DerekPaxton DerekPaxton

Fallen Enchantress: Weapons

Fallen Enchantress: Weapons

There are currently 124 weapons in Fallen Enchantress including 17 base weapons.  The base weapons are the normal weapons you will encounter and equip your armies with.  One of our design goals for FE was to make every weapon valuable and distinct.  So there is a reason you may want to use a broad sword instead of a mace, or a spear instead of a dagger.

To accomplish that we needed to add more depth to weapons, they needed to be differentiated by more than their attack rating.  The following table is the weapon stat spreadsheet in the editor (where it breaks down the base weapons so I can compare and tweak numbers).  There is a lot of new information in this sheet.  But the primary information I wanted to show is the stats on the comparisons on the individual weapons.

Type- This is the damage type of this weapon.  Armor has the ability to have different defense values against different damage types.  Plate mail is better against blunt weapons and chain mail is better against cutting weapons.  The elemental types are also damage types so magical weapons can do fire, lighting, cold or poison damage, and magical armor or items can provide defense against those attacks.

Armor Piercing- This means that they negate 2/3 of the opponent’s defense (spears, pikes and yew longbows).  They are excellent against heavily armored opponents.

Strength Mod- This is a modifier to the amount of unit’s strength bonus.  100 means it doubles their strength bonus (the massive Maul is deadly in the hands of Trog units).  Shortbow’s negate the strength bonus entirely (you don’t get to use your strength bonus when using a bow).

Production- How much production time the weapon adds to the units train time.  Improvements can decrease this time (having a weaponsmith in the city) and are a good idea when you are considering building large groups of units with advanced weapons.

Weight- Weight limits are used in FE.  This is the big reason why you don’t simply want to put the best armor and weapons on all your units.  At some point you will have to decide if you want that huge maul or tower shield or full suit of plate mail.  Especially if you are playing as the Wraiths (base stats are faction specific in FE, so the Trogs can get away with more equipment than other races).  Mounts also increase a units carry capacity so another reason you may want to invest in mounts (besides the increased movement) is to be able to use more armor and bigger weapons.  As mentioned in an earlier designer journal you can give traits to units you design, so if you want to make heavily armorer unis with big weapons, prepare to add some traits for strength (as compared to the other cool things you would add with traits, it’s all hard decisions).

Combat Speed- In FE on each combat tick all units get to add their combat speed to their initiative.  When they get to 100 initiative they get an action (this is all behind the scenes, in game players simply see a queue of units in the order they get actions).  The higher the combat speed the more frequently the unit gets to act, and it allows us to be more granular about creature speed.  The base speed is 12, but weapons can affect speed so that a unit with a dagger will get more (ie: if you are a heavy spell caster, carry a dagger or a staff, not a Maul).

Those are the base weapons, but that’s only the start.  Now that we have more depth in what weapons can do we can really go wild with them for magical weapons.  We are creating a dangerous world and we need reasons for the players to risk their units exploring it.  One reason is to find magical equipment.

We added Staves that make spell casters more powerful, swords that do lightning damage based on the wielders level, bows that do more damage vs beasts, etc.  We have a unique great sword that is stuck in one of our elemental lords (good luck getting that one).  We have weapons that poison victims they strike, Slag Teeth that are like short swords with increased crit chances, the Druss Blade that ignores armor, etc.

There are common, uncommon, rare and unique weapons.  There are a lot to find and we want players to be discovering new ones as they play and replay the game.  We won’t have Diablo style drop rates (you won’t be swimming in magical equipment).  Instead we want every magical weapon you get to be something special and interesting.  You should have a few to spread around to your champions by the mid to late game, and you can share them with units that can use them best or pile them all on one champion so he becomes even more powerful.

And this is open to modding.  There are a lot of bonuses to give, and they can be impacted by things like the wielders level (as in the sword that does +1 lightning damage per level of the wielder), only have their bonus apply against certain creature types (this is part of the conditional gamemodifier work we did for traits), vs damaged units, vs units with a higher or lower specified stat, etc.

But my favorite ability is that weapons can apply a spell when it strikes an opponent.  This came out of the requirement to be able to have weapons that poison opponents.  Instead of simply applying a poison effect the weapon applies a spell, so we have the capabilities of the entire spell system open to us for what weapons can do (more about all the new spell functionality later).  Weapons can blind opponents they hit, they can weaken them, they can curse them, whatever the modder wants to make a spell to do, the weapon can apply.

So if you started reading this article and thought that 124 weapons was a lot of weapons, it’s only a fraction of what the game can do and the interesting things we can create.

 

295,165 views 164 replies +2 Loading…
Reply #51 Top

Very good, I like all that. Maybe it's going to make the game a bit complex for people used to the usual straight forward system "bigger weapon bigger damage", but who cares. TBS are made for hardcore gamers anyway.

Sounds like FE will be really interesting!

Reply #52 Top

Quoting Austinvn, reply 49

Quoting RFHolloway,
reply 48
would actually be better if this reduced initiative and defense


I'd hesitate to include any way of ever reducing an enemy's initiative. Keep in mind he needs initiative to take any action; if you can take away enough of his initiative often enough, there's the possibility of locking an enemy down such that they never get to act, which just isn't fun for anyone involved.

Really anything that reduces the number of decisions you get to make - including reducing the number of actions your units get to take - is something I'd rather avoid, it's more interesting to reduce the effectiveness of those actions or counter them somehow, without taking away the unit's ability to do something.

No different to what a web does now (but it is the reason timetwister/timewalk are restricted or banned). So I agree it requires careful balancing - as a first attempt you might not want to create anything that reduced an enemies initiative by more than the inititaive it took to perform the action.

The mechanism reminded me of atlantica http://atlantica.nexon.net/ which had an interesting combat and crafting system and some other nice features (like being free). 

Reply #53 Top
This is great news. Really looking forward to seeing this in action. Um...when will that be again? Release date is Summer 2011, are we still looking towards that timeframe? :)
Reply #54 Top

Sounds very promising. k1

 

Now to the nitpicking.

 

Armour:

As has been mentioned by others, plate armour doesn't protect very well against "blunt" weapons. Especially since blunt weapons like the war hammer and maces were developed especially against plate armour. From a balance perspective, the best armour, plate, doesn't especially need a bonus, while the weakest doesn't have one.

IMO changing, plate to have no bonus would be a good thing, since it's strong enough without the need of having a bonus. If it needs a bonus, it would be against cutting, since it's almost impossible to cut through a sheet of solid metal.

Since that is the same advantage mail armour has, I'd suggest expanding mails defense to cutting AND pierce, since, as long as the pierce is not in an almost 90° angle to mail or from slow velocity weapons, piercing mail is very hard to do.

Overall this would mean, that leather is the cheap armour, that doesn't need metal resources. Mail is the goto armour against most weapons (majority in your list is cutting and pierce) while plate stays the best overall.

 

Weapons:

- Axe and battle axe are classified as a cutting weapons, but they should be classified as a blunt weapon. You don't cut with an axe, you slash through armour and anything beneath it with its curved head. You could even slash through plate armour with enough force, which isn't possible with normal cutting swords. Especially late era battle axe was made to be used against plate armour.

- Bows, all bows are very similar, just getting stronger. Especially short bows should be much faster weapons then longbows. Also, that bows don't get strength benefits is very counterintuitive. Contrary to popular believe, bow warfare doesn't need much dexterity, since arrows were shot in volleys without aiming at individual targets. Strength on the other hand is very important for using the bow, since depending on the bow, sufficient strength is necessary to draw the string back. Thus the strength of the wielder of a bow directly influences an arrows velocity, possible flight distance and power on impact.

- Maul. Fun thing about the maul is, that it sometimes was an archer weapon. It was used to build fortifications against cavalry, ie. sharp sticks hammered in the ground which protected archers against cavalry charges and thus a readily available secondary weapon for archers to melee with. It's ok in a fantasy game though. :)

- Spear. A spear is not a 2 handed weapon. Actually, a spear is almost always used with a shield. Ie. the popular shield wall. Spears are shorter and lighter then pikes, which ARE exclusively 2 handed weapons. But a spear, almost never.

As for piercing, daggers and war hammers should be classified as piercing too. Daggers, with their small crosssection can pass through mail and often through plate (where the plates come together, ie. at the joints, not through the metal itself ofc.). War hammers were designed to be plate armour piercing, which imo is the definition of armour piercing. ;)

On the other hand, spears and pikes... don't think they really can pierce through armour very well, since the weapons head usually was way too large though have enough force in a small area to breach armour.

Since slashing weapons would then be countered by 2 armour types, you could increase their values slightly.

 

Conclusion:

With that, broadly speaking, slashing would be useful against leather targets, piercing and blunt against plate, blunt against mail. Sounds like an ok balance to me then.

 

Sadly one important aspect can't be simulated with this weapon system, that certain weapons have intrinsic bonus against other weapon types. For example pikes are really really good against almost all infantery and cavalry since almost no other weapon then another, even longer, pike can reach them. But they just die to missile weapons, since they are unable to carry shields. Also if a pike unit gets outflanked, it's soooo dead. 4m long pikes in a tight formation has a turn rate that is really abyssimal.

But it's allready a much better system, so I can live with that.

 

Oh, and a small thing. Please call chain, mail instead. The name of that armour type is mail, the chain in chain mail only came much later. ^^

 

TL,DR:

Leather, good against nothing

Mail, good against, piercing and cutting

Plate, good against cutting

Axe, Battle Axe, blunt weapon

Bows, get strenght bonus

Spear, 1-handed

Dagger and War hammer, get armour piercing

Spear and Pike, lose armour piercing

Reply #55 Top

Agree with most of what Vandenburg is saying. However, I don't see why mail should get a special bonus against piercing. Sure, if the angle is really bad, then a piercing weapon would probably glance off. But if it hits within a reasonable angle, then those linked chains will provide virtually no deflection and the joints are not powerful enough to stop a blow which has it's force concentrated in a very small area. The whole point of a pointy weapon - if you'll excuse the pun - is to concentrate the force of the blow in a single spot. Unless the armor can divide that impact along a larger area like Kevlar, then it's likely to be pierced.

Reason why piercing weapons don't dominate is because you can't put your weight behind the blow like you can do with a swinging attack. Best weapons against plate armor would be weapons that have a small point of impact but are swung. Pick-axes, warhammers with a spike at the end and such. Those weapons are rather poorly balanced so are slow to use.

Long story short, I would stick with mail and plate both being good against cutting. Plate would be overcome with either high damage value (maces, hammers and such) or armor-piercing weapons. Which incidentally usually happen to be of piercing type as well.

Reply #56 Top

Quoting Vallu751, reply 55
Agree with most of what Vandenburg is saying. However, I don't see why mail should get a special bonus against piercing. Sure, if the angle is really bad, then a piercing weapon would probably glance off. But if it hits within a reasonable angle, then those linked chains will provide virtually no deflection and the joints are not powerful enough to stop a blow which has it's force concentrated in a very small area. The whole point of a pointy weapon - if you'll excuse the pun - is to concentrate the force of the blow in a single spot. Unless the armor can divide that impact along a larger area like Kevlar, then it's likely to be pierced.

Reason why piercing weapons don't dominate is because you can't put your weight behind the blow like you can do with a swinging attack. Best weapons against plate armor would be weapons that have a small point of impact but are swung. Pick-axes, warhammers with a spike at the end and such. Those weapons are rather poorly balanced so are slow to use.

Long story short, I would stick with mail and plate both being good against cutting. Plate would be overcome with either high damage value (maces, hammers and such) or armor-piercing weapons. Which incidentally usually happen to be of piercing type as well.

Mostly agree.  IMO Plate armors should be completely useless except by exceptionally strong individuals.

Anyway, great work Derek.  Looking forward to the testing phase.

Reply #57 Top

True, there isn't really a reason why mail should be good against piercing. I was just thinking that both plate and mail having the same bonus was boring. So, a gamey reason with some handwaving explanation. :blush:

 

Quoting mqpiffle, reply 56
Mostly agree. IMO Plate armors should be completely useless except by exceptionally strong individuals.

Hm... full plate mail is what, 15-25kg the whole set, depending on metal quality and thus thickness of the plates. That's not so bad imo. Modern soldiers often carry even more weight.

I personally would love if the availabilty of plate would be governed by its producing costs. Full plate is pretty expensive to make and also requires some advanced smithing technology.

Ie. mail is very time consuming to make, but only requires experience by the artisan making it. Plate itself requires a high understanding of metallurgy and smithing with an ever longer production time, making it very expensive.

Though it would require some fine economic balance, often expensive stuff is just too easy to get.

Reply #58 Top

For the first time after the launch, I feel something like actual hope for the future of the game, instead of theorical hope.

More depth, and stuff that makes sense.

At last! Color me intrigued and moderately hopeful at this point. Now if we could only get a non-linear, interconnected tech tree too.....

Reply #59 Top

Looks good!

I hope that the factions will be truly different and NOT just minor things that Trogs have + STR, Wraiths + Dodge & DEF, Altar + Cunning....

To begin with, I want to see the Trogs Demon, an elementalrace?(that are supposed to be bigger & stronger then other fallen) REALLY be bigger and stronger like Orks compared to Goblins.

And for the love of ME, stop talking so much about realistic armors, Warhammers etc....Most of us don't care!

Reply #60 Top

The main thing I noticed from the stats given is that ranged weapons might have to long a range and are too similar. How long many squares are there are on the battlefield? You should actually have to worry about positioning your archers, not just sit them back and snipe from the other side of the map. With shorter range you would have to worry about bringing them forward in attacks and protecting them.Much more strategic and cool.

Also just one tree of ranged weapons is kinda boring. How about some slings, javalins, crossbows, and throwing axes. Would really spice up ranged combat. Slings and javelins could be cheap short range one-handed weapons, thus you could design skirmishers. Crossbows could be shorter range and slower then longbows but more damaging and armor piercers. Throwing axes could be two-handed super short range weapons, they would use strength instead of dexterity. So strength heavy races like Trogs would use them better.

Reply #61 Top

I think Vandenburg has it right, at least about historical bows/strength and plate armor. 

But if we have magic attack/defense we may not really need much with different physical damage types.  I bitched about this way back, but the slash/pierce/blunt setup looks like a carryover from GalCiv 2's 3 damage types.  GalCiv2 needed them because it didn't have the other distinctions like magic/physical or even ranged/melee.

Agree wit dsraider that it would be nice to have slings, javelins, crossbows, etc.

Reply #62 Top

Quoting Cruxador, reply 29
Bows are still just each one better than its predecessor. There's no reason you would ever use a shortbow when you can use a yew longbow. It's just straight-up improvement. The weight increase is not important, because archers don't need heavy armor anyway. Longbows should, at the very least, be made something which cannot be used mounted.

Furthermore, "Yew Longbow" is boring. Surely it could be replaced with a composite or recurve bow? At least those would differ in more than material.

I also think that bows could use more variety.  How about a crossbow?  I'd like to design me some Malazan marines, with explosive ammunition!  Having different kinds of arrows / crossbow bolts is another way to increase the variety.  How about poison tipped, flaming, or magical (only the silver arrows can kill Ganon)?  Maybe that's something the modders can look into.

In any case, I am very excited after drooling over this latest post! FE looks like it's going to be something special.  Keep the good news coming Stardock!

Reply #63 Top

Quoting Campaigner, reply 59
I hope that the factions will be truly different and NOT just minor things that Trogs have + STR, Wraiths + Dodge & DEF, Altar + Cunning....

If a race's strength determines how much equipment they can equip, it would alone be enough to make for a diverse setup. For example if Trogs were able to carry heavy armour and a shield (big shields are very heavy) AND a two handed weapon while another race only could equip either heavy armour or a heavy weapon but not both at the same time.

Or let's say, Ironeers get a weight bonus for metal equipment due to their proficiency with smithing. All stuff made out from metal is 25% (rounded up) leighter for them. Imagine that the weight allowance from strenght which isn't used, ie. "free weight" gives a movement bonus. So, lightly armoured units (which carry not that much weight around) are faster, but heavy armoured Ironeers would also be faster thanks to their bonus.

You can do tons of stuff with just messing around with strenght and how it influences the carrying capacity of races.

Knowing Kael's track record from Fall from Heaven, I don't have doubt that the races will have meaningful differences. :)

 

Quoting Campaigner, reply 59
And for the love of ME, stop talking so much about realistic armors, Warhammers etc....Most of us don't care!

That's why I said its nitpicking. :P

A bit more seriously though. Blunt being bad against plate armour, is as if in GalCivII, point defense would have been good against lasers and shields against rockets. Would it have made a difference in game balance? Not at all. But for a certain part of us gamers, it would have been an annoyance and not understandable.

Imo, if you can reach get accuracy, without having to change game balance and making big time investments necessary, go for realism. For those who care about that stuff, it makes the game easier to understand, since they can use allready existing knowledge to asess situations, for those who don't care, it doesn't change a thing since balance wise, it's pretty neutral. Also the time investment isn't that great to change it, as it often is the reason to keep stuff simple and unrealistic (Unrealistic meaning here, against certain laws of physics which usually are true in those fantasy settings. Ie. yes you can make the grass lila in a fantasy world and explain it with "a wizard did it" but you have to ask yourself, is it necessary and for what reasons, or would it be ok to keep it green and thus help the player more easily understand and connect to the fantasy?). (/Pet peeve rant)

 

Quoting Lord, reply 61
But if we have magic attack/defense we may not really need much with different physical damage types. I bitched about this way back, but the slash/pierce/blunt setup looks like a carryover from GalCiv 2's 3 damage types. GalCiv2 needed them because it didn't have the other distinctions like magic/physical or even ranged/melee.

Don't think so. In GalCivII you essentially had 3 weapons, with only their power increasing. Older weapons were always inferior to newer ones.

The question is, how do you want to classify and differentiate weapons. You can make it simple, by two stats as in the orginal E:WoM, by power and production costs (mainly), which is very simple but usually means that only the newest and most powerful weapon gets used. Or you can try to make every weapon somehow useful, to give each weapon a niche. To accomplish that, you can differentate them by power, speed, cost, reach, etc. The problem of that approach is, that a lot of those stats are kinda arcane and not that intuitive when taken together. Differences in power are easy to understand, but is a 10 attack, 3 speed weapon better or worse then a 12 attack, 1 speed weapon against that unit with 5 defense?

Weapon (more correctly, attack types) have the benefit of being more easily understandable, when applied consistently and in a meaningful way. I.e. powerful enemy has plate clad units? War hammers or maces brings them down since those are blunt weapons. Or enemy units armed with swords arrive? Use more heavily armored units against them. Bows? Units with a shield gets a 50% block against them.

Imo this is more interesting, then having an unit with a shord sword that is a bit faster, but does slightly lower damage then a warhammer. Ie. more meaningful differences instead of having small differences through number crunching. :)

 

Quoting ErikCurre, reply 62
I also think that bows could use more variety. How about a crossbow? I'd like to design me some Malazan marines, with explosive ammunition! Having different kinds of arrows / crossbow bolts is another way to increase the variety. How about poison tipped, flaming, or magical (only the silver arrows can kill Ganon)? Maybe that's something the modders can look into.

Imo different types of arrows could more easily be made with unit traits instead of equipment. Flaming arrow all 3 rounds, Ice arrow all 5 rounds, etcs. sounds like nice traits you can outfit your units with.

 

Reply #64 Top

One thing I definitely want to see weaponwise, is for you guys to have so many rare weapons/items, that even if I play the game for 3-4 years, I'll only see half of them.

 

I want to be surprised.  The absolute best games have the ability for you to come back to them years later, and still find something new.

 

 

Reply #65 Top

Quoting Tim4fun, reply 27
Kudos. Having the spell-effect linkage is a good win for a request that's been on the site since very early beta. 

I'm privately questioning the prioritization of this as one of the areas to get high attention. I would have prioritized: massively improved magic book genre diversity; improved magic book interface; many more spells with reasons to choose them; adding meaningful race distinctions; ensuring the start of the game is always unique; improving the occurrence of magical events (see my other posts); improving the use of the shards to make them more relevant;flight and those kinds of unit specials; all of these seem to be higher priorities than this...?

I do agree that massively improved magic book gentre diversity is probably critical and all the rest you list. But I not crying over what they did. Could be worse things to prioritize. Given all the changes they made so far, I am expecting them to make changes on the same scale for all the rest, if not I'm going to be really really disappointed...

I still think the MoM method of different units having different weapons/effects is a well balanced way to give options without having to overwhelm the player with endlessly slightly-varied options. 

 

Yeah, I think the system sounds cool, but may not be as fun to most people as they think. But it can't be worse than the original system. 

 

Reply #66 Top

.

Reply #67 Top

Please: Are there reasons why / why not a system much like the one outlined here can NOT be implemented in EWoM (say, 1.3 or 1.4)?

Reply #68 Top

Quoting onomastikon, reply 67
Please: Are there reasons why / why not a system much like the one outlined here can NOT be implemented in EWoM (say, 1.3 or 1.4)?

Um because it would take so much game engine rewriting that it would pretty much be FE, if it was even possible. Why do something so complicated twice? Just be happy it will be in FE.

Reply #69 Top

Quoting Kadrium, reply 66
I'm kinda disappointed we'll be going with a rock/paper/scissors system with cutting/piercing/crushing.

Honestly so am I, though some rock/paper/scissors is not necessarily a bad thing. In the most general case, rock/paper/scissors balancing can help formulate well defined distinctions between weapons and armor. However, the stronger these advantages are the more formulaic combat becomes, which can make tactical combat slowly become boring as the game progresses. Yet, at the end of the day, if I am not happy with tactical combat, there will be a FE version of the updated weapons mod, which will be able to take advantage of both the new trait system and the on hit system for weapons.

Reply #70 Top

Quoting Kadrium, reply 66
I'm kinda disappointed we'll be going with a rock/paper/scissors system with cutting/piercing/crushing.

May I ask why?

I'm just glad there will be a system period. Right now there's no unifying design theme with respect to weapons.

Reply #71 Top

To add on about magic, diverse paths.. I just read the interview....

 

Derek Paxton: and number 3. Magic

we want cool spells, big spells that change the world and reward players that focus on the magical side of the game. It is a game where a power spellcaster with lots of sotred mana should be able to assault empires almost on his own. FE will let you do it

 

I'll believe it when I see this, hope this doesn't become one of those.. big massive epic TC type promises :P

 

 

 

Derek Paxton: 

as an example, something that has been rmeoved. The enchantment spellbook. I dont like it. The spells do the same thing as buildigns. They should be buildings and they should be rewards for players that focus on infrastructure, not those that focus on magic

Hmm....

 

[Comment From reuelkb ] 

Will spell casters be able to specialize in certain areas of magic?

Derek Paxton: 

as to spell caster specialization. yes, spell casters will have to specialize in different types of magic. Its about making hard choices.

More details please. Specialization means?

 

(a) Same spells but faster to get/cheaper to cast?

(b) Same spells but more powerful (+20% damage)

(c) Access to other spells that you dont get without specialization (trait?)

 

 

[Comment From Jason ] 

How will starting choices of stats / traits / faction affect style of play in FE?

Derek Paxton: 

starting traits are big in Fe because the game starts much faster

Derek Paxton: 

sovereigns have spells from the start (depending on the traits they selected), which forces a hard choice between creating that war machine, leader (choosing traits that give bonuses to other units in your army), empire (choosing traits that boost your kingdom) or a powerful caster

Sounds promising, but can we ensure all 3 methods are roughly balanced? Spells from the start are nice, but currently has it stands it's not very viable to go all  magic and say you want to focus on magic, either as a killer mage type soverign that goes around killing stuff in close range using spells or as a empire type mage, throwing around MOM type global enchantments...

 


 

 


Reply #72 Top

Good stuff!

If this level of detail is carried over to all aspects of the game, FE is going to rock.

 

Getting more and more excited. :grin:

Reply #73 Top

Quoting kenata, reply 69

Quoting Kadrium, reply 66I'm kinda disappointed we'll be going with a rock/paper/scissors system with cutting/piercing/crushing.
Honestly so am I, though some rock/paper/scissors is not necessarily a bad thing. In the most general case, rock/paper/scissors balancing can help formulate well defined distinctions between weapons and armor. However, the stronger these advantages are the more formulaic combat becomes, which can make tactical combat slowly become boring as the game progresses. Yet, at the end of the day, if I am not happy with tactical combat, there will be a FE version of the updated weapons mod, which will be able to take advantage of both the new trait system and the on hit system for weapons.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the highlighted portion, but I believe that the more 'specialized' (i guess by that I mean having specific bonuses and detriments) weapons, armor, spells, items, and skills are - and become later in the game - the more interesting the late game becomes simply because the character cannot be great (or even good) at everything.  The more the game designers force a a character to become specialized, the more replayable the game becomes as well.

Reply #74 Top

Excellent stuff here :). Very good to see weapon specializations. Next, we need a magical item that lets us make our own specialty weapons ;).

Reply #75 Top

Well I imagine modding in tons of new special weapons won't be hard at all. Before the game even gets out of beta I imagine you will see a extra special weapon mod. However, if you mean in game then from what I have seen it's unlikely.