2000 because I originally wanted all the images faing left, but I failed to find any for the Mosin, and that’s when the direction of the weapon just went everywhere.
the mosin is literally right below the WA2000
So from my understanding, RedComm was only choosing weapons he could find facing to the left side (I guess he was too lazy to rotate them himself at the time, or too excited). A brief image search for “c14 timberwolf” only immediately gave me images to the right.
So, he went and chose the Walther WA 2000 because there’s tons of images of it facing to the left, as evidenced by a quick image search for “Walther WA 2000.”
However, for the Bolt-Action Rifle category, he wasn’t willing to compromise on his love for the Mosin! Although he wasn’t able to find any quality images of it facing to the left, he just gave up and took a random image.
And then? He stopped caring about the directions the guns faced, except he just didn’t go back and change the Walther WA 2000 to something else.
tl;dr: he had strict image criteria because he was lazily excited, he got to the Mosin, decided to give up on his criteria, and just didn’t change any of the previous images his regulations may have affected
tl;dr: bad content
Sounds like it.
No. No you don’t.
Item descriptions are supposed to be quick and simple, not give a background on the weapon. I know you were probably joking on this one but I had to be sure.
Funny, I think the exact opposite. Item descriptions are supposed to give a background on the item and what it is.
But… the description should be of what the player sees/needs to know.
It’s why many games say a stone axe is a “A crude stone axe used for cutting” rather than “The stone axe is a tool and weapon used by many survivors from all over.”
Your description is fine and dandy for someone who wants to know where the AKM has served, but utterly useless for someone wanting even a hint of what ammo type it takes, its rarity, tier, etc.
“Rare Russian Assault Rifle chambered in Ranger 7.62x39. High recoil, but packs a punch.”
This description is already shorter, letting players learn information quicker, as well as being an ease on the eyes, but also gives actually useful information.
Cool. The AKM was used in the Middle East. How does that tell me what kind of ammo it uses, how rare it is, and what tier it falls into?
Save descriptions like that for a history book. Not a game like Unturned.
Yeah, I’m down with this post
Nothing game changing, just a spice of realism into the mix
Great job making this post readable and organized
The AKM is a Soviet-era assault rifle chambered in the 7.62x39mm cartridge, known for being reliable in environments all over the world, ranging from the desert sands of the Middle East to the freezing tundra of the Arctic. It is the basis by which all modern assault rifles are judged.
Rarity is in the Item Card, right above the description, and Tier doesn’t really matter.
What about making the description even smaller?
“Rugged, reliable and used world wide. Uses Ranger 7.62x39.”
Alright. Listen here you illiterate pig, as well as you, @tehswordninja. I’ve read a lot of item descriptions, and what pisses me off most is how they’re too simplistic or they just have filler material in it. Clearly you cannot appreciate literature because an item description is not only supposed to provide background on the object, but it’s also supposed to present a sense of differentiation. I don’t want a bunch of weapons whose descriptions are just copy and pastes of each other but with different calibers, I also want to know why I should choose one rifle over another; without having to look it up? For example, a military combat knife:
A multipurpose weapon issued to soldiers for both utility and combat purposes.
That’s the simple one. Sounds basic, and doesn’t convey nearly as much meaning and…how should I put this…awe?..as the second one I wrote:
A multipurpose knife first adopted by the United States Marine Corps as the 1219C2. Equally useful for opening cans and slitting throats alike.
Decide it yourself, which one conveys more meaning and respect for the weapon? A small background on its history and use can easily bring it to life.
Hey, no need for the insults comrade, I’m not a low level Gopnik.
IMO the first one still fits better, it gives the knife a small description about what it was used for without giving me a long history of the weapon. Keep in mind, Nelson will still be using names like “Eaglefire,” so giving them the actual name in the description seems a bit, strange, and also lots of the gun names are copyrighted and cannot be used without permission.
Rest in pieces hopes and dreams.
It’s called generating likes for a unique badge that nobody else has.
RedComm has earned “Out of my will to get this badge”