They’re like multipack bags of crisps, not for sale separately.
Why weapons doesn't have a STUN option??
- Thread starter Scaletho
- Start date
I don't either, and I lived there. Doesn't matter, though. It's a cool place, just don't try to understand it. It will drive you absolutely mad.hey man I don't understand Europe. I'd love to live there to have access to all of the culture, but I don't understand it.
Just look what happened to me. Let that be a cautionary tale!
"Not Invented Here."
They need to give us a stun option and supply us with more situational gadgets to give us a defensive edge. The shield bubble is a start but it's just that - a start. The overload thing would be nice or why not a stunstick or a taser? Maybe something that incapactitates if they are unalerted but temporarily stuns them if they are alert. Or how about a forcefield that doesn't have as much HP or as long of a timer, but one that they cannot physically move through? How about an energy grenade that shorts out their weapons instead of their shields, forcing them to switch to secondaries? I find the idea that they would neglect helpful and fun gameplay mechanics in their video game in order to manage a lower rating to be unacceptable, especially with how specific and strange the logistics surrounding this sound. I'm sorry but I've been playing mature rated games since I was like 10. Ratings don't matter as much as you think they do. Parents will buy for their kids, it happens. As soon as my mom had her back turned in the store I immediately got my dad to buy me Aliens vs Predator 2000, some 21 years ago now. All-in-all, Fdev's goal should be to make the game FUN. A fun game will attract a wider audience no matter their age.
Last edited:
Deleted member 110222
D
Honestly I wish they would just bite the bullet and deal with a PEGI 18 game.
Would already help if the staff and civilian npcs treat us differently depending on the security rating we are having.
Will not explain myself what I do in this lvl1 hab at your locker, I'm a 3! Now shut the f up and mind your business...
Without any bullets in faces or stuns needed...
Will not explain myself what I do in this lvl1 hab at your locker, I'm a 3! Now shut the f up and mind your business...
Without any bullets in faces or stuns needed...
I think non-lethal takedowns should be possible, but highly unreliable.
Go around coshing people in real life, half of them aren't going to fall, half of those that do are going to have brain damage, and a not insignificant portion of those are going to die. Try to do this with electricity, and it's going to be a similar gamble. It's why if you really need to stop someone fast you fill them with so many bullet holes that you're bound to hit something important or at least make sure the lack of blood pressure gets them sooner rather than later.
In the Elite setting, things would be even rougher. The therapeutic index for anything that has high enough stopping power to instantly incapacitate a person through a pressure suit, cannot be good. In the case of the zapper, unless that suit is made of something conductive--in which case an electric shock will just go around the person inside it, to no effect--the amount of power you'd need to get though the insulation would almost certainly melt a hole in said insulation, and your target, even if not killed by stopping their heart, would asphyxiate in short order outside on a world with a tenuous atmosphere, or be set on fire in a breathable atmosphere.
I know this is a game, but an always-successful non-lethal takedown cheapens the entire non-lethal concept, IMO. If you've got compunctions about resorting to violence, using violence should be a moral quandary that cannot be bypassed by high-fantasy means to make sure violence can succeed with no risk of serious injury.
No !
Go around coshing people in real life, half of them aren't going to fall, half of those that do are going to have brain damage, and a not insignificant portion of those are going to die. Try to do this with electricity, and it's going to be a similar gamble. It's why if you really need to stop someone fast you fill them with so many bullet holes that you're bound to hit something important or at least make sure the lack of blood pressure gets them sooner rather than later.
In the Elite setting, things would be even rougher. The therapeutic index for anything that has high enough stopping power to instantly incapacitate a person through a pressure suit, cannot be good. In the case of the zapper, unless that suit is made of something conductive--in which case an electric shock will just go around the person inside it, to no effect--the amount of power you'd need to get though the insulation would almost certainly melt a hole in said insulation, and your target, even if not killed by stopping their heart, would asphyxiate in short order outside on a world with a tenuous atmosphere, or be set on fire in a breathable atmosphere.
I know this is a game, but an always-successful non-lethal takedown cheapens the entire non-lethal concept, IMO. If you've got compunctions about resorting to violence, using violence should be a moral quandary that cannot be bypassed by high-fantasy means to make sure violence can succeed with no risk of serious injury.
No !
This is an example of Fdev going by literal rules and Epic ignoring them for profit. PEGI just exists to make the brands not owned by a particular publisher, so they don't care one bit either way; the only way you'll get them to act is if you don't pay the fees to put those brands on the packaging.
Each of the publishers just picks on their own what brandings to use and what rules to bother with.
Side note: punching someone until they're knocked out normally does kill them. It's a weird Hollywood and comic trope that it wouldn't. But presumably games like Realism Fighter just weren't that fun.
Last edited:
I disagree some there. A game mechanic that doesn't operate in predictable ways.... sucks. I could see something like this though where it's basically perfectly reliable on civi personnel but drops quickly against armored targets as they increase in level. So say 3 and above bar guards you're just going to have to kill to take down.
Just a random chance of failure on everyone means that you cant ever use it when it matters because it may just randomly fail.
I like a degree of plausible uncertainty. I like having to account for the possibility of failure and uncertain outcomes. Where one can increase one's odds, mitigating the chances of failure, or reducing the penalties of failure, that's a great opportunity for gameplay and increased depth. As long as it's done right a degree of randomness is a great way to abstract detail and provide the experience of a simulation, while keeping the work that has to be done manageable.
There are many mechanisms in this game that would be quite absurd if they had no randomness (or pseudorandomness, as the case may be) to them.
Just because it may fail doesn't mean it can't be used, just that you can't always forecast the result with perfect certainty.
First point, some people will be annoyed with you for necromancy on a two year old thread.
Second point, nothing has changed using that tool always killed the target.
Third point, we get blown up for parking offences, this is not a society that goes in for minimum force. Ignoring the fact that it is actually quite difficult to stun someone without a high risk of killing them anyway even if they weren’t wearing stuff that can protect them in a near vacuum.
ummmm, because knocking an authority figure unconscious would be considered lethal force??
Maybe because it's a game and not a reality simulation?
What advantage would you seek by just stunning a person?
What advantage would you seek by just stunning a person?