J.E. Sawyer On Fallout Firearms

[axelgreese]

Yeah, you get them from random encounters all over there... and they totally suck. In every way imaginable. Japanese culture (read : little american kids' pop culture) doesn't belong anywhere except in a pile of burning books and dvds, and certainly not in fallout.

Considering the source material is retro 50's, and, hey look at that, we hated Japan during the fifties then of course Japanse culture doesn't belong in Fallout.

[Rosh]

First off, boxy = bulky, etc.

Wow...you win...NOTHING! That's right, you got it wrong. Boxy is a specific term for something in sci-fi, especially of the 30-60's era. Try again.

Second off, by singlehandedly I'm not referring to the akimbo / one handed argument whatsoever, I'm referring to the superhuman strength necessary for a single person to hold a minigun without any assistance.

Hey, you've gone all over and between the topics. If you're getting mixed up in it, that's your problem. In fact, I think it was you who used an argument about a pic with two guns held at the same time as to mean akimbo.

Typically miniguns are mounted, either on a tripod or some type of base on a vehicle, because it's insanely unrealistic to be able to hoist one up yourself, let alone fire it. If the kick from a shotgun can leave a bruise, imagine what firing a minigun against your stomach could do. That was never in 50's sci fi, people would never have such large weapons handheld, it just doesn't make sense.

That's why it's called science-FICTION, stupid! And yes, there were large weapons held in 50's sci-fi. Then you also argue against it by talking of "realism". Utterly fucking comical. It's not too hard to expect that since miniguns have been around for some time, that a handheld one would be put into sci-fi, much like disintegration ray guns and bulky cannons of various makes.

Is power armor still not part of 50's sci-fi? I'm curious as to your current state of delusion and if reality possibly seeped through yet.

The katanas or whatever those swords are in fo2 are dumb, and you're absolutely correct about the karate and such extra influence on the setting; it doesn't belong at all.

At least you got that point, although I'm still mystified as to where you thought I was talking about the story. It only took you how many posts to figure out that power armor was in 50's sci-fi in a LOT of places, appear to see that fist fighting and melee brawling was in style, and then you also finally got the idea that "Japanese/Chinese culture influences = bad" in that time as well, considering the US just nuked off two Japanese cities about a decade previous, there was also the red scare, and there was also that little matter involving Korea and China at that time.

You still seem to be a little hung up on large guns, apparently where it is of a "mundane" variety. I'm wondering if you're hung up on the part that miniguns have some real world presence and do have recoil, and plasma rifles and the like are still in fiction, so therefore the miniguns wouldn't fit in because they are as currently not that feasable in a handheld style.

So what then about wearing power armor while firing them? Chances are, you'll be wearing the power armor at the same time.

I do have to have a chuckle at your..."logic".

Miniguns = unfeasable today in handheld form :. they are not from 50's sci-fi.

BRILLIANT! STUPENDOUS!

I don't see firing two guns at once to be any further, though, from the setting than having a person hold a minigun.

And the concept of big and powerful (along with the concept of fiction) goes right over your head again.

The game wouldn't be unbalanced because of it, sure, if you apply it to the weapons in fallout one and two, it will be unbalanced because they weren't designed for it.

So then it would require a major overhaul in the weapons, and another funny thing you can't just ignore is the scale of what does how much damage in relation to another. Given that...oh, wait. You forgot about that aspect, didn't you?

And i understand that you already theoretically can stick to the small guns for the entire game, in fallout one and two.
Mistah Sawyer doesn't seem to think so however, and I can also see where he's coming from.

Then he and a good number of the chimps there at BIS need to unplug their heads from their asses. If they can't see how it can be done, then that speaks a large amount for their ability as developers. You CAN stick to small guns for both games, so very easily.

If you don't bother to do the math for the guns, common sense would dictate that the smaller guns would be weaker, giving players the option to fire two at once makes the idea of keeping with small guns seem more palatable, even if it isn't precisely 50's sci fi.

Obviously you haven't done the math yet, and logic still has yet to be refuted by your brand of "common sense". Better damage potential with accuracy not being an issue after a while (or if you were to wait around a corner for enemies to get into point blank range), then his "akimbo" crap would make sense up until he put it into his new system that oddly would create the very same thing he's complaining about.

Or, even if when using two at the same time, the damage was equivalent or less than the larger guns, then you'd have spent a shitload of one handed guns skill at an early time that is now useless compared to spending it onto a gun skill that by default has a much higher damage potential and you'll likely have much better accuracy with that better gun skill because you're not having to overcome any akimbo penalty.

So, at that point, one handed guns would be pretty much useless as akimbo or otherwise, resulting in everyone tagging the larger ones to have any hope at the end game. Just like the D&D combat system. That makes it even more ironic given that Sawyer has said some there at BIS have gotten to unfeasable characters. It also leads to usually only one type of character type being of any worth at all.

Here are two links, do some reading, and cultivate clue.

[SuperH]

Wow...you win...NOTHING! That's right, you got it wrong. Boxy is a specific term for something in sci-fi, especially of the 30-60's era. Try again.

How can you even say that? Now, it seems now hand to hand combat without karate and the term boxy both come exclusively from the pulp comic era of sci-fi? That's absolutely retarded.

box·y
adj. box·i·er, box·i·est
Resembling a box, especially in simplicity or rectangularity.

Odd how that defentition doesn't have any mention of 50's sci-fi, seeing a that's where it originated?

Hey, you've gone all over and between the topics. If you're getting mixed up in it, that's your problem. In fact, I think it was you who used an argument about a pic with two guns held at the same time as to mean akimbo.

Guns akimbo means holding and firing two guns at once. Singlehandedly means alone, solo. Unassisted. Every time I referred to the miniguns, I was talking about the fact that a single person could handle one themselves.

Then you also argue against it by talking of "realism". Utterly fucking comical.

Excuse me? When have I ever said that realism has to be stuck to in Fallout? I have not. I have however said that firing two weapons at once, is as realistic as firing a minigun singlehandedly (see? one person firing a minigun themself), thereby negating the realism argument. Other people have talked about how it needs to be realistic, not me.

I'm wondering if you're hung up on the part that miniguns have some real world presence and do have recoil, and plasma rifles and the like are still in fiction, so therefore the miniguns wouldn't fit in because they are as currently not that feasable in a handheld style.

Like i just said, i don't have a problem with miniguns - or akimbo guns. I'm using them as an argument as to why it's dumb to say that holding and firing two weapons at once is impossible, and that holding and firing a single minigun isn't.

So what then about wearing power armor while firing them? Chances are, you'll be wearing the power armor at the same time.

I think even you'll agree that's a very weak argument. You can fire it from a vault suit, with a leather jacket, from whatever you want. Saying that you'll probaby be in power armour is definately selective blindness.

It's not too hard to expect that since miniguns have been around for some time, that a handheld one would be put into sci-fi, much like disintegration ray guns and bulky cannons of various makes.

So let's get this straight, it's more likely that :

Miniguns = unfeasable today in handheld form :. they are not from 50's sci-fi.

1) Since handheld miniguns are unfeasible today, they certainly weren't in the 50's, therefore, miniguns were made into handheld weapons in that timeline.

Ray pistols were also part of popular imagination, sometimes held with one in each hand (though rare, usually it is depicted as holding one while using the other for some other purpose), but not fired both at the same time or in an akimbo way.

2)Since it "does not fit the style", none of the people, who are admittedly rare, who held two weapons at once, had the brainstorm to fire them both at once?

Ok. Makes perfect sense.

BRILLIANT! STUPENDOUS!

[Saint_Proverbius]

The Yakuza were originally going to be one of the gangs in New Reno, but MCA decided to cut them out because he didn't think they were right with the setting.

[Smiley]

Why not remove them altogether then..?..

Maybe it might be more right to place them somewhere else, like in NCR, or San Fran suburbs...

Ah well, it's an alteration a lot would like to avoid anyway, it could've been much worse...!

[Dan]

Why not remove them altogether then..?..

Why not remove the tribals? Why not complete the game? Why not take out all the stuff that doesn't fit the setting?

Fallout 2 raises a lot of interesting questions.

[Smiley]

Sure, but since the Yakuza-idea was utterly broken, why not remove all traces of it..?
It just raises questions about how to find some yakuza quests, or their main base or the like...

At least the tribals have some story behind it..

[Jeff]

Sure, but since the Yakuza-idea was utterly broken, why not remove all traces of it..?
It just raises questions about how to find some yakuza quests, or their main base or the like...

At least the tribals have some story behind it..

You mean like Sulik and the broken quest to save his sister?
Questions, questions

[Dan]

Or stuff like Shadow-who-walks? Or a good ending to Gecko?

They should have been addreased, but they failed to do it, so why take out the Yakuza?

I mean, it would make more sense taking them out, so it isn't wierd they are there.

[Smiley]

Sure, of course, but we were talking yakuza specifically.

Chill dude! We can take this discussion to death, just like it's been done a hundred times, but it wont make any difference anyway.
Well unless someone decided to make some major improvements to Fo2 with the editor if possible.

[4too]

St._P. sezzz....

The Yakuza were originally going to be one of the gangs in New Reno, but MCA decided to cut them out because he didn't think they were right with the setting.

Please slap me on my bald spot if I missed this.

Slap me twice If I'm repeating anyone in this thread.

But gosh o golly, that explains the "Yakuza" special encounters still in FO2 while walking from New Reno to Broken Hills. Liberated some fancy japanese cutlery. Sulik didn't use the wack-a-saki carving knives very much.

Were those super strong guys in combat armor, in one of the cave random encounters some special group too? Ran into then TOO early, ate my guys lunch. Quit. Windows crash waxed the save...... and I moved on wondering...

AND.......HEY>>>> NO GUNS AKIMBO unless you're a Lara Croft Wannabee. Got to have mammory mass to absorb the recoil. Also better stream lining while runnin' and gunnin', bulbous 50's air streamin'.... Dress you like that Gabor sister in QUEEN OF OUTER SPACE.

So... where yo gunz can't get yoU, your charisma and girly social skillz will.

4too

[Killzig]

The Yakuza were originally going to be one of the gangs in New Reno, but MCA decided to cut them out because he didn't think they were right with the setting.

Irony ...too thick...choking for ....*gasp* air ...

[Smiley]

AND.......HEY>>>> NO GUNS AKIMBO unless you're a Lara Croft Wannabee.

hmm... would I rather be:

a) A hot woman with an arsenal larger than a army-surplus shop, with so much money she can't use it up in a lifetime, along with a selection of extremely rare vehicles and a big-ass-house with indoor swimming pool....

or

b) Me.

hmm... Tough call... I don't think I could ever date a man, even as a woman, but then again, I *could* turn lesbian xD

But I'd rather have Fallout 3 done decent!

*gives Killzig heart-massage*

"Somebody touch his lips! cuz I ain't gonna!"

[Rosh]

How can you even say that? Now, it seems now hand to hand combat without karate and the term boxy both come exclusively from the pulp comic era of sci-fi? That's absolutely retarded.

There just doesn't seem to be any end to the number of straw men you'll stack up, is there? I had put in a variable meaning to what I wrote just in case you'll try (and have) to jump onto the sleazy way out.

box·y
adj. box·i·er, box·i·est
Resembling a box, especially in simplicity or rectangularity.

Odd how that defentition doesn't have any mention of 50's sci-fi, seeing a that's where it originated?

Now is a good opportunity for you to look up a new word.

CONTEXT!

Which is what I was trying to get you to think in relative to something, rather than literal meaning. Try reading the first time I posted about it, then try to think in context if it's possible for you.

Here's a free hint for the hard of thinking, and I'll resort to monosyllabic terms so you'll have some hope of comprehending:

Boxy is a specific label for something in sci-fi and does pertain to Fallout extensively.

So label is two syllables. Blow me. I have no mercy for someone so utterly retarded they can't put in "boxy sci-fi" into a search engine and at least try fake a clue, choosing instead to post the idiotic load of crap above and expect it to fly. You're going to have to try a LOT harder than that to bullshit me, kid. The element (and there are in fact three general uses in which I'll accept as they all are defined as such, although I had one particular in mind because it is an actual term) is a well established part of sci-fi, especially in the 50's sci-fi from where this term is used extensively.

See? You have three possible answers, all esoteric to the topic and which could be figured out. And yet you fail.

Therefore, I think it is safe to say you prove you know JACK SHIT about 50's sci-fi, especially when the element I've been talking about is notoriously widespread in the genre. Don't bother to use "it belongs" or "it doesn't belong" as an argument anymore when pertaining to that topic.

Guns akimbo means holding and firing two guns at once. Singlehandedly means alone, solo. Unassisted. Every time I referred to the miniguns, I was talking about the fact that a single person could handle one themselves.

Yet you'll point at a pic someone posted as some kind of "evidence" that there was "guns akimbo" and that it was "canon". I was merely illustrating that it was not really indicative of guns akimbo, rather that it was that FalloutBoy was holding a gun in each hand in a possible representation of quickslots. That was mainly so because there was no guns akimbo in either Fallout RPG to begin with. Your use of that was like pointing to a picture of someone holding a roll of toilet paper and saying that they are going to take a shit.

Are you bothering to keep up with the conversation or does your brain just take a shit every night and you come back to try and figure things out anew each time? If so, you might want to try harder. So far, the results have been pathetic. Or, to borrow a phrase from you: That's absolutely retarded.

Excuse me? When have I ever said that realism has to be stuck to in Fallout?

To refresh your memory, you might want to re-read the post where you go into the effects of a minigun and why it wouldn't be realistic. Please don't bother lying to me again as it's pretty hard to miss what you've said because the posts are still there.

I have not. I have however said that firing two weapons at once, is as realistic as firing a minigun singlehandedly (see? one person firing a minigun themself), thereby negating the realism argument. Other people have talked about how it needs to be realistic, not me.

Well, aside from lying about how you didn't talk about realism, you then also miss the point that akimbo doesn't fit into the setting. here we go into setting design and elements. A minigun would fit because large and small guns of mass destruction were prominent in 50's sci-fi. Shooting two pistols around like in Woo movies is not.

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that I have already noticed how you've dodged into a topic drift with the "realism" bit, and you indeed did start it or at least phrased a good portion of it.

Like i just said, i don't have a problem with miniguns - or akimbo guns. I'm using them as an argument as to why it's dumb to say that holding and firing two weapons at once is impossible, and that holding and firing a single minigun isn't.

Still using the "realism" point to dry hump your weak argument into the ground, eh? Sorry to disappoint you, but I think you killed it yourself.

For those hard of learning, one fits into the setting, the other doesn't.

Now go play Sesame Street to figure out which one, and if you fail, please castrate yourself.

So what then about wearing power armor while firing them? Chances are, you'll be wearing the power armor at the same time.

I think even you'll agree that's a very weak argument. You can fire it from a vault suit, with a leather jacket, from whatever you want. Saying that you'll probaby be in power armour is definately selective blindness.

Oh, indeed. In one particular way, I can say you're quite right. Unfortunately, you appear to be missing one certain aspect.

Could you publicly refresh your memory about what benefit(s) power armor gives, one that may allow some of the more weaker characters to pick up and fire a minigun?

That was too easy, it was like getting fish to jump out of the lake and suffocate themselves.

It's not too hard to expect that since miniguns have been around for some time, that a handheld one would be put into sci-fi, much like disintegration ray guns and bulky cannons of various makes.

So let's get this straight, it's more likely that :

Miniguns = unfeasable today in handheld form :. they are not from 50's sci-fi.

1) Since handheld miniguns are unfeasible today, they certainly weren't in the 50's, therefore, miniguns were made into handheld weapons in that timeline.

Nice misquote, but you obviously missed the point of that line many times over. I was pointing out your rather ridiculous notion that since you considered miniguns to be impossible to be handheld even today that therefore they didn't fit into 50's sci-fi. See how ridiculous that sounds? That was the main basis of a prior post of yours, which I had hoped you would have gotten. Even your "point" above reeks of ludicrous illogic.

Ray pistols were also part of popular imagination, sometimes held with one in each hand (though rare, usually it is depicted as holding one while using the other for some other purpose), but not fired both at the same time or in an akimbo way.

2)Since it "does not fit the style", none of the people, who are admittedly rare, who held two weapons at once, had the brainstorm to fire them both at once?

Despite Star Trek being aired in the 60's, it was being written a good portion of the 50's, it's easy to tell. Phasers of a handheld make weren't used in a dual style, but rather in a single hand unless they were of a rifle variety. In fact, given the eye-hand coordination difficulty of the task, about the only one in that setting to be depicted in such a manner of "phasers akimbo" was an android, and that was also done in a modern sci-fi flavor, while all others used them single-handedly. It wouldn't take too much intelligence to figure out what/whom I'm referring to.

No, firing them both at once was not done. For the simple reason that it is far more ludicrous to the popular imagination then than a single huge weapon held in the arms of a strong hero. Plus, firing them both at the same time doesn't quite have the dramatic quality authors and directors were looking for at the time, either. It was a time in sci-fi where it consisted generallt of "BIG GUN OR HANDHELD GUN - > SHOOT - > DESTORY WITH BIG EFFECTS OR SINISTER DISINTEGRATION".

Again, there's no hope of you trying to blow smoke that you understand what 50's sci-fi was about. It's been proven many times over, it's definitely getting to the point of ad nauseum. In addition, the links provided were possibly too much reading and demonstration of common sense, it only served you well enough to try and ignore that aspect entirely, right?

Ok. Makes perfect sense.

You keep reaching for something, don't you? Unfortunately, unless you're wanting to pull yourself inside out, I'd suggest you stop the desperate reaching up your ass. I suspect you should be close to your uvula by now.

[SuperH]

Excuse me? When have I ever said that realism has to be stuck to in Fallout?

To refresh your memory, you might want to re-read the post where you go into the effects of a minigun and why it wouldn't be realistic. Please don't bother lying to me again as it's pretty hard to miss what you've said because the posts are still there.

You repeatedly and consistently ignore my argument here, I _have not_ said that I disapprove of miniguns because they are unrealistic, I _have_ repeatedly compared the realism of firing two weapons at once with having a handheld minigun. I do not disagree with either idea, and because neither of them have any basis in 50's sci fi, your idea of canon doesn't make sense. You tell me I take things out of context, but not only do you, but you continually run in circles as well. I can see where you'd think that I was lying though, typically it's hard to understand fully when you don't bother reading something. I didn't bother reading those links you posted, because they probably don't have anything to do with the argument I was putting forth, which you have decided is complete bunk without bothering to actually try and understand what it is I'm saying. So whatever, we're both guilty of that.

[First Force]

i have to agree with rosh, you just wont admit defeat superh, still this game is a construction of a mind, like books.
why quarrell about the sanity when it has been made up by the dreams of somebody else.

if you both had some dream with unrealistic stuff in it and you guys told it to me, i wouldn`t start bitchin about it.

fallout is just a dream of a bunch of people and you are playin it, as i said just like a story somebody wrote.......

[Rosh]

Well, it's been amusing, but here's where I plant you into the ground.

Excuse me? When have I ever said that realism has to be stuck to in Fallout?

To refresh your memory, you might want to re-read the post where you go into the effects of a minigun and why it wouldn't be realistic. Please don't bother lying to me again as it's pretty hard to miss what you've said because the posts are still there.

You repeatedly and consistently ignore my argument here, I _have not_ said that I disapprove of miniguns because they are unrealistic, I _have_ repeatedly compared the realism of firing two weapons at once with having a handheld minigun.

Which is beside the point, entirely.

It's not about realism, moron. It's about which would fit into the setting. I think I have pointed that out for quite some time now, yet you still keep going back to the "realism" argument for some idiotic reason. Don't even bother mentioning anything about "realism" in your next post. The "realism" argument has been beaten, killed, debunked.

To put it simply for you:

Guns akimbo has ALWAYS been a modern thing. The Matrix and Woo movies. It simply did NOT exist in any form in 50's "scientifiction".

Large guns, especially handheld, WERE in 50's sci-fi. Before you try to say anything contrary, don't bother posting another load of stupidity, go out and do some research before you make yourself out to an even bigger imbecile. Large weapons, although a majority were of a ray gun basis (there were still some of regular bullets), were in 50's sci-fi. In a sense, gatling laser guns would fit better in Fallout's setting more than a projectile minigun, yet both are acceptable as both ray guns and projectile guns were featured in 50's sci-fi and especially so when Earth is invaded by aliens of some sort. Most of which have either an X, V, Y, or a Z in their designation, usually a number following them or a quasi-futuristic term. Robots often followed this same naming method or they had a singular name. Although, for toys marketing, only those of a rifle and pistol style were made for commercial reasons (some of the ray gun replicas were even stuffed into random boxes of cereal!), often of materials ranging from paper to wood to tin to diecast and...oh, hey. This looks and operates similar enough to a handheld minigun, save for the barrel assembly, for a weapon model of that time. Most of those depicted in serials were purposely made in pistol props explicity for the fan-following.

Or how about a Saturday morning icon for the mid-50's, or a couple dozen? Commander Cody is one that comes readily to mind. Click this link, shithead. Second picture down. There's also similar weapons in The Phantom Empire and scattered throughout Flash Gordon, despite most of the serials in that use pistols or some melee weapons, but there were some handheld large guns. There's also Tom Corbett and his atomic rifles, I believe Space Patrol occasionally had a large gun, and later Captain Video serials had both projectile guns as well as ray guns of a larger nature. There's also a plethora of other space operas that likewise used them, and what I've been talking about has been in television serials, not even counting pulps.

On that note, if I hear "Smokin' Rockets!" one more time, or anything from the Captain Video cliché archive, I'm going to kill someone.

I do not disagree with either idea, and because neither of them have any basis in 50's sci fi, your idea of canon doesn't make sense.

You know, the above statement might have some merit...if you didn't already prove that you know incredibly little about 50's sci-fi.

You tell me I take things out of context, but not only do you, but you continually run in circles as well.

I run in circles? You might want to check who keeps pulling out "That was never in 50's sci fi, people would never have such large weapons handheld, it just doesn't make sense." bullshit. Making sense in your deluded mind or not, big guns WERE a part of 50's sci-fi. A point that you've repeatedly chosen to be completely inbred about.

It might make more sense if you have a single goddamn clue what was and what wasn't 50's sci-fi, which is the crux of your problem. To do away with the rest of your waffling bullshit, I notice that you're again dodging the finer points of displaying evident understanding of what you're attempting to talk about.

For fuck's sake, I even pointed out a simple method that would have at least allowed you to spare yourself some humiliation, but there's apparently no limits to your ignorance.

To go by the earlier example, and to point out the particular item that has a name applied to it in 50's sci-fi including "boxy" in it, that would be the "boxy robot", of a defined and particular style of robot (pretty much defined as having no legs) that was around and quite popular for many years before another type of robot came about.

Do you have enough intelligence to attempt to figure out what that one was called?

I can see where you'd think that I was lying though, typically it's hard to understand fully when you don't bother reading something.

You're quite right, and I still haven't gotten the answer in relation to what your problem is. Are you just illiterate or stupid?

I didn't bother reading those links you posted, because they probably don't have anything to do with the argument I was putting forth,

Kid, at this point, I'd lay money that you probably don't know what argument you were "putting forth" other than you somehow grappled onto "realism" and have been arguing about that since despite the real argument of what would fit into the setting. I think I made a good point when I pointed out that it was a bit ludicrous for you to say that "unrealistic = not in 50's sci-fi", which has been the point of a number of your rather ambiguous conversational flailings.

which you have decided is complete bunk without bothering to actually try and understand what it is I'm saying.

I understand what you're saying. You're just being an uneducated idiot, making incorrect statements, and also building up straw men repeatedly. Again, do not even bother posting about "realism" in any aspect in your next reply. Please try to honor the taxpayer money wasted on you, if not in reality, then at least try to have some common sense to fake it.

[SeanDMan]

Theres a perk that lets you fire guns for less AP without being able to target.

What if that were expanded, so that if a player holds only a pistol, or an SMG, or a pair of pistols or SMGs, or two different pistols and so on, he gains an additional cut of one AP on the cost of firing a single shot, with a penalty of an additional two APs to reflect the difficulty of reloading applied to the reloading of the gun? That would allow a player to burst, switch to his desert eagle and pop off a shot or two, without totally unballancing the system.

[Rosh]

Theres a perk that lets you fire guns for less AP without being able to target.

Fast Shot, and it's a Trait.

What if that were expanded, so that if a player holds only a pistol, or an SMG, or a pair of pistols or SMGs, or two different pistols and so on, he gains an additional cut of one AP on the cost of firing a single shot, with a penalty of an additional two APs to reflect the difficulty of reloading applied to the reloading of the gun? That would allow a player to burst, switch to his desert eagle and pop off a shot or two, without totally unballancing the system.

Still unbalances it as on one end, if the damage of both guns together is lower than a 2 hand weapon, you're still putting in a lot of skill to overcome the accuracy penalty, add in the quicker time of the trait or perk. you're still running into that it is either nowhere near giving the same feasability than other skills, or it would be obscenely overpowered. There's a lot of aspects that lead it to being overpowered or useless. The only way to overcome that would be to put the damage of the pistols at a scaled average, yet that would make little sense as it would probably be more worth it to put skill points into the larger weapon skills to be more accurate and also save on ammo. Requires more ammo, more skill to overcome the penalties, and would require a perk or trait on top of that to be anywhere near as feasable as any other aspect of combat.

It's either a case if impotent "kewL" thing or unbalanced, near-exploit "kewl" thing, when small guns are quite feasable to begin with.

An odd thing you also point out with one bursting and then switching to the Desert Eagle, it's pretty much like the original system and not quite in an "akimbo" scenario. Burst with both or firing both guns at the same time would be more towards the point of "akimbo" that the Matrix/Woo kiddies want.

[SeanDMan]

SeanDMan wrote:
Theres a perk that lets you fire guns for less AP without being able to target.

Fast Shot, and it's a Trait.

Okay, yeah. I'm not 500% on what perk/trait/guns do what or have what stats, but you got the general idea which is important.

Still unbalances it as on one end, if the damage of both guns together is lower than a 2 hand weapon, you're still putting in a lot of skill to overcome the accuracy penalty, add in the quicker time of the trait or perk.

Yeah... but factor in ammo. Say you have a gun like the guass rifle. You can fire it, say, twice per turn which will rape quite well. But if you grab a guass pistol and a 223 pistol, you can fire the guass pistol once and the 223 2 or 3 times, doing almost as much damage and expending less of the expensive and rare ammo. This wouldn't matter in FO 2 since EC is so abundent, but it might in FO 3.

Count in energy weapons into small guns, as JE sounds like they are planning, and you can use a plasma or laser pistol... while it may be exploitable, with work, I think it can be balanced so the ends justify the means, and do not completely nullify them.

It's either a case if impotent "kewL" thing or unbalanced, near-exploit "kewl" thing, when small guns are quite feasable to begin with.

It is true, that as they stand, there is no need to change it. But we are talking about a changed system. Right now, it sounds like instead of small, big, and energy, the weapons skills will end up as pistols/one handed machine weapons, rifles/shotguns/larger machine weapons, and heavy weapons. So I think that, considering most of the pwnage weapons are rifles, pistols could use something to make them a viable option. Not that they will useless by any means, but they could be better, and I think we want as many options other than guass rifle rapage as possible.

An odd thing you also point out with one bursting and then switching to the Desert Eagle, it's pretty much like the original system and not quite in an "akimbo" scenario.

lol, Woo kiddies.

What I'm thinking of is that, as it is now, you have an SMG and you burst and switch and fire. By cutting the AP you would cut the amount of time... I dunno, you're right. You wouldn't really be firing it at the same time, no I'm not really talking akimbo. I'm more thinking game balance wise, then thinking of a guy with a desert eagle and a leather jacket taking out mass amounts of robots with an uzi in each hand.

BTW, thanks for answering me in the way you did. I was half expecting hostile reaction, and am glad you instead decided to talk points instead. (y)