Suggestion talk:20080208 Gunfighter Skill : Dual Pistol Use
Suggestion Development from Talk:Suggestions
Gunfighter: twin pistol use
| Timestamp: |  Swiers 23:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
|
| Type: | Skill |
| Scope: | survivors using pistols |
| Description: | Gunfighter would be a skill that requires Advanced Pistol Training to learn.
This skill would allow the (admittedly cinematic) effect of using two pistols at once. This is done by having a new attack option for "Twin Pistols". A "Twin Pistols" attack effectively allows two normal pistol attacks with a (total) cost of 1 AP; one shot would have a 40% chance of hitting, the 25%. This uses two bullets from two different pistols; if the user has only one loaded pistol, they get only the one shot at 40% to hit. If they have no loaded pistols, the attack is resolved as normal for attacks with unloaded guns. Damage wise, this works out to hitting for 10 damage 10% of the time, 5 damage 45% of the time, and missing (0 damage) 45% of the time. That means an average damage of 3.45 HP per AP, vs 3.25 HP per AP for normal pistol use with Advanced Pistol Training. This slight average damage increase (less than +7%) comes at the expense of MUCH faster ammo use (double / +100%). However, more interesting than the slight average damage boost is the significant boost in variance - namely, this attack has the potential to do 10 damage, and thus can be used as a "hail Mary" shot in cases where you'd otherwise never have enough AP to finish the job, but also has a much higher chance of doing nothing at all. |
Discussion (Gunfighter: twin pistol use)
I'm fairly sure it's a dupe-Studoku 23:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe so, will look a bit. The idea is to create a high variance survivor weapon, without requiring a new weapon / ammo type.
Swiers 23:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I found a Peer Reviewed dual knife suggestion, but no dual pistol suggestion in reviewed, rejected, or undecided. Of course, all I did was search for "pistol", so I may have missed something. Plus this overlooks the old, non-paged suggestions completely. It does seem an obvious idea, but all the other versions I've seen were REALLY badly written, so maybe this is not a dupe after all. Swiers 23:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I found a Peer Reviewed dual knife suggestion, but no dual pistol suggestion in reviewed, rejected, or undecided. Of course, all I did was search for "pistol", so I may have missed something. Plus this overlooks the old, non-paged suggestions completely. It does seem an obvious idea, but all the other versions I've seen were REALLY badly written, so maybe this is not a dupe after all.
getting very bored with the standard game... this might be fun! --Honestmistake 23:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Its a sweet idea and it sounds pretty balanced. Go for it!--GunFox13 00:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been suggested at least seven times. The wikis search function is absolutely rotten though. You need to look for it in the old previous days. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- If its been suggested so any times, why is it not in rejected or undecided or reviewed? Like I said, I've seen a few obviously flawed versions (that likely are in spammed, or never went to voting) but this one seems to cover the main flaws, by keeping the power on par with normal pistol use (when you account for more frequent reloads) and mostly boosting variance. Swiers 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- A different reason for each: For the first, its because they were all spammed or rejected, and the why they dont appear in rejected, because no one ever cycled them (Or anything else for that matter) over into it. They will appear in previous days if at all. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I guess its up to voters to find them if it coes to that; if somebody does, I'll cycle this so its easier to find in the future. (Hmm, I could search dupes, maybe.) Like I said, I don't recall any that did NOT increase pistol potency (usually to rival the shotgun) and instead focussed on raising variance at the expense of rapid ammo use. Swiers 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I guess its up to voters to find them if it coes to that; if somebody does, I'll cycle this so its easier to find in the future. (Hmm, I could search dupes, maybe.) Like I said, I don't recall any that did NOT increase pistol potency (usually to rival the shotgun) and instead focussed on raising variance at the expense of rapid ammo use.
- A different reason for each: For the first, its because they were all spammed or rejected, and the why they dont appear in rejected, because no one ever cycled them (Or anything else for that matter) over into it. They will appear in previous days if at all. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This looks like a dupe, but you're unlike the trenchies that did this before: you did the math. I'd vote keep if you ever put this up. Weapons akimbo is a valid way of making suppressive fire. Anyone who plays Halo knows this.--Shotstol 01:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, video games are not the authority to which you should be appealing regarding weapons use. Try your local police or army base. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, two-fisted shooting is an AWFUL idea in real life, with just about any gun. And there is no "suppressive fire" in Urban Dead; its all "fire for effect". Like I said, the suggestion is cinematic, with consideration for game balance. In a game with zombies, I think cinematic effects are OK... Swiers 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, two-fisted shooting is an AWFUL idea in real life, with just about any gun. And there is no "suppressive fire" in Urban Dead; its all "fire for effect". Like I said, the suggestion is cinematic, with consideration for game balance. In a game with zombies, I think cinematic effects are OK...
I'd vote keep--CorndogheroT-S-Z 03:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Now, the very concept tends to bias voters towards kill, but the actual suggestion is good. It would be especially helpful during real-time, because you can get more bullets in less AP and IP-- Quizzical Quiz Speak 18:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I will vote keep just so i can yell "Thank you Mr Woo!" before blasting away to little effect :D In truth though this is a reasonably well balanced addition that i suspect people will either love or hate. One thing that might just squeeze a keep out of the horde is if you put in a 1% chance of fumbling the shot and hitting a randomized target other than the one you selected to reflect the dangers of firing so wildly! --Honestmistake 19:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Voting Discussion
The Numbers
I'm gonna vote after I have a chance to do some numbers, but rest assured that it's probably going to be a spam for overpowered. I'm also pretty certain the numbers you(Swiers) gave are wrong and not true to reality of the game.--Karekmaps?! 01:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The math is very, very simple. 50% of the time you miss outright. 50% x 30% (= 15%) you hit with the first shot and also the second shot. 50% x 70% (= 35%) You hit with the first shot and miss with the second shot. 10 x 15% plus 5 x 35% equals 3.25 equals 65% x 5.
Essentailly all this suggestion does is take 15% off the rate to hit for maxed pistols (hence it requires maxed pistols) and give you a 15% chance of hitting with an extra shot. That self evidently makes the average damage the exact same.
OK, so average damage is the same, and you use twice as much ammo, meaning you get fewer shots for a given encumbrance. HOW is that overpowered? If there's a reason to kill based on balance, that reason would be that it is a nerf to people who assume because its a top tier skill, it ust be a ore effective attack in all circumstances. Its not- its only useful when you need that high variance. Swiers 02:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Swiers, it's a 1 in 2 to actually hit the first time, 1 in 3 to hit the second time. it's basically a 1 in 3 to deal 10 damage with a slightly reduced normal hit rate. That's how it will functionally run in game, it won't be a 15% chance of dealing 10 damage. Remember, the tries don't reset every time you miss, "The second shot is only considered if the first hits (otherwise it misses automatically)" means that the shot is still fired and is still counted towards the infinity count that is the statistics. The only thing that might make this not insanely overpowered is the ammo usage, thus the me needing to do maths before voting, all it really is thought is the difference between spam and kill.--Karekmaps?! 02:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think you are miss-reading. It is NOT a 1 in 3 to hit the second time, because if you miss the first time, there isn't any second time. "Misses automatically" means just that; if the first shot misses (a happens 50% of the time) so does the second, without any need to "roll". I did it that way to reduce server load, among other things (it also made matching the average damage with siple round numbers easier). So, IF the fist shot hits (as happens 50% of the time) THEN the second has a 30% chance to hit ELSE the second (and first) both count as misses, regardless of what might be rolled for the second shot. Hence, you only get two hits 50% x 30% of the time, meaning a 15% chance for both shots to hit (and a 50% chance for NOTHING to hit). Swiers 02:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then the actual chance to hit with the second shot is 15% and the rest is just garbage put in to hide that fact from the wiki-trenchies that troll Suggestions. But, the way you have it written now, the suggestion is saying that 1 in 3 shots is 10 damage. Rewrite the suggestion and make your meaning clear so that it's the way you meant it instead of being the way it currently is. Also, just fyi, you're attempting to calculate averages to hit, but, it's still 1 in 3 for the 10 damage because, the average to hit isn't ignored based on the first one, I'll still fire the second shot every two shots and I still have a 1 in 3 chance of hitting that shot, it's like with using Tangling Grasp unless you have specifically stated otherwise, which you didn't, and can't be included in a note as it is an extremely large mechanics change.--Karekmaps?! 02:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- And yes, I know what I'm saying about the accuracy might not be exactly clear but, it's roughly that the 1 in 2 doesn't effect the 1 in 3 and visa versa.--Karekmaps?! 02:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't hiding anything; I clearly stated what the end effects are (IE, same average damage with more ammo use), and how they are achieved, and had a good reason for writing it they way I did. Most people understand probability with dependent events (as opposed to independent events) just fine. A re-write with simpler independent 50% miss / 35% one hit (5 damage) / 15% two hit (10 damage) chances would be functionally equivalent, and so essentially pointless. People can read / ask on the talk page here if they have such questions. Swiers 02:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, no it's not functionally equivalent. Right now you have 50%/50% with an additional 30% accuracy hit. 50% of the time you will always get the 5 damage hit, 30% of the time you will get the 10 damage hit, the way the suggestion is currently written means that 10 damage happens far more often than 1 in every 6 attacks.--Karekmaps?! 03:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and also, even if the second hit was dependant on the first on hitting you're doing that backwards, it should be 30% of 50% not 50% of 30% as the 50% is what determines if the 30% is considered.--Karekmaps?! 03:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- "The first shot would have a 50% chance of hitting. The second shot is only considered if the first hits (otherwise it misses automatically), and in that case has a 30% of hitting." What's so difficult to understand? The first has a 50% chance of hitting. If the first misses, the second misses, if the first hits, then the second has a 30% chance of hitting. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 03:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are a few things, mostly that the second one is basically an attack with 30% accuracy, as that is written. If I were counting the missing when the first shot missed towards the accuracy of the second shot it would mean the second shot will hit a lot more than 30% of the time, which is exactly why I haven't said that, although the suggestion is worded in a way that I could take that interpretation if I wanted. Either way, even with what Swiers is saying his intent was, the numbers he provided for the actual damage are off, it's more than 15% to deal 10 damage.--Karekmaps?! 03:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- No it isn't over 15%. I wrote a small program to simulate it and the numbers are what Swiers said. I can provide the source code if you want. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 03:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The averages are not 50% miss / 35% one hit (5 damage) / 15% two hit (10 damage) as the suggestion is currently suggested. As for what you claim to have programmed, GTFO with that crap, it proves literally nothing as you wrote the numbers, averages, etc. You want I should write a program that shows the numbers aren't how Swiers claims it, still wouldn't prove shit beyond that I could program.--Karekmaps?! 03:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Averages? Why the hell would I use averages to test if the averages are correct? That's just plain dumb. It uses the hit percentages. Checks for 50%, and if succesful, for 30%, records the given damages and how many times it hit. Currently it does this ten million times and then divides the total damage, number of total misses, number of single hits and number of double hits with the same ten million, giving the average damage and the percentages for total misses, single hits and double hits.
- And it does prove that when shooting works the way Swiers described it, the chances for double hits is damn close to 15%. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 03:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll believe you when you stop spewing crap out like this. I'm also willing to bet, if you did the numbers right, it's closer to 16.7%.--Karekmaps?! 17:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean with "spewing crap out like this"? And no, it's not 16.7%, it's approximately 15% with less than 0.02% variance between runs. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The crap thing has to do with the program crap, stop stroking your e-penis because you can write code, it has nothing to do with this wiki, this suggestions, this game, or this discussion. It's as credible as you're word is.(on a wiki that is not at all in case you're wondering.)--Karekmaps?! 00:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Which is exactly the reason why I offered the source code. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- To anyone who doesn't know shit about coding how useful do you think that would be?--Karekmaps?! 23:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- 1. I thought you knew coding, at least some. You're the one who's been using all those if and switch templates. 2. It's a damn simple program, pretty much a direct translation of the logic from Swiers' post. The main loop is just 11 lines of code. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to get what's happening. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nor do you have to be one to royally screw up the logistics, although they do it to but, the fact that were arguing two completely different things might be why this is going no where. I'm arguing what's in the suggestion, on the project page, you're arguing with what Swiers meant to be on that page. They're actually two very different things.--Karekmaps?! 16:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not exactly. I'm arguing that my interpretation of the mechanics is supported by the other percentages on the suggestion page, while your interpretation is not. Now use that common sense of yours and tell me, which of these interpretations do you think is the correct one? The one that is supported by the other facts in the suggestion, or the one that isn't? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nor do you have to be one to royally screw up the logistics, although they do it to but, the fact that were arguing two completely different things might be why this is going no where. I'm arguing what's in the suggestion, on the project page, you're arguing with what Swiers meant to be on that page. They're actually two very different things.--Karekmaps?! 16:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- 1. I thought you knew coding, at least some. You're the one who's been using all those if and switch templates. 2. It's a damn simple program, pretty much a direct translation of the logic from Swiers' post. The main loop is just 11 lines of code. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to get what's happening. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- To anyone who doesn't know shit about coding how useful do you think that would be?--Karekmaps?! 23:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Which is exactly the reason why I offered the source code. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The crap thing has to do with the program crap, stop stroking your e-penis because you can write code, it has nothing to do with this wiki, this suggestions, this game, or this discussion. It's as credible as you're word is.(on a wiki that is not at all in case you're wondering.)--Karekmaps?! 00:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean with "spewing crap out like this"? And no, it's not 16.7%, it's approximately 15% with less than 0.02% variance between runs. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll believe you when you stop spewing crap out like this. I'm also willing to bet, if you did the numbers right, it's closer to 16.7%.--Karekmaps?! 17:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The averages are not 50% miss / 35% one hit (5 damage) / 15% two hit (10 damage) as the suggestion is currently suggested. As for what you claim to have programmed, GTFO with that crap, it proves literally nothing as you wrote the numbers, averages, etc. You want I should write a program that shows the numbers aren't how Swiers claims it, still wouldn't prove shit beyond that I could program.--Karekmaps?! 03:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- No it isn't over 15%. I wrote a small program to simulate it and the numbers are what Swiers said. I can provide the source code if you want. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 03:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are a few things, mostly that the second one is basically an attack with 30% accuracy, as that is written. If I were counting the missing when the first shot missed towards the accuracy of the second shot it would mean the second shot will hit a lot more than 30% of the time, which is exactly why I haven't said that, although the suggestion is worded in a way that I could take that interpretation if I wanted. Either way, even with what Swiers is saying his intent was, the numbers he provided for the actual damage are off, it's more than 15% to deal 10 damage.--Karekmaps?! 03:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- "The first shot would have a 50% chance of hitting. The second shot is only considered if the first hits (otherwise it misses automatically), and in that case has a 30% of hitting." What's so difficult to understand? The first has a 50% chance of hitting. If the first misses, the second misses, if the first hits, then the second has a 30% chance of hitting. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 03:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't hiding anything; I clearly stated what the end effects are (IE, same average damage with more ammo use), and how they are achieved, and had a good reason for writing it they way I did. Most people understand probability with dependent events (as opposed to independent events) just fine. A re-write with simpler independent 50% miss / 35% one hit (5 damage) / 15% two hit (10 damage) chances would be functionally equivalent, and so essentially pointless. People can read / ask on the talk page here if they have such questions.
- And yes, I know what I'm saying about the accuracy might not be exactly clear but, it's roughly that the 1 in 2 doesn't effect the 1 in 3 and visa versa.--Karekmaps?! 02:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then the actual chance to hit with the second shot is 15% and the rest is just garbage put in to hide that fact from the wiki-trenchies that troll Suggestions. But, the way you have it written now, the suggestion is saying that 1 in 3 shots is 10 damage. Rewrite the suggestion and make your meaning clear so that it's the way you meant it instead of being the way it currently is. Also, just fyi, you're attempting to calculate averages to hit, but, it's still 1 in 3 for the 10 damage because, the average to hit isn't ignored based on the first one, I'll still fire the second shot every two shots and I still have a 1 in 3 chance of hitting that shot, it's like with using Tangling Grasp unless you have specifically stated otherwise, which you didn't, and can't be included in a note as it is an extremely large mechanics change.--Karekmaps?! 02:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think you are miss-reading. It is NOT a 1 in 3 to hit the second time, because if you miss the first time, there isn't any second time. "Misses automatically" means just that; if the first shot misses (a happens 50% of the time) so does the second, without any need to "roll". I did it that way to reduce server load, among other things (it also made matching the average damage with siple round numbers easier). So, IF the fist shot hits (as happens 50% of the time) THEN the second has a 30% chance to hit ELSE the second (and first) both count as misses, regardless of what might be rolled for the second shot. Hence, you only get two hits 50% x 30% of the time, meaning a 15% chance for both shots to hit (and a 50% chance for NOTHING to hit).
- Swiers, it's a 1 in 2 to actually hit the first time, 1 in 3 to hit the second time. it's basically a 1 in 3 to deal 10 damage with a slightly reduced normal hit rate. That's how it will functionally run in game, it won't be a 15% chance of dealing 10 damage. Remember, the tries don't reset every time you miss, "The second shot is only considered if the first hits (otherwise it misses automatically)" means that the shot is still fired and is still counted towards the infinity count that is the statistics. The only thing that might make this not insanely overpowered is the ammo usage, thus the me needing to do maths before voting, all it really is thought is the difference between spam and kill.--Karekmaps?! 02:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Karek, you are full of it. "The first shot would have a 50% chance of hitting. The second shot is only considered if the first hits (otherwise it misses automatically), and in that case has a 30% of hitting."
It has a fifty percent chance to hit the first time. If it doesn't hit, both shots miss. Therefore, a 50% chance of missing. If it did hit the first time, there is a thirty percent chance of that first fifty percent chance that it would hit the second time. So, that gives .5 * .3 = .15, or 15%. Or, 3/10 of 5/10 = 15/100, again, 15%. Since there's a fifty percent chance that it would hit at all, you subtract 15 from 50 and get 35, or a 35% chance of hitting once. It is NOT 1/3 of 1/2 which would give 16.7%, it's 3/10 of 1/2, which gives 15%. 33.333% (1/3) is not equal to 30% (3/10). --Ms.Panes 22:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't ask for your input, nor do I give a shit about what you have to say as it's almost always horribly wrong. Ignoring that you're ignoring my point as it suits you're well documented trenchie-like bias. Now, if you people are done butting in without adding anything I'll get back to trying to do what I was trying to do.--Karekmaps?! 00:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- FYI: 1. *pbttth* 2. If you'd pay attention, I didn't even vote on this suggestion. 3. I don't care about your "point", I only care that your math and understanding of this suggestion is %$#@!%$ wrong. 4. My characters don't even use guns, and I've killed an already low health zombie *maybe* twice since I started playing this game, so enough of your "trenchie" baloney. 5. I don't care whether you "asked" for my input or not, I'll comment on whatever I feel like. --Ms.Panes 02:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, this suggestion makes flare guns worthless. :( Not really reason to kill, but still. --Aeon17x 11:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not really. The chances for scoring a double hit is 15%, which is the same as hitting with a flare. If you're only looking for high damage in the shortest amount of time, flares are still better. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Flares are still 15% to deal 15 damage, variance weapon that's much better.--Karekmaps?! 17:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Flares aren't just a weapon. Plus, you shoot zombies with whatever ammo you have. If you only have flares, you shoot flares. --PdeqTalk* 21:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Karek, you seem to be the only one reading what I wrote as being different from what I meant to say. I'm pretty sure I can describe a game rule decently; I've got paid authorship and editorial credits for rules in a fairly complicated game system (Shadowrun 3) that indicate this isn't just my opinion. I also know that once somebody reads something one way, its very hard to change to reading it another way, even when the author points out the intended meaning. That being the case, I don't see any point arguing, and I hope others will stop it also. You might say that the majority can be wrong, but when it comes to communication, if an overwhelming majority understands what you said as what you meant, you said it correctly. Swiers 21:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Do you read the same suggestions system I do? Using the "communities understanding" of things here is like arguing the psychiatry doesn't work because a group of scientologist in a scientology chat room all say so.--Karekmaps?! 21:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- And even ignoring the above "argument" it's still pretty much a weapons buff due to ammo find rates, reduced reloads, and pistol clip sizes.--Karekmaps?! 21:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The only person who's understanding matters in the long run is Kevan's, and the best way (barring his direct input) I know of to guess what he'll understand is to go by what other posters here understand. Its like arguing that L. Ron Hubbard thought psychiatry doesn't work, based on what the members of a scientology chat room say.
Anyhow, lets ignore the above argument, and accept a hypothetical case (which this may or may not match) where the pistol has an alternate mode by which average damage is unaltered, but it occasionally does double the damage it would do, and more often does NO damage, in proportions that balance out to the same AVERAGE damage; IE, it has an alternate mode that ONLY boosts variance. And, it ALWAYS uses double the ammo it otherwise would when used in that mode. Is that a buff? If so, how much of one? Maybe its a SMALL buff, if used optimally. Or maybe it is actually a nerf, because people will chose to use that mode sub-optimally. Its up to the player to decide. Swiers 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- What? No, Pistol Clips have the same find rate as a single shotgun shell and since they deal the same damage as one with every six shots with this change it's saving Ammo on searches. 6 AP to shoot but, since your hit rate is basically that of a survivor without Advanced Pistol Training, it's not actually that bad at all, I'd even go so far as to say that this skill is significantly better than the current status quo for survivors using guns. Ignoring the above argument of course.--Karekmaps?! 07:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless of how easy clips may ever be to find, math does not bear our your statement. Lets say you have 6 loaded pistols. You can shoot them normally 36 times (36 AP) and do an average of 36x3.25 (117) HP damage, and be our of ammo. Recovering that ammo will take variable AP, call it nAP. If you shoot in this hypothetical alternate mode, you spend 18 AP shooting, and do an average of 18x3.25 (58.25) HP damage, and then need to spend the same nAP recovering ammo.
Lets say n=6; you find 6 clips in 6 tries, or maybe find good stuff with all your other searches, whatever is is, you do the best you can do. In that case, you get 117 HP damage / 42 AP for the normal mode (2.785) vs 58.25 HP / 24 AP (2.427) for the "high variance" mode. I think its self evident that larger values of "n" actually WIDEN the gap. In fact, to close the gap and make the alternate mode as efficient as the basic one, "n" would have to have to be ZERO- if its even as high as 1, the normal mode is better in this sense. The only time the alternate mode is more efficient is when "n" is NEGATIVE, which is plainly absurd. In fact, it can't be less than 12; six to find the 6 clips, and 6 to re-load.
Even when you just have 18 AP to spend and then don't care about keeping the pistols (maybe you decided to become a zombie for good, or are fighting all out against Beachhead Tactics) blowing off your 36 rounds of ammo in 18 AP with the alternate mode is very unlikely to produce a significant bonus, and is equally likely to produce a significant detriment; that's what "same average damage with greater variance" means, after all! And if you have 19-36 AP to spend shooting, using the pistols normally at least some of the time is obviously inflicts more total damage.
So in what exact terms would this hypothetical mode be significantly better? It is perhaps fair to compare this hypothetical attack to a shotgun that hits 32.5% of the time, and uses pistol ammo at a rate of two pistol rounds per shot. I think if treated that way, it clearly would be a sub-optimal weapon in most every case, compared to other existing attacks. Swiers 07:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless of how easy clips may ever be to find, math does not bear our your statement. Lets say you have 6 loaded pistols. You can shoot them normally 36 times (36 AP) and do an average of 36x3.25 (117) HP damage, and be our of ammo. Recovering that ammo will take variable AP, call it nAP. If you shoot in this hypothetical alternate mode, you spend 18 AP shooting, and do an average of 18x3.25 (58.25) HP damage, and then need to spend the same nAP recovering ammo.
- What? No, Pistol Clips have the same find rate as a single shotgun shell and since they deal the same damage as one with every six shots with this change it's saving Ammo on searches. 6 AP to shoot but, since your hit rate is basically that of a survivor without Advanced Pistol Training, it's not actually that bad at all, I'd even go so far as to say that this skill is significantly better than the current status quo for survivors using guns. Ignoring the above argument of course.--Karekmaps?! 07:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The only person who's understanding matters in the long run is Kevan's, and the best way (barring his direct input) I know of to guess what he'll understand is to go by what other posters here understand. Its like arguing that L. Ron Hubbard thought psychiatry doesn't work, based on what the members of a scientology chat room say.
Dupe?/IP hits
Dupe? I swear I've seen a suggestion like this recently, where the accuracy of the shots was lowered as this one is, but I can't find it. Also, how many IP hits does this count as? --PdeqTalk* 20:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- It'd be one, only Manufacture takes more(from Kevan himself).--Karekmaps?! 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Chance for injury
There should be another subskill, called 'Bullet Time' -- decreases enemy shooter accuracy by 20%, decreases YOUR accuracy by 10%, and a chance of falling the wrong way for 5 HP damage for another 20%. :P Awesome suggestion by the way. --Aeon17x 22:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
