Burst Fire Issues

[tbeard1999]

Weapons do more damage when firing bursts. Presumably this is because more than 1 bullet has hit the target. Yet armor only subtracts from damage one time. This seems illogical; shouldn’t armor protect from each bullet that hits? Unless, of course, you are assuming that the subsequent bullets hit exactly the same spot, which seems highly unlikely.

Is this the best way to handle burst fire?

 

[SableWyvern]

I'm not a fan, but I dare say it meets the requirements of simplicity that are being sought. The whole lack of distinction between damage and penetration is an issue for those who care about that sort of thing. For many others, it simply isn't.

In short, given the highly abtracted nature of damage and armour in the first place, I don't think it's a major issue.

 

[tbeard1999]

I'm not a fan, but I dare say it meets the requirements of simplicity that are being sought. The whole lack of distinction between damage and penetration is an issue for those who care about that sort of thing. For many others, it simply isn't.

In short, given the highly abtracted nature of damage and armour in the first place, I don't think it's a major issue.

Better watch out -- this kind of rationalization can excuse almost any mechanic, no matter how absurd. And it's being deployed a lot in defense of MGT mechanics, seems to me.

In any case, I am certainly familiar with the need to abstract and simplify. What I object to is defending defects in complex systems with the "it's simplified/abstracted" excuse. If simplification and abstraction is the excuse, then why such a fussy system?

And when a complex system yields a nonintuitive result, I think a better explanation than "it's abstracted" is required.

 

[SableWyvern]

You may be right.

I'm just going by the generally positive feedback around here, despite my personal dislike of the armour/damage mechanic overall.