Weapon and Sight selection (ARs, Savage, Vortex)

[signal orbit]

Liked where you went with the Steyr, Christensen and some of the other modern style rifles. Now I'm hoping you have the room to add something like an AR10, and some Savage rifles. As for scopes, I'd like to see some Vortex.

Aside from name brands, I'm still perfectly happy with Generic fake brand AR rifles and Savage knock offs. I'd love to see a Remington or fake Rem in 308 though. It was so sad the first game only had two 308 rifles and one was DLC.

Weapon and Sight selection (ARs, Savage, Vortex)

[serene badge]

as someone who loves AR rifles yes

[signal orbit]

I have one designated for hunting IRL and has always been saddened they never had one in WotH. But they have some in theHunter Call of wild.

It's heavy for a hunting rifle, but it did a decent job. Has huge scope and bipods in 308.

[serene badge]

since i sadly live in canada mine is neutered but i still use it for coyotes

[sand oasis]

Though I like the idea to an extent, I'm not sure semi-automatic rifles make much sense in a hunting/wildlife management sense and they could become an effective EZ Mode switch for players and miss the point of the game.

1. The increased capacity and faster follow-up shots only really come into play where I'm at, at least, when regarding feral pigs/wild boar and coyotes, and I imagine that's only because they're considered pests/nuisances, thus they're not protected by the hunting regulations surrounding not-so-nuisance/pest "game" animals.

2. I don't think many hunters are going to carry around a 20-round, 9-12 lb battle rifle that is potentially less-accurate and limited to short-action cartridge choices instead of a 3-5 round, 6-9 lb rifle which is potentially more-accurate (along with the tendency to be chambered for an even more powerful cartridge, thus more suitable for a given game animal) to shoot once, maybe twice, at a deer, elk, moose, etc.

3. Because of Point 2, I think most hunters who aspire to be ethical would lean towards the latter, which yields higher potential for appropriate cartridge choice, and choosing a singular animal from a group (if there is a group), instead of a laying waste to several animals.

4. It's a video game, why are we talking about ethics and morals? Let us play how we want! Aside from that point, being able to rattle off 3 rounds per second is simply too much room for forgiveness and I believe the game should punish players who can't land their first shot (everyone misses sometimes, it's part of learning), or stalk the animal again and try again and recover from a miss, or return for the animal another day. I really like how this game differentiates itself from theHunter: Call of the Wild in that way. Regarding multiplayer, it could be a pain if the player which has a semi-automatic is hogging all of the animals in a server, especially if there are STILL NO ADMIN CONTROLS OR TEXT/VOICE CHAT.

[signal orbit]

I don't know, you can make the magazines CA compliant with 5 round magazines. As for the cartridge or caliber, I felt like 308 has more stopping power than half the tier 5 rifles in the game currently only really being outshined by a 7mm. The 243 and 270 were significantly weaker imo.

[sand oasis]

Still, the 5 rounders may make it too easy for newbies to blast everything in sight lol, but yeah, a 5-round AR15 or AR10 makes a lot more sense than a 20-rounder, given the weight that the ammo adds.

The cartridges seem right to me, but it may be because of what ammo the rifle starts off with (since most people seem to use the free/default ammo). I think the .270 Win is much more effective on a variety of animals at Tier 5-6 than .308 Win, and it's easier to get the hit where you want it as well due to ballistic coefficient and less wind deflection (though wind doesn't really matter inside of 200-300 yds in most cases).

[austere turtle]

Speaking as a qualified stranger on the internet, I think most of the objections you've raised so far are a bit silly, Mr. @sand oasis. Regardless of whether you have 5 rounds or 20 rounds in bolt-action or semi-automatic rifle, you will still have people who fire way too much or hunt unethically.

This is not something that should be moderated by the inclusion or omission of specific pieces of equipment, rather it should be moderated via, for example, whitelist/blacklisting of weapon systems on an individual server (which I realize is not yet possible).

I understand your concern about it becoming an "Easy Mode" for new players, however at some point you have to relinquish the control of the gameplay to the player. If they want to hunt unethically, that's their choice and if they are hell-bent on doing it, they will find a way to do it regardless of what equipment they have.

[sand oasis]

Sure, you will have some who manage to be unethical and fire too much or try to take all the animals from other players in multiplayer servers, however it will be reduced if their rate of fire and magazine capacity is limited to what is commonly seen. The end-result difference for having an AR10 to the good shots and ethical hunters is little; however the difference for a terrible player or griefer is massive.

I think this game has European devs, and I don't know of many people who hunt with battle rifles in Europe or in America for that matter, and I'm not some "Fudd" nor are most of my friends, you just don't use a sledgehammer to drive a nail; you can, but why? Hunting with AR15s and AR10s tends to involve feral pigs/wild hogs, coyotes, and nuisance animals/varmints, usually it's "for those who want to buy thermals and have a reason to practice with them;" very specialized setups. I understand that an AR10 in it's plethora of short-action cartridges is perfectly capable of taking deer/elk, but what are those extra rounds and pounds getting you over a hunting rifle that cost a-third-to-half as much and weighs a third less? Unless you're spending on a very expensive AR10 (Seekins or KAC), you're paying extra to have extra rounds and pounds (which you don't need) and a less-accurate rifle to hunt with (since most automatics are tangibly less-accurate than manual actions); it doesn't make sense to most people unless they're the type of person to min-max to the extent that their hunting rifle is also their "oh s**t" rifle and, usually among those budget-oriented types who min-max in such a way, you won't find something like a Seekins or KAC.

It's reasonable that the devs don't spend time/money allocated to something that would yield little benefit to proper players and would only increase the negatives, as mentioned earlier. If I had to pick between AR10s (opening the multiplayer Pandora's Box of this game) and a new ecosystem, I'd definitely pick a new ecosystem.

[austere turtle]

I see your point on it enabling griefers to take their activity to a higher/more disruptive point, but I really do think you are exaggerating.

I won't deny that it will make it easier for less proficient players to play the game, but I fail to see the downside to this. I don't think one should have to dedicate life and soul to immersing oneself in a game's setting or environment in order to play it.

As for your concerns about the commonality of self-loading rifles in Europe; I really do not see what that has to do with this discussion... To my understanding the base game map is set in Canada. As you mention yourself, there are hunting applications for AR15 and AR10 variants due to the variety of chamberings. Your concerns seem more oriented toward the physical characteristics and monetary cost of the weapon systems, than their actual ability to be used in hunting applications.

Yes. It is true that self-loading rifles tend to be more expensive, and less accurate than bolt-action rifles, but I don't see what your point is here either. Not all hunting happens at a distance where this reduced accuracy is relevant. Furthermore, the additional rounds may prove useful at closer range, should an animal attack you after, eg., a close miss or from a separate angle than the animal you were engaging.

In closing, I really do not see why you brought an ecosystem into this discussion as an "either/or" comparison to having AR10s. It's off-topic and irrelevant to the discussion. I don't see why the two would be mutually exclusive.

Addendum: Out of curiosity, what is your view on semi-automatic shotguns being used in hunting?

[sand oasis]

Yes, I know I'm all-but-using the liberal effectively-anti-2A arguments that they tend to make about "common sense gun laws," an argument I hate because of who they apply it to, the difference here is that they tend to want to use proper logic against only the righteous, since the criminals don't follow laws and buy from criminals who smuggle in illegal items anyways. However, we're talking about a game world, so righteousness is assumed to be any consumer of the product who uses the product the way it was meant to be used (e.g.; not griefers, trolls, cheaters, etc.), so...

Currently, without semi-automatic battle rifles being in the game, rate of fire is reduced by most actions being manual action (if not all of them). Sure, a cheater can do something and make their bolt-action hunting rifle fire like a minigun in theory, however, if a player encounters a cheater like that, they can leave and host a private lobby, or if they add admin controls to the current game and next game then they could remove the cheater from the lobby should the cheater join the affected player's public lobby; but there's a problem, and it becomes more exploitative-than-cheating if they're using something that is literally put into the game by the devs (which opens to Pandora's Box of "don't hate the player, hate the game brah" type of s**t), something which I believe should not be put into the game when those efforts could go where the gains are more tangible for those who do play the game properly.

[sand oasis]

People already do this even with the manual-action firearms in WotH 1 multiplayer, I don't want to see it increased and if it increases it will likely diminish the online playerbase further; there is no exaggeration.

Fair point, but it's also the devs freedom to establish their niche in the market and decide to stick to it or to clone theHunter Call of the Wild; the latter of which is better suited to those who want to hop in and shoot animals that have seemingly little-to-no-thoughts; granted, the game is artificially more-difficult in other ways, so there's that, but they're more gunplay-mechanics-oriented, which can be more-easily mastered. To make an analogy: Escape From Tarkov, Squad, Arma Reforger rarely share a playerbase with those who play Battlefield and Call of Duty; they have their niches and generally stick to them, and that's their right.

To make an analogy, if you were playing another type of shooting game, say Call of Duty or Squad, would you choose an AR15, or a double barrel shotgun, while the M1014 exists in that game? Could it be considered wasted time for the devs to allocate time and resources to such an endeavor? That's my point. Sure, people hunt with them, but the application exists in a niche which tends to go antagonistically against the moral story that is portrayed in the single player aspect of the game; I personally don't see how the devs could justify it philosophically. Also, cost is always a factor.

That's a fair point when hunting dangerous game, sure, but harking back to my prior point, this also goes against the moral story portrayed in the single player aspect of the game; one shot, clean kill, not "but the bear is attacking me, time to mag dump 20 rounds through it's chest," because you still respect the animal for being the animal, a weapon of nature, that it is.

Ecosystem is relevant because all things cost time and money, both of which are limited. I'd rather have an ecosystem over self-loaders.

[sand oasis]

In response to the addendum, in reality I tend to stick to pump-actions, but I've always sucked at hunting birds anyways.

My opinion on self-loaders, especially rimfires and shotguns, is that you're paying extra to take a chance on a malfunction happening in a situation where you don't need the ability to fire rapidly anyway; it doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it's a nice luxury, and I know the Benelli Novas and M1014 and Beretta 1301/A300 have good reputations, but they cost 2-4 times as much as pump shotguns, so their marketshare is inevitably limited. For the rimfire element of my opinion, I've yet to see a 100% reliable .22 LR or anything of that ilk, because of the inherent antiquated design of rimfire, it's just s**t and we need to collectively move on from it, like we did with paper cartridges lol.

Also, in my state at least, you cannot shoot birds until they're in the air, so I could see the benefit of a reliable semi-automatic shotgun, I just don't see the pros outweighing the cons for myself (and since I'm not an avid bird hunter, I'm not going to buy an expensive gun to hunt birds). However, if 2 shots in a bird-hunting shotgun wasn't commonly seen as enough, triple-barrel shotguns probably would've been invented and commonly-owned by now, but they haven't, so I'd say most people are fine with a pump-action shotgun that holds 2 in the tube and 1 in the chamber with some practice (then removing the plug once they're done hunting and it's back on "home defense" duty, if that's a role that said shotgun fills).

[austere turtle]

I understand the source of your concern being the ability for the player to negatively impact other players, but I don't agree with your assessment that it'd automatically lead to an increase in these activities. You can cause about as much damage to a player's enjoyment in hunting games with self-loading rifles as you can with bolt-action rifles. The problem is intent, not the tools.

To draw the comparison to first-person shooters is, again, in my opinion rather a silly one to make as that is an environment wherein you are actively fighting other players, rather than engaging and hunting animals. The genres are so separated from each other I really can't see the validity in using the analogy that you made.

With regard to your repeated mention of the ecosystem, I don't see the difference between putting time in to make a self-loading rifle as opposed to a bolt-action rifle. I fail to see why it has to be either/or.

And to respond to the repeated mention of "cost" as an argument in this discussion; I really can not see this as an obstacle in any way for implementation in a game. Using Way of the Hunter 1 as an example here, if memory serves me right, wasn't one of the DLCs (Steyr Weapons Pack) released with a weapon system that wasn't even commercially available yet (Gams iirc)?

[sand oasis]

Yes, intent matters, but you're overlooking the point that I made about "cheating vs exploitation," and it's very important to anticipate those types of things when developing anything, definitely in a game. In situations like this, people know that you can add a lot easier than you can take away, and in a realm where we're utilizing digital content, you definitely don't want to remove something that's already been added and accessed lol. I do think the tools, in this game's sense, matter as well: if this game only had red dots on rifles and no scopes, people would drop some complaints because it doesn't make sense; in a hunting game (about ethical one-shot/clean kill hunting), a battle rifle doesn't make sense either.

You're missing my other point: a double barrel shotgun doesn't make sense in a classic FPS because there are select-fire, high-capacity weapons, which excel at both close and mid-range combat; the DB shotty would exist only in a memetic sense, and it's up to the devs to have that factor or not. If they want to make a sequel to a hunting sim, they probably won't/shouldn't add purely-memetic items which have no tangible gains for the player.

You seem to disagree that time and money is limited: the devs are probably given an outline as to when release must be, when additional microtransactions are expected to be released, and a deadline as to when they have to end support for this game and move on to the next one; anything additional, they would have to be granted unless they have extra time. Why should they take that limited time to add something that gives no tangible benefit to the player in a hunting sim?

Steyr definitely isn't affordable in the US, but comparing markets is apples-to-oranges; Europe has tighter regulations, so buyers tend to spend more per firearm in Europe. It's speculation, but they probably collaborated for mutual sales/advertising, though these days it would make sense to question who is paying who in a situation like that.

[austere turtle]

I couldn't possibly disagree with your point about it being easier to add than take away, especially in digital environments which we are discussing.

I certainly do not disagree that time and money is limited, if anything it's the one thing that we seem to agree on. I just don't see why it would be so unjustifiably wrong to add a self-loading rifle - whether that be in .223 Rem, .308 Win, 6.5 CM, or .22 LR, etc - when those platform can and are used for hunting applications. With regards to "no tangible benefit", surely the same could be said about adding any new rifle? It depends on the individual, not the implementation or omission.

I can't speak on the point of Steyr's affordability in the US as I reside in the EU, but I know they are horrendously expensive here and you can easily acquire a SIG 716 or some such in .308 Win for roughly 30% cheaper than a Steyr Gams in the same.

To sort of loop back to the start of our conversation though, I think this could be easiest solved by the implementation of some kind of server admin tools, possibly a whitelist/blacklist system for weapons allowed in a lobby.

[sand oasis]

A TL;DR is basically: I'd rather have more ecosystems and animal variety and further development of those things in a hunting game rather than an AR10 designed to be a DMR used in a militaristic capacity beyond ethical hunting ranges, intended for multiple shots in a short timeframe, unlike ethical hunting. Time and money is limited.

[austere turtle]

I can't really see this conversation going any further with any fruitful outcome, but I thank you for the discussion either way. As it is currently closing in on 10 PM here though, I shall have to withdraw from the discussion as I have other obligations tomorrow.

[sand oasis]

I'm speaking on backlash; players do not like when devs take things away, so thinking about what is added (before it's added) is extremely important.

Agreed, a lot of games add too many guns with little benefit. The first WotH game got around this by limiting each rifle to its own specific caliber (though a few guns that were added that utilize a cartridge that already existed in the game); to avoid that problem, I think there could theoretically buy A made-up generic bolt-action rifle and you simply click the drop-down box and choose your cartridge, and leave it at that; maybe add selections for including sights, the type of sights, the type of stock, the material of the stock, the colors, perhaps all of these options with varying costs, and then you've bought your (custom) generic bolt-action rifle, then you do the same for your optic, choosing between duplex, MOA, MRAD, and so on.

That's a fair criticism/point, but you could also get either a Mauser M18 or Tikka T3X (both highly-regarded hunting rifles) for about 25%-50% (depending on the model) of the price of the SIG 716 (in the US, at least), and the M18 or T3X will weigh less when configured while (theoretically, at least) being more accurate. Cheaper guns allow people to shoot more, thus becoming more proficient and succeeding at the goal at a lower cost: I don't know many people who have shot $1K-$1.5K in ammunition who can't do what they need/want to do with that ammunition within reason, but I know plenty of people who bought a more-expensive gun and then they cannot afford to buy much ammunition, thus they cannot practice as much as they should with it; I have been the latter in my 20s haha.

Strong agree on the last point about server settings, that would be a huge gain! They could also do this with animals, enabling/disabling specific animals, simulating a pseudo-tag-system of sorts, so that the limited firearms/cartridges selected by the admin make sense for the animals being hunted.

[sand oasis]

I understand, I need to get on with some things as well. I wish you a good weekend! Cool name by the way, I've always liked the lynx.

[signal orbit]

I would think, with the inclusion of such little, niche, and optional things like suppressors that AR rifles would have more of a chance of being included.

Seeing as a suppressor can be seen by some people as a "cheat mode" like a semi automatic. But underneath it all, I just like to see more choices but also more common. I feel like an AR is more common for coyote or badger hunting compared to seeing a hunter in real life carrying a $5000 rifle to hunt deer.

[sand oasis]

Fair point!