Universal appeasement on the weapons debate
The_Shark
USA Join Date: 2015-08-24 Member: 207433Members
USA Join Date: 2015-08-24 Member: 207433Members
So, I had a thought just before falling asleep last night. The best way to deal with the whole "Lethal weapons" debate is to appease both sides, but how do we do that?
It's actually rather simple.
Add in lethal weapons, or modifications of current things that can be used as such. But then, make them nearly impossible to use.
The example I was thinking of was a modified Stasis Rifle. That thing essentially stops time in a localized area. So, imagine modifying it to stop only what is inside the "bubble," instead of what is touching something inside. So, instead of hitting the ground, and magically freezing and entire Stalker by just getting its tail inside the bubble, a modification at the Mod Station could allow it to have a smaller bubble, that only affects things inside of it.
Then, in order for this to be used lethally, it would require such precision that it would be a downright waste of time. Imagine going toe-to-toe with a Reaper, armed with this Microstasis Rifle. Firstly, you'd need to somehow get knowledge of the Reaper's internal anatomy, which would require things not even in the game, not to mention getting close to the damn things before even starting to think about fighting them. Look at the internal anatomy, find the location of the heart. You would need to charge the weapon to full, which would eat up like an eighth of a battery, not to mention several seconds of exposure to the beast. Then, you have to fire, and if you miss, all that stuff was wasted. If you hit the perfect spot to grab the heart in the small "bubble," the heart would stop while the rest of the monster continues on. This would not only mean it's still attacking you, but that it is probably pretty angry. The bubble would collapse after a few seconds, not really enough to be one-shot lethal (heck, humans can live for four minutes with their heart stopped). However, the lack of blood flow at all for that time would cause heavy tissue damage. Of course, you'd need to take twenty or so shots at a Reaper for it to actually die, eating up two and a half batteries, even if you hit the perfect spot with every shot.
There we go. Both sides would be appeased (except for the idiotic extremists on both sides). We have lethal weapons, but they're so hard to use that it would be a complete waste of resources.
It's actually rather simple.
Add in lethal weapons, or modifications of current things that can be used as such. But then, make them nearly impossible to use.
The example I was thinking of was a modified Stasis Rifle. That thing essentially stops time in a localized area. So, imagine modifying it to stop only what is inside the "bubble," instead of what is touching something inside. So, instead of hitting the ground, and magically freezing and entire Stalker by just getting its tail inside the bubble, a modification at the Mod Station could allow it to have a smaller bubble, that only affects things inside of it.
Then, in order for this to be used lethally, it would require such precision that it would be a downright waste of time. Imagine going toe-to-toe with a Reaper, armed with this Microstasis Rifle. Firstly, you'd need to somehow get knowledge of the Reaper's internal anatomy, which would require things not even in the game, not to mention getting close to the damn things before even starting to think about fighting them. Look at the internal anatomy, find the location of the heart. You would need to charge the weapon to full, which would eat up like an eighth of a battery, not to mention several seconds of exposure to the beast. Then, you have to fire, and if you miss, all that stuff was wasted. If you hit the perfect spot to grab the heart in the small "bubble," the heart would stop while the rest of the monster continues on. This would not only mean it's still attacking you, but that it is probably pretty angry. The bubble would collapse after a few seconds, not really enough to be one-shot lethal (heck, humans can live for four minutes with their heart stopped). However, the lack of blood flow at all for that time would cause heavy tissue damage. Of course, you'd need to take twenty or so shots at a Reaper for it to actually die, eating up two and a half batteries, even if you hit the perfect spot with every shot.
There we go. Both sides would be appeased (except for the idiotic extremists on both sides). We have lethal weapons, but they're so hard to use that it would be a complete waste of resources.
Comments
Agreed. Give people the option, but make there be some drawback, so that they only use it as a last resort.
Two points, one of which I always make
Firstly, the thing I always point out, just because 50% of the population doesn't want to use lethal weapons, doesn't mean they should prevent the other 50% from even having the option. I personally wouldn't use them, but I'd love the option as a last resort.
Secondly (this is an edit because I pressed the wrong button), point out one colonization effort in history where the colonists didn't take weapons with them. Going to take over an unknown location, you can generally assume conflicts are going to break out, which is why every group of colonists since the beginning of time have brought weapons to resolve them.
I don't understand why people say things like "put different options in the game, but only if you make the ones I don't agree with pretty much useless." What other people do in their games has absolutely no effect on your game, so why the negative sentiments towards the people that want to play differently than you?
"We have lethal weapons, but they're so hard to use that it would be a complete waste of resources."
It would also be a complete waste of development time. Why would anyone use something that's harder to use and practically useless anyways? If there's a mix of lethal and non-lethal weapons in the game, why should one type be harder to use and useless in the first place? Other than out of spite for playing differently?
If you don't like the idea of lethal weapons, then you're free to not use them. Simple as that.
But why? If you want to only use it as a last resort, that's fine. Why would I have to be constrained to doing things your way? How does me going around slaughtering everything that moves under the waves affect you?
I fully agree. But I'm just here trying to appease the masses.
I am actually very for the idea of lethal weaponry, not only just to have the option for when the entire ocean hits the fan, but because of the improved realism factor. The reason I came up with the "nearly impossible to use" thing was in an attempt to get the anti-weapons people to calm down.
You're making the same point I do, here:
But the problem is that people in general don't get that it's an option, not a requirement. So, again, I'm not really for this idea myself, but if it gets the idiots to shut, up, why not at least say it?