Which weapons would you like to see in Doom III?

ravage said:

4. chaingun / machinegun

Except that the chaingun is superior to the machinegun - it fires much faster and allows for more heavy damage so putting it in the same class as the machinegun would be dumb.

I mean, in Q2 the machinegun was weapon 4 and the chaingun was weapon 5 - see a picture there?

::EDIT:: "Besides, the mancubus does not use "demon fire" but fire from man-invented flamethrowers."

I think that during the process of attachment, the man-made weapons were twisted in a demonic fashion. It's an arguable stance.

That could well be, could very well be. On the other hand, why would you want to keep a flamethrower out of a cool concept?

I've seen other games that involved demons from Hell (Diablo/Diablo 2)where some demons were resistent/immune to fire while others weren't, so personally, I can't see why a flame weapon should be kept out of Doom 3 entirely.
Just look at how fucking sweet the RtCW flamethrower is (well ok, it looks sweet, but could've been done better gameplay wise) - it'd be a shame not to exploit its capabilities in this game.

dsm said:

Except that the chaingun is superior to the machinegun - it fires much faster and allows for more heavy damage so putting it in the same class as the machinegun would be dumb.

I mean, in Q2 the machinegun was weapon 4 and the chaingun was weapon 5 - see a picture there?

This goes to the same question as to why you would group the two shotguns together- one has power, the other uses less ammo at a time.

Same with the chaingun/machinegun. Didin't they say the chaingun was going to seem like the Q2 version? Rapid fire, heavy power, but it eats the ammo like butter. The machinegun, while less powerful, can at least keep a demon from attacking as fast, while being ammo efficient.

See, there's a method to my madness. :)

Stealthy Ivan said:

I wish they would make a quad barrel shotgun, for cleaning out big rooms of guys, it also is more realistic then the BFG...

You have no idea how idiotic that is, heh. Honestly. Why make a quad barrel shotgun, when, in THIS time, we have fully automatic 12 gauge shotguns? Why would you take a step BACK in time in terms of technology for military aplications?

BBG said:

You have no idea how idiotic that is, heh. Honestly. Why make a quad barrel shotgun, when, in THIS time, we have fully automatic 12 gauge shotguns? Why would you take a step BACK in time in terms of technology for military aplications?

Four shotgun blasts at once? :P Yeah, it sucks.

ravage said:
This goes to the same question as to why you would group the two shotguns together- one has power, the other uses less ammo at a time.

One has power and has a slowassed firing rate, while being useless against anything farther away than close medium distance - the other has less power, while still formidable, but fires twice as fast and can deal with enemies fairly far away.

See how it goes?

Same with the chaingun/machinegun. Didin't they say the chaingun was going to seem like the Q2 version? Rapid fire, heavy power, but it eats the ammo like butter. The machinegun, while less powerful, can at least keep a demon from attacking as fast, while being ammo efficient.

See, there's a method to my madness. :) [/B]

I don't remember seeing any id quote saying that the Doom 3 chainy works like the Q2 one - someone who has played the Alpha said that it did, but how would he know since he has only seen Commandos using it?

And if it does work like the Q2 chaingun, then it sure as Hell still wouldn't make sense to group with the machinegun. In Quake 2, the machinegun is difficult and cumbersome to handle and listed as no. 4, but it is also unbalanced as it's a lousier weapon than the Db shotgun which is listed as no. 3 and the chaingun is waaaay superior to the machinegun even in MP where the machinegun fires steady.

In Doom 3 they're gonna remidy this by making the machinegun easier to use (no kickback to push aim up), while keeping the firing rate the same as the classic Doom chaingun - the chaingun fires a lot faster and can rip even powerful enemies like the HK to shreds in short time (if it works like the Q2 one), but it's hard to conserve ammo with it.
Ammo conservation is no excuse to rank the machinegun as high as the chaingun, because in the end, the chaingun is more effective at neutralizing enemies.

In other words: I don't see a method to the madness, sorry.

"Fuck that shotgun idea - Doom 3 needs only two shotguns: The single barrel and the double barrel so fuck off with those lame Quadro-mega-ultra shotguns, because they would just be stupid, period. You should rather try and think up some interesting energy cell spending weapons, or some sort of smart mines.
"

I agree with you DSM. DOOM III needs only two shotguns and look what the four barreled shotgun in Gunman do! It's the lmest weapon in the game ever!

Ultimate Demon said:
I agree with you DMS.

Heh.

dsm said:

One has power and has a slowassed firing rate, while being useless against anything farther away than close medium distance - the other has less power, while still formidable, but fires twice as fast and can deal with enemies fairly far away.

See how it goes?

I don't remember seeing any id quote saying that the Doom 3 chainy works like the Q2 one - someone who has played the Alpha said that it did, but how would he know since he has only seen Commandos using it?

And if it does work like the Q2 chaingun, then it sure as Hell still wouldn't make sense to group with the machinegun. In Quake 2, the machinegun is difficult and cumbersome to handle and listed as no. 4, but it is also unbalanced as it's a lousier weapon than the Db shotgun which is listed as no. 3 and the chaingun is waaaay superior to the machinegun even in MP where the machinegun fires steady.

In Doom 3 they're gonna remidy this by making the machinegun easier to use (no kickback to push aim up), while keeping the firing rate the same as the classic Doom chaingun - the chaingun fires a lot faster and can rip even powerful enemies like the HK to shreds in short time (if it works like the Q2 one), but it's hard to conserve ammo with it.
Ammo conservation is no excuse to rank the machinegun as high as the chaingun, because in the end, the chaingun is more effective at neutralizing enemies.

In other words: I don't see a method to the madness, sorry.

Didn't we also hear something about a stamina meter, IMO if this is put in, then wouldn't you be weighed down by the chaingun? And yes, I understand that the chaingun would be more effective at killing enemies, but think of it this way, *if* it does work like the Q2 chaingun, then if you're only killing a few weak enemies, and you have no other ammo other than bullets, that'd be a waste of ammo. If it worked like you want it, then why have a machinegun, if it's response time would be basically the same.

Mind you that I'm working on maybe 3 hours of sleep this weekend, so if I seem a little off, well, don't take it too seriously. :P

ravage said:

Didn't we also hear something about a stamina meter, IMO if this is put in, then wouldn't you be weighed down by the chaingun? And yes, I understand that the chaingun would be more effective at killing enemies, but think of it this way, *if* it does work like the Q2 chaingun, then if you're only killing a few weak enemies, and you have no other ammo other than bullets, that'd be a waste of ammo. If it worked like you want it, then why have a machinegun, if it's response time would be basically the same.

Mind you that I'm working on maybe 3 hours of sleep this weekend, so if I seem a little off, well, don't take it too seriously. :P

The stamina meter is just to prevent you from running too much - we have no way of knowing if heavy weapons slow you down (personally I think that would make the gameplay bothersome so I hope not). And yes, I understand that you'd select the machinegun over the chaingun if you're in a situation with low ammo on everything else, but that's still no excuse to group it with the chaingun, because the chaingun is still the most destructive weapon.

However, having the machinegun in a lower class than the chaingun doesn't mean that you can't use it - it'll still be there (probably as weapon no. 4) to use if you're low on ammo. I reckon that you won't be low on ammo all the time in Doom 3, so you'll likely want to use the chaingun more than the machinegun once you've found it (because it's a better weapon), but once conservation of ammo is required, you'll shift back to the machinegun and use it until you get more ammo.

Also, my guess is that you'll typical use the chaingun against the more powerful enemies (Hell Knights, Barons of Hell, Cacodemons, revenants, Archviles) - Hell, I imagine that the chaingun would be damn effective at nailing a revenant or even an archvile, because it delivers such a constant stream of death which I doubt the machinegun will (the machinegun is just like the classic Doom chaingun right?).

A quad-barrelled shotgun? No way! Maybe an autoshotgun (like the one in CS) but no shotguns with more than two barrels. Even then i bet the chaingun will keep my mind off an autoshotgun.

I wouldn't say the weapons weight will slow you down (would be quite bothersome). However, I'd say a possibility would be that you can run at the same speed but not for as long (bigger drain on stamina).

Dubh said:

I wouldn't say the weapons weight will slow you down (would be quite bothersome). However, I'd say a possibility would be that you can run at the same speed but not for as long (bigger drain on stamina).

Even that could end up being a pain in the ass imo.

just a thought about something someone said earlier about outside areas. remember you start in a MOONbase, and going outside would mean a horrible blood boiling eye popping death. the only outside bits would be in hell. i guess.

Dubh said:

I wouldn't say the weapons weight will slow you down (would be quite bothersome). However, I'd say a possibility would be that you can run at the same speed but not for as long (bigger drain on stamina).

...i've always wondered where mr. doom marine keeps all these big heavy weapons. he must have seriously big pockets in that nice green suit.

ghost said:

just a thought about something someone said earlier about outside areas. remember you start in a MOONbase, and going outside would mean a horrible blood boiling eye popping death. the only outside bits would be in hell. i guess.

Except that it's supposedly a MARSbase and not a MOONbase. And there is the possibility of a partial terraformed Mars - but even so, going outside should be dangerous as Hell (namely because you can't breathe there).

...i've always wondered where mr. doom marine keeps all these big heavy weapons. he must have seriously big pockets in that nice green suit.

He folds them up many times until each weapon isn't bigger than a small lunch pack. :-)

dsm said:

He folds them up many times until each weapon isn't bigger than a small lunch pack. :-)

lol. a useful talent i hear.

alright, i meant marsmoonbase - deimos and phobos are mars' moons. but whatever, outside is a no no either way.

Can anyone explain the difference of the way how they function between machinegun and chaingun?

ghost said:

lol. a useful talent i hear.

alright, i meant marsmoonbase - deimos and phobos are mars' moons. but whatever, outside is a no no either way.

And still you're wrong. Sorry, but we've reached the conclusion that Doom 3 takes place on Mars itself and not on its moons.

The reason for this conclusion is that id have repeatedly said that Doom 3 takes place on Mars (not a mention of Phobos and Deimos!), plus we also know from various interviews that they're shooting for realism - having the bases on Phobos and Deimos is not particularly realistic.

So we assume that the PC Gamer mag journalist who wrote the article about the game taking place on Phobos, just took some liberties and wrote that it took place on Phobos because the original game took place on that moon (and on Deimos).

Ultimate Demon said:

"Fuck that shotgun idea - Doom 3 needs only two shotguns: The single barrel and the double barrel so fuck off with those lame Quadro-mega-ultra shotguns, because they would just be stupid, period. You should rather try and think up some interesting energy cell spending weapons, or some sort of smart mines.
"

I agree with you DSM. DOOM III needs only two shotguns and look what the four barreled shotgun in Gunman do! It's the lmest weapon in the game ever!

Hell yea if I see one more stupid shotgun im gunna fucking flip there soo fuckin gay I mean come on a 4 barrled shotgun??? WTF Do you people have any idea how lame that is. I would seriously not play the game at all if there was something like that done to this game.

999cop said:

Can anyone explain the difference of the way how they function between machinegun and chaingun?

Well from what I know and its really kind if a mixed breed but anyway, the practicle machine gun works off of a spring powered clip, Chain guns are usually used for larger caliber rounds that sometimes caused clip damage and jamming like todays .50 cal "machine guns" lol....so really it dosent mean shit machine gun chain gun all the same thing just usually if you were to have an automatic 20mm cannon well its usually referd to as a "chaingun"

Personally I'd favor the machinegun, but that'd be mostly the feel for it. *shrugs*

ghost said:

...i've always wondered where mr. doom marine keeps all these big heavy weapons. he must have seriously big pockets in that nice green suit.

Like DSM said, they're collapsable. Although them being lunchbox size, I doubt it. We ARE talking about the big guns now. You can only fold something so much. Maybe shotgun size, and marine armor is webbed to carry them all. :)

The only monster that I thinkt that would not be afficted by fire is the Arch-Vile.
Also an e.m.p. granade would be cool. It
would becool if you could rip limbs off when ya get a beserker pack.

ravage said:

Personally I'd favor the machinegun, but that'd be mostly the feel for it. *shrugs*

Like DSM said, they're collapsable. Although them being lunchbox size, I doubt it. We ARE talking about the big guns now. You can only fold something so much. Maybe shotgun size, and marine armor is webbed to carry them all. :)

Then the real answer is in truth that Doom is just a game, which thankfully does not want to be so realistic that it'd be annoying (Thank you id!).

I'd cringe if they made a weapons system where you could only carry an X amount of guns before you'd have to drop some.

I imagine the chaingun and BFG to be collapsible - dunno if the other "high-ranking" guns are made big as dumbtrucks, but since id is...well..id, we'd expect them to make the weapons ridiculously large, so I assume that I'd imagine them as being collapsible too.

dsm said:

Then the real answer is in truth that Doom is just a game, which thankfully does not want to be so realistic that it'd be annoying (Thank you id!).

Although it's still a game, you'd want it to be partially beliveable. :P

I'd cringe if they made a weapons system where you could only carry an X amount of guns before you'd have to drop some.

That would really suck. Although how ROTT did it, wasn't too bad.

999cop said:

Can anyone explain the difference of the way how they function between machinegun and chaingun?

A machine gun would be somethin like a M16, like Tyockell said, with a spring-loaded clip, that's fires fast. A chaingun would be somethin that's belt fed and fires REALLY fast, like that big fuckin gun Jesse Ventura had in Predator.

ravage said:

Although it's still a game, you'd want it to be partially beliveable. :P

Yeah, but not as far as weapon capacity is concerned.

A machine gun would be somethin like a M16, like Tyockell said, with a spring-loaded clip, that's fires fast. A chaingun would be somethin that's belt fed and fires REALLY fast, like that big fuckin gun Jesse Ventura had in Predator.

As Kat has pointed out a number of times in the past, a real chaingun is nothing like the one in Doom and Quake 2 etc.

I don't remember exactly what she said a real chaingun is, but it has something to do with its firing mechanism and afaik, it's nowhere near as fastfiring as a minigun.

Anyway, in the Doom 3 universe, a 'chaingun' is a minigun and a minigun is by far the coolest weapon ever put into an action flick bar none.
Why? Well, here are a few key sentences: Wicked rate of fire that make any other machinegun pale in comparison, cool looks (Six barrels in a spinning drum just looks ...'intimidating'), portable destruction, MASSIVE portable destruction.

As far as functionality goes, a machinegun is basically a typical rapid-fire weapon that fires at between 600-1000 rpm (rounds per minute) - a minigun can fire up to 10000 rpm afaik, but usually fires at 6000 rpm (some miniguns have modifiable rates of fire from 1000 rpm and up to 10000 rpm).
In real life, you can never hope to wield a minigun in a handheld fashion as it is way too heavy (and the recoil is just wicked), but in games, it usually works that way that a minigun has a spin-up delay before it deals out massive damage caused by the highest rate of fire achievable (while keeping it at acceptable sys requirements) in the game, but then it is hard to conserve ammo because it just eats ammo like nothing else.

A machinegun fires at a rapid-fire rate which is considerably lower, thus it deals weak damage compared to a minigun weapon, but you can effectively conserve ammo with it.

In classic Doom, the chaingun is no better than a regular machinegun, but that might be because of tech limits at the time or a matter of balance. But that's gonna be different in Doom 3, where the machinegun is thrown in as substitute for the original, slow-firing chaingun, whereas the new chaingun has become a much more deadly weapon.

I hope that answers your question 999cop.

Getting down to reality, the idea that "energy weapons" (laser, plasma guns, etc) will be used in the future is kinda ridiculous. The amount of energy required to power an armor-piercing laser beam is incredible compared to the tiny chemical energy required to fire a bullet.

Fredrik said:

Getting down to reality, the idea that "energy weapons" (laser, plasma guns, etc) will be used in the future is kinda ridiculous. The amount of energy required to power an armor-piercing laser beam is incredible compared to the tiny chemical energy required to fire a bullet.

Yea very true like 2 pounds of powder to propell a 105mm sabot or 100,000,000 watts for a laser

Fredrik said:

Getting down to reality, the idea that "energy weapons" (laser, plasma guns, etc) will be used in the future is kinda ridiculous. The amount of energy required to power an armor-piercing laser beam is incredible compared to the tiny chemical energy required to fire a bullet.

Realism sucks. That's why Doom will always win. This makes me wonder why you play classic Doom in the first place.

Nitpicky little bastards. :P

Fredrik said:

Getting down to reality, the idea that "energy weapons" (laser, plasma guns, etc) will be used in the future is kinda ridiculous. The amount of energy required to power an armor-piercing laser beam is incredible compared to the tiny chemical energy required to fire a bullet.

It's called technology. What's the ratio in size from a grenade to an H-bomb? Maybe 100 to 1? Now I'll bet the dude that invented the grenade, if he saw an H-bomb, would estimate it could destroy an area maybe a few hundred yards square. Instead it devastates a few dozen miles square. Why? It doens't work the same way as a grenade... In the future, I'm sure we'll figure out ways to generate that much energy alot easier than how we power lasers now. Think.