requiem_for_a_starfury said:
I like the idea of having to recharge the power armour (don't forget to change the description) but carrying around two sets of armour is a bit much. PA is meant to be a personal tank, I don't think you should even be able to pick it up and carry it in your inventory. It should of been scripted that when it's on the ground you use it and it's automatically equipped and when you take it off it goes back on the ground.
I agree with that entirely. But the point is, I think, to make armor/weapons a drain upon your resources more than it is to add an element of realism to the game. If there's a way to implement your idea so that it does not become an annoyance to the player, then I think you could have a winner on your hands.
Now, about the swords...everyone here seems to think that swords are a lot harder to craft than they are. Still, I don't see swords becoming a big part of post-apocalyptic warfare simply because they really need to be specially balanced for the person that is going to use it. However, if a modder is going to implement swords, here's my opinion on them:
1. No katanas.
Reason: Fallout is supposed to be set in the 1950s vision of the future. During the 1950s, Japan produced nothing but cheap novelty items that were inferior to just about anything from anywhere. (Remember the conversation between Doc and Marty in Back to the Future III? "No wonder it burned out. It was made in Japan.") Also, and I know I'm going to be flamed to death for saying this, but all anime glorification aside, the katana is a really dinky weapon. Maybe in 400 CE it was the best sword ever made, but since then there have been a LOT of improvements in sword technology. The katana HAS to be specially crafted for the wielder; I would run into battle with a sharpened stick before I'd run into battle with someone else's katana.
2. Improve upon late-period swords.
Reason: These weapons ARE the pinnacle of sword technology IMHO: the basket-hilt claymore, and the saber. They are lightning fast, deadly, and versatile. You can take someone down with one of these weapons about as quietly as you could with a dagger, and still have a good contender if it came to crossing swords with someone. I would like to see how someone might improve upon these weapons; if you're looking to implement swords, this is where you should start.
3. Bigger is not better.
Reason: There are to reasons behind this. The first is, a large, heavy sword is a liability in protracted engagements. You can only do so much hacking before your arm gets tired, and anything that makes you tired faster is not going to be any help. It takes surprisingly little pressure to slice someone open, and a weapon that is light and agile enough to hit vulnerable places in someone's armor is far more useful than a weapon that can hack through their armor.
Okay, I went off on a tangent there. Don't let this hijack the thread.
