Riot Gun
- Thread starter mrnok14l
- Start date
On paper, I wouldn't be against it at all. Far from it. I think KF2 should have more tools just like the C4 and freezethrower (that counts almost as a proper weapon due to how powerful its secondary). But both weapons kinda proves that people don't really care sadly... They'd rather buy extra firepower. And I can't really blame them : it's hard to be strategic or tactical when the best strategy is to wait for the zeds to come at you and blast them away.
Hell, wielding doors was one of the most useful thing in KF1. It's barely used in KF2, if ever.
At least your gun would be fairly cheap (I guess something like 300-400 dosh?) so it could be a reliable sidearm starting from like, mid-game or something. Yet, I still find it hard to stick in any loadout... As a sharpie, I often keep a .500 or LAR as a sidearm. As a support : either the boomstick or HRG Buckshot.
It's usually better to dispatch a zed and not worry about it anymore rather than pushing it away.
Hell, wielding doors was one of the most useful thing in KF1. It's barely used in KF2, if ever.
At least your gun would be fairly cheap (I guess something like 300-400 dosh?) so it could be a reliable sidearm starting from like, mid-game or something. Yet, I still find it hard to stick in any loadout... As a sharpie, I often keep a .500 or LAR as a sidearm. As a support : either the boomstick or HRG Buckshot.
It's usually better to dispatch a zed and not worry about it anymore rather than pushing it away.
Upvote
0
Disclaimer: I just came across this in my note the other day and decided to share. There might be potential, but don't take it... like... dead-seriously. I mean, at least it would be easy to be implemented as a HRG option.
Yea I figured this out a couple years ago, which is the fact that coincides with the cause of my major burnt-out over KF2.
Say we have this, this, and that option/method/weapon/map in the game, but what matters the most is kill the Zeds ASAP, particularly due to the game's playground is set in a context where little to nothing other than killing the Zeds like make-them-drop-dead-on-the-floor could be relevant or at least meaningful.
For instance the Medi-gun thingy, why it's bad and rarely used; because as things stand it's decisively so that it's more effective to get rid of the source of incoming damage by removing 'em as efficiently and quickly, in other words it's too slow/clunky/inadequate to try to pull out the Medi-gun in response of a squad member sustaining heavy damage. From my memories trying to corporate it to the gameplay, I found it is so clunky that I need to be pulling it out in advance of a incoming attack that *might* cause heavy damage to my team -- or else it's highly likely that we'll take casualty, and given costly investment (which in this case is our lengthy/inconvenient equip time) doesn't go well with unpredictable outcome, the results I got from this defensive action aren't even remotely comparable versus an offensive approach.
This pretty much goes with every aspect of the game's gameplay projection. The game isn't very successful at making enough options viable/fun/rewarding, in ways that offense is outright better defense (principle of play), killing Zeds is outright better than incapacitating them (feasible approach), insta-kill them with a bullet to the head is outright better than burning them down (tools of choice), nice flat hallway is outright better than interesting curves (map design & location of play), etc.
I wish KF3 is soon.
Yea I figured this out a couple years ago, which is the fact that coincides with the cause of my major burnt-out over KF2.
Say we have this, this, and that option/method/weapon/map in the game, but what matters the most is kill the Zeds ASAP, particularly due to the game's playground is set in a context where little to nothing other than killing the Zeds like make-them-drop-dead-on-the-floor could be relevant or at least meaningful.
For instance the Medi-gun thingy, why it's bad and rarely used; because as things stand it's decisively so that it's more effective to get rid of the source of incoming damage by removing 'em as efficiently and quickly, in other words it's too slow/clunky/inadequate to try to pull out the Medi-gun in response of a squad member sustaining heavy damage. From my memories trying to corporate it to the gameplay, I found it is so clunky that I need to be pulling it out in advance of a incoming attack that *might* cause heavy damage to my team -- or else it's highly likely that we'll take casualty, and given costly investment (which in this case is our lengthy/inconvenient equip time) doesn't go well with unpredictable outcome, the results I got from this defensive action aren't even remotely comparable versus an offensive approach.
This pretty much goes with every aspect of the game's gameplay projection. The game isn't very successful at making enough options viable/fun/rewarding, in ways that offense is outright better defense (principle of play), killing Zeds is outright better than incapacitating them (feasible approach), insta-kill them with a bullet to the head is outright better than burning them down (tools of choice), nice flat hallway is outright better than interesting curves (map design & location of play), etc.
I wish KF3 is soon.
Upvote
0
You pretty much summed it up. Killing Floor 2 is not a very complicated game, and I think the survivalist inclusion more or less proved that. If a perk can do well with every gun... Why bother having multiple perks at all?
Hell, I understand that you may not always play with a full team (or may even play solo), but you can hold your own with each and every perk... Yes, it might be slightly easier with some perks or harder with some others. But all in all : no matter the composition, you can always win if your team knows what to do. Except maybe in Hell on Earth.
I'm not saying that every FPS should be highly strategic, or make every class (or in this case : perk) stand out A LOT. It's okay to have a simpler gameplay, but at that point... It's not a matter of how should you adapt your playstyle and team comp, and more about which guns you'd like to use the most.
And seeing people asking for extra guns to mitigate a weakness of one perk or the other takes the cake... I'm sure they're all happy now that we have a ranged-option for the zerk. You just removed one of his only weaknesses, bravo.
(As for KF3, I already thought about it numerous times but to be honest I don't really know what they would do that cannot be done in KF2... Maybe start with a clean slate? Otherwise, I guess it would still be the same game...)
Hell, I understand that you may not always play with a full team (or may even play solo), but you can hold your own with each and every perk... Yes, it might be slightly easier with some perks or harder with some others. But all in all : no matter the composition, you can always win if your team knows what to do. Except maybe in Hell on Earth.
I'm not saying that every FPS should be highly strategic, or make every class (or in this case : perk) stand out A LOT. It's okay to have a simpler gameplay, but at that point... It's not a matter of how should you adapt your playstyle and team comp, and more about which guns you'd like to use the most.
And seeing people asking for extra guns to mitigate a weakness of one perk or the other takes the cake... I'm sure they're all happy now that we have a ranged-option for the zerk. You just removed one of his only weaknesses, bravo.
(As for KF3, I already thought about it numerous times but to be honest I don't really know what they would do that cannot be done in KF2... Maybe start with a clean slate? Otherwise, I guess it would still be the same game...)
Upvote
0