Ethical hits just wrong.

[wombatvvv]

Wolftracker, yeah I agree with you mate. BTW, I live in Sweden too (although from Australia). I'm in Stockholm, where are you?

Hawkeye, I think if they just put a bit of thought into it they could come up with a much better solution. For example. I want to start a new suggestion thread on this too (don't shoot me), but to give a rough idea, they could make camo clothes partially effective in all areas (and I mean all - because they are), and then very effective in the specific region they were designed for. People would still buy more stuff, because most people aren't satisfied with "pretty good", they want the best!

Bright red Christmas jumpers (to pick one example) should have a massive negative effect for camouflage (yes, even for Reindeer) but a decent scent reduction, sound reduction and good cold protection. They could hold competitions for "best Reindeer shot wearing a Christmas jumper". People would still buy them just for the appearance and the fun anyway.

Jackets, jumpers, gloves, etc. should make you over-heat in warm areas (louder breathing, more unsteady gun control if you've been running around a lot), which would give people an incentive to go out and buy the "cooler" version of the same camouflage clothes for different maps.

The same stuff goes with the guns and calibers. Handicap them in believable ways. Why are there so many calibers on offer in real life? There's a reason and a use for all of them.

Anyway, there's lots of different stuff they could do to entice people to spend money in the store, and I have zero problem with them doing that, but they should do it smarter and that would be good for everyone, including them. We would get a hunting game with a bit more authenticity, and they wouldn't have so many people complaining on Steam that the game is a money-pit and "pay to play" and all that stuff they write. Of course, some still would. But when it's so obviously designed to make you buy stuff (e.g. camo clothes have zero effect in one forest and excellent in a forest on another map), it can be off-putting. Better for everyone involved if it were not, if it were just designed with a bit more thought.

[Roger_Mellie]

I've suggested this on the Steam forums re the nonethical weapon structure

Ok some countries have varying regulations; to replicate those in game could be tricky. But we are on the EHR so that's all fine. My suggestion is that the ethical weapon system is done away with apart from some obvious exceptions re use of .22 air rifle. .22LR, and possibly the .223 rifles. Otherwise it's your choice what you shoot and what you shoot it with. However there needs to be some penalties associated with overkill and underkill, otherwise no one would buy more than one or two weapons as Hawkeye says. My suggestion is that you only get a full kill point for your Hunterscore count and weapon skill progression if you get a 100% harvest value. If you get less or don't harvest the animal then you get only that fraction, all the way down to zero if you don't harvest it at all.

If you overkill and blow a fox apart with a .340 round - you'll only get a fraction of a point towards your weapon skill and Hunterscores. So think twice.

If you 'underkill' and stick a 6.5mm into a bear you have to chase until it's down to zero % harvest score you have wasted your gaming time. So don't do it.

Maybe this would still get players to use the right sort of weapon on the whole thus promoting sales? However, so many players have got where they are on the current system and are going to say keep the status quo... there are occasional issues around disappearing tracks/animals too that may lead to occasional 0% harvests through no fault of the player. Although it might encourage more careful shooting, suggestions that hit boxes and accuracy can be random at times could again deter any changes for the player base. The other reason for choosing the right weapon for the job can be expense - shooting squirrels with a .300 could get expensive but this factor isn't really replicated in the game.

Just thoughts - and yes my thoughts are full of holes and flaws, but I was just thinking out loud

[AngryBadger]

I can sort of see where EW is coming from though. They want to sell rifles, and rightly so, they need to make money. To be honest, even in real life there are discrepancies when it comes to legal calibers. For example, the 9.3x62 is considered a big game cartridge by most people, and in some African countries it can be used on cape buffalo, but not in South Africa, because here our parks board has specified the .375 H&H magnum as the minimum caliber for any dangerous game. On the other hand, there's no law stopping you from using that .375 to take out jakals, only the law of economics that says a jakal is not worth spending the silly money on a 375 H&H round just to blow it apart.

Penalties in scores will not stop some people from buying only one powerful rifle, and using it on everything, which is probably what they want to prevent. I mean if you could use the 340 for everything it would make sense to do so. It's powerful, shoots flat, and when you hit something it stays hit, so I'd love to use it on deer lol.

[wombatvvv]

I actually really like Roger's idea. I disagree AngryBadger, I reckon penalties probably would stop people from buying only one powerful rifle. They'd have a massive handicap in competitions, for example. And let's face it, if they're not concerned with their scores, and they're not entering competitions, how much money are they going to spend on TheHunter anyway? If that's their game, there's nothing stopping them buying massively over-powered weapons and going rabbit hunting right now. They just get a 0 score and an angry letter from Doc.

[Hawkeye]

I actually really like Roger's idea. I disagree AngryBadger, I reckon penalties probably would stop people from buying only one powerful rifle. They'd have a massive handicap in competitions, for example. And let's face it, if they're not concerned with their scores, and they're not entering competitions, how much money are they going to spend on TheHunter anyway? If that's their game, there's nothing stopping them buying massively over-powered weapons and going rabbit hunting right now. They just get a 0 score and an angry letter from Doc.

Do you not think a handicap in competitions would be perceived as much or more of a "money grab" than the current design? "Pay to win" they'll say.

[wombatvvv]

I actually really like Roger's idea. I disagree AngryBadger, I reckon penalties probably would stop people from buying only one powerful rifle. They'd have a massive handicap in competitions, for example. And let's face it, if they're not concerned with their scores, and they're not entering competitions, how much money are they going to spend on TheHunter anyway? If that's their game, there's nothing stopping them buying massively over-powered weapons and going rabbit hunting right now. They just get a 0 score and an angry letter from Doc.

Do you not think a handicap in competitions would be perceived as much or more of a "money grab" than the current design? "Pay to win" they'll say.

Some pelicans will always say that.

But I don't think as much in the case because you can pull the moral high-ground on them. No, not pay to win. We just don't support shooting bears with a air rifle or blowing foxes into flying red fluff with buffalo gun. We're "ethical" here!

[Kosanderi]

No, not pay to win. We just don't support shooting bears with a air rifle or blowing foxes into flying red fluff with buffalo gun. We're "ethical" here!

I'd like to add that it's not just what one is shooting but also why...

If animals are hunted for their meat or skin or both there are not that many options that are useful for a specific animal. For varmint hunting the rules are bit different. So e.g. I don't know if people eat foxes or use their skin for something now days, but if they are shot mainly as vermins then I don't see any harm using 300 WM to shoot them. Using a light bullet like 168 grain Berger VLD going over 1000m/s (3280fps) makes sure that even a slighty bad shot will take the animal down instantly by literally blowing it up. Shooting a roe deer with 300WM for me however is bit of an overkill.

[Roger_Mellie]

Kosanderi

you make a good point about real life shooting but on EHR we can pretend a little? So in my head I see that every time I shoot a varmint, Doc will want to buy the pelt off me to make a nice coat for someone, and he would like the pelt without two large holes in it!

NB, in the UK, .22LR is occasionally used for foxes at close range with those confident for a headshot; without derailing this topic, is that common elsewhere in the world?

[Margarita888]

EHR is a trophy hunting reserve, isn't it?
I mean it makes sense that we are not allowed to blow foxes or rabbits into 4 paws grabbing on the ground still, when trophies are evaluated.

[wombatvvv]

I'd like to have a "why" too. But I suspect the problem as far as gameplay goes it that it will end up having the opposite to desired effect. If you "get something" for every kill, it will turn into a shoot-everything-you-see type game. There's probably some clever way around it, but I can't think of one.