Pistoleer Archive

---

JawaJoey2 wrote:

Sniper rifles are very powerul (as are rifles in SWG) but they have a strong recoil. You can't tell me that you could run around and pump 6 shots from a sniper rifle into something as fast as you could with a revolver.

Actually you can. If not faster. At least with a semi-auto rifle. A semi-auto has a much faster cyclic rate than a revolver. Mostly because a semi-auto cocks itself. There is less pull on the trigger semi-auto and less distance for the hammer to go.

As for recoil. Recoil is determined bya couple of factors. The power of the cartridge being fired, and the mass of the firearm. Heavier firearms absorb more of the recoil than a lighter weapon of the same caliber.

But if you fired a M1 Garand and a M1D, which a sniper version of the same rifle, you would not notice much of a recoil difference if any. Don't forget, most sniper rifles are based off of regular issue military rifles. You only add a scope and a heavier barrel usually. The rest is polishing internals and some minor differences. They aren't going to effect recoil.

Also, would a Laser have recoil?

And "they are fired slower because...." but the problem is that they're not fired slower in SWG. Even if sniper rifles were as fast as pistols and they are slow because of aiming time, then they are still slow. It doesn't make sense that a rifleman can shoot, nonot just shoot but target the head of the target without taking any noticable pauses. A sniper can't fire every two seconds with any accuracy. But in SWG, a rifleman can fire specials that fast without missing and even while running around.

That would be true IF riflemen were snipers. They aren't. They are infantry.

As for targeting the head while running around. I somewhat agree with you.

As for accuracy while running around and with speed. You also know that is the norm for all the Master levels. It isn't exclusive to Riflemen.

A running Master Rifleman is going to hit at close range about as often asa Master Pistoleer running at long range.

A Master level profession almost always hits their target it seems.

Oh that's real valuable. Rifles get damage speed and accuracy, while pistols get melee defense. NO proffession should be based on defense.

What was the last "uber" template? Wasn't it the defensive stackers? Wasn't this stacking that was the reason for the defensive caps? Defense is a valid basis for a profession.

As it is, most pistoleer defenses are against status effects, but it's not the effects themselves that do damage, so basically all we have is melee defense. So that's only useful close up, but pistoleers should be on the move, and get any closer than 20m to a TKA and you're already dead.And beinga "defenseive" proffession woudln't be useful at all. Pistoleer defenses aren't that great; dodge is our saving grace. If they worked great, then all good defenses would mean would still be "it takes longer for you to die." Yup, that's hwo pistoleers should be. Not the "fast hitting onthe move" prof, but the "Now I'll die slower" prof. Defense is usesless in combat if you can never kill your enemy.

Effects to do damage. Not directly but can very well do it indirectly. Or do you consider suffering from a Dizzy/KD not damaging? Sure you don't take damage from the fact you are laying on your back, but you are vulnerable to any following attacks and with out any offense.

Not a use for a defensive profession? I've already mentioned that defensive stacking was one of the last "uber" templates. Defense is what allows melee to tank. Is that not useful? Do you wear armor in combat? If defense is of no use then why would you wear armor? Defense is very imporant. The ability to avoid or lessen damage increases the suvivability of the player. Ask any Wookiee what it was like prior to use getting the low level armor we now have. Just 75% resist armor means you take 1/8 the damage as someone without it. Wearing some of the rare 90% armor means you take 1/20 of the damage. Yet that isn't important?

As you called it it's the ability to "die slower". How is that not imporant? If you are dying slower, it also means you can attack more. Survivability.

You say Defense is useless if you can't kill your enemy. True. But why can't you kill them? Is it because their Defenses are so high you can't?

Defense is as imporant as Offense. Ask any sports team. What would Football be if no defense was allowed? What if there was no defense or goalie is Hockey or Soccer? No outfield or infield in Baseball?

No, Pistoleer defenses are not great. I've already stated they need to be increased.

Okay, that's just stupid. " So the ability to target a pool is of little value." That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If they're all equal, than it's the most important thing in the world to target a pool, ANY pool. Let's use an example.

Here's monster X. He has 3000/3000/3000 HAM. Here is Carbiner Fred. Fred stargets tha action pool, and 3000 damage later, the monster is dead! Hurray for Fred!

Oh look, another monster X spawned. Here comes idiot Ted. Ted doesn't target any pool. 3000 damage later, the monster has 2000/2000/2000 HAM. 6000 damage later, Ted would have FINALLY killed the monster, but unfortunately, Ted got eaten five mintues ago.

Read it in its full context. Since the MOBs have equal HAM across the board, the ability to target a pool does not matter much between professions. What the proposal is, is to make the pools vary so that it is advantageous for certain professions to be able to attack that MOB. It means that some professions would be at an advantage against certain MOBs.

For example lets take a Snorbl. Being an elephant like MOB it would have high Health, mid Mind, and low Action. Since the Action pool would be about 50% lower than it's advantageous to attack it's Action.

But right now with all three pools about equal it doesn't matter if I can target one pool over the other.

A Pistoleer targeting the Health had no advantage, or disadvantage, then a Carabineer targeting the Action pool. They both have about the same amount of damage they need to inflict.

So now that that is clear, let's move on. Most pistol specials don't target any pool, but the ones that do target the health pool. Both Health and action are easily healed, and almost always buffed, meaning that 500 damage you did is peanuts to that 3500 health pool, and is healed back right away anyways. Rifle specials target the mind pool. These are much harder to buff and take longer, so most people use foods, used to be muon but it's vasarian brandy nowadays. So most buffed mind pools, which are oretty rare, are up to about 1500 maybe. A rifleman can use an awesome special with their high damage weapon and destroy that mind pool. And unless there is a freindly 0/4/0/0 combat medic around willing to sacrifice much of their own mind, that damage can't be healed.

Wrong. Pistoleers have the same number of targeting attacks as a Rifleman. For some silly reason it seems most people think that Rifleman specials target the Mind pool. But like Pistoleers they only have two series that do so. MindShot and HeadShot. That is the same series as HealthShot and BodyShot. The same as ActionShot and LegShot. They are all the same attacks just targeting different pools. All other Rifleman shots are RANDOM pool attacks.

As for healing. I have yet to see a Snorbl Medic. In other words MOBs don't heal themselves exceptfor a few NPCs. So the healing issue is really solely a PvP issue.

As that is a PvP issue I've also addressed that in how the Devs have messed that up. It isn't just a combination of easy of healing. It's also an issue of buffs and armor. Each thing that was added pushed the PvP towards being a Mind issue.

Riflemen target a much more effective pool, no questions there. But this is to be addressed in the Combat balance.

That should read a Rifleman CAN target a more effective pool. But also remember they are not the only one. So can BH. So can some of the melee professions. And yes it will be addressed in the Combat Balance thankfully.

But don't ever ever in your entire life think, let alone speak out loud, that targeting a pool is of little value. That is so incredibly wrong that I even question the presence of a human brain inside or anywhere near your skull.

It was in the context I was using in regards to MOBs currently. As you used in your example of Monster X. It has 3000/3000/3000. Is there a difference between Fred targeting the Action pool compared to the Health pool? No. Either way he is going thru 3000 points. But if Monster X was 1500/3000/2000. Would it be make a difference if he could target Health vs Action? Of course. The point was that being able to target one pool is no more an advantage than being able to target another since they are all basically the same.

If I didn't make that point clear than it is my fault for your misunderstanding. But hopefully it has been cleared up now.

Message Edited by Waste93 on 05-09-2004 04:16 PM

That would be true IF riflemen were snipers. They aren't. They are infantry.

Ah, that's what you want them to be, but that is exactly what Carbineers are meant to be. Riflemen are meant tobe snipers. Everyone, including the Devs, seems to realize that except for riflemen. In your picture of Rifleman, they are as powerful as they are now. Running around, guns blazing, the shocktroops and basic powerful units of any battle. Tell me if I'm wrong there. I assume it is on account of your extensive use of the word infantry and apparent knowledge of military and combat and similar subjects. But that's not what they should be.

---

true_Kieran wrote:

I think there is a bit of misunderstanding between you. Now Waste, lets draw the lines to rl again. When you say you can run and fire a M-16, sure, ever soldier does. But look at some of the Rifles you got in SWG, some of them are more of a M-60 than a M-16, and when you try to run and fire this gun, if you are able to "run" with it at all, you get a high chance to kill everything within the area, including yourself and your teammates, and if your target is the first who gets down then that's just plain luck.

---

Yeah. I think some people have different views of "rifles." When I think "rifle" I think "sniper," and I'm pretty sure that's what the devs intended. I never thought of rifles as "assualt rifles" when apparently Waste thinks that that's the obvious conclusion. In terms of SWG/RL equivalents, "Rifle" in SWG doesn't at all make me think of, or is anyway similar to the m-16 assualt "rifle." If I thought of a SWG equivalent for the M-16, ti would undoubtedly be a carbine. Fast but heavy and powerful assualt weapons. That's what Carbiners (not riflemen) are in SWG.

T21 doesn't equal M16

Assault equals SWG Carbine

Sniper Rifle equals SWG Rifle

That may opinion, but I think it's the majority opinion and certainly is the opinion of the devs.

---

JawaJoey2 wrote:

Ah, that's what you want them to be, but that is exactly what Carbineers are meant to be. Riflemen are meant tobe snipers. Everyone, including the Devs, seems to realize that except for riflemen.

No. It's the other way around. It's not that Rifleman don't want to be snipers. Just that is isn't possible.

Range is limited to 64m. This is in now way sniper range. Snipers set up at long range so their target has a hard time telling where the shot came from and to help the sniper hide from counter attack. Also the distance allows them to get away if spotted and prior to the enemy closing.

What are some of the others? Camo? In PvP there is none. You can see and be seen by everyone.

In your picture of Rifleman, they are as powerful as they are now. Running around, guns blazing, the shocktroops and basic powerful units of any battle. Tell me if I'm wrong there. I assume it is on account of your extensive use of the word infantry and apparent knowledge of military and combat and similar subjects. But that's not what they should be.

Riflemen are not shocktroops. They are basic infantry. Shocktroops is the role of the Carabineer. Shocktroopers are to assault and are basically a close range variation of infantry. But because of their role they are generally equipped differently. They are equipped with carbines and SMGs. Weapons that serve well in the closer ranges that the the assult troops find themselves in. Their weapons are smaller but have rapid fire.

One single proffession alone couldn't have good enough defense to be untouchable.

Agreed.

What you said abotu defense in general is true, I'm denouncing it, of course you have to have a good defense, but I was refering to Pistoleer defense in comparision to offense, that's the part you missed. As it is, Pistoleers can't nearly match Riflemen in DPS, and as a defensive proffession wouldn't be able to make use of the time given by defenses they might be given. You have an image of balance, which is a good thing, but your image is a balance of offense and defense within the ranged proffessions(Rifle= Offense, Pistol=Defense, Carbine= middle). Everyone else thinks of it as a balance of speed and damage (Rifle=Damage, Pistol = Accuracy, Carbine= middle).

Balance isn't achieved just by comparing damage and speed. There are other factors that apply. The ability to cause status effect is one. The ability to avoid damage is another.

Your balance only relies on offensive power without taking into account defensive or things such as status changes that can tilt the balance of power.

But most importantly on this issue I believe is the plain and simple fact that nobody wants Pistoleers to be the Defensive proffession. You are the first person I've ever met to think that. In your mind, Pistoleeris a "anti-melee" proffession, while Rifleman is an all around, powerful, accurate fast firing proffession. That isn't what pistoleers want, and it's not fair to imagine that for Riflemen while making Pistoleers are stuck being tanks. We want offensive balance.

Ah. But does what you want really matter? You've already said what the Riflemen want doesn't if the Devs decide otherwise. How is this different?

What role do you see for the Pistoleer? Look how I've described balance. It's about professions have roles. Advantages unique to them. Situations that they are better at than others. The role of the Pistoleer is the ability to fend off attacks.

Why isn't it fair to make Pistoleers being tanks as you claim but it is to make Rifleman something they can not be?

Ah. You want offensive balance. But what about defensive balance? What about status change balance? Pistoleer defenses right now are much better than the Carabineer and better than the Rifleman. Should we make everything equal then? Then what is the reason for a profession? Wouldn't we just be the same profession with different graphics and titles?

You are looking only at offensive balance. I'm looking at overall balance.

People who use pistols don't want to be stuck with crappy offense just because you think they should be defense. People who want pistols should be able to use pistols for offense as effectively as any rifleman.

No. If true then there is no differences. Only the title and what you see on screen in your hand.

If they want to be defense, they could pick up fencer, if they wanted to be more offense, they could pick up Bounty Hunter. Simple as that. Your idea of what we should be wouldn't go over well with any of us.

And could I not say the same to you? If you want more offense pick up an offensive profession.

You're right, I did misunderstand you, but its not really your fault. And my point was mainly for PVP. But Ifail tosee why some creatures need to be more vulnerable at certain pools. What would that accomplish? All I can see is shrinking the list of targets for each prof to 1/3 what it used to be. And who's to say who gets what creatures? If something with a low action gave great XP, that gives carbiners a leveling advantage. It would very easily cause major balance issues and agruments, and make the game less fun to play, and I see no benefits whatsoever to changing it like that.

It adds tactics and it gives advantages to taking professions. Right now lets say a Carabineer and a Pistoleer go for a Snorbl. Same Health and Action amount means there is no real difference to them using their pool attacks. But what if it was different? Snorbl would have low action. So it makes sense for the Carabineer to target it. But what about the Pistoleer? It has high health. It may make more sense to use a random pool attack with a higher damage potential. Since you will be doing more damage and have a chance to hit one of the weaker pools.

As for balancing the MOBs I don't think it would be to difficult. Most creature types have a low/mid/high version. And the XP gained is based on the difficulty of the creature, not by types. So high level MOBs have about the same XP yield. And there would be MOBs at every level that were weak in one of the three pools.

Yeah. I think some people have different views of "rifles." When I think "rifle" I think "sniper," and I'm pretty sure that's what the devs intended. I never thought of rifles as "assualt rifles" when apparently Waste thinks that that's the obvious conclusion. In terms of SWG/RL equivalents, "Rifle" in SWG doesn't at all make me think of, or is anyway similar to the m-16 assualt "rifle." If I thought of a SWG equivalent for the M-16, ti would undoubtedly be a carbine. Fast but heavy and powerful assualt weapons. That's what Carbiners (not riflemen) are in SWG.

Which is why I think to many people get their idea from playing first person shooters instead of reality. You will not find a major military that does not have the rifle as its main firearm for the soldier. All militaries use assualt rifles as their weapon. That isn't argueable. Snipers make up a very small percentage of combat troops. Less than 0.05% easily.

But that is real world. Lets talk SW. What is the standard weapon of the Storm Trooper? It's a carbine. But Storm Troopers as shocktroops. They are assualt. They are Carabineers. They are made for close range combat. Look at the Snow Troopers and the Alliance during the Hoth battle scene. Lots of rifles.

T21 doesn't equal M16

Agree. The T21 based on SW literature is basically a high powered machine gun.Not a weapon favored, nor issued, to snipers.

Assault equals SWG Carbine

Agree.

Sniper Rifle equals SWG Rifle

Agree. However, all sniper rifles are rifles. However not all rifles are sniper rifles.

That may opinion, but I think it's the majority opinion and certainly is the opinion of the devs.

True. Though the view that Riflemen should be snipers may be the majority view, it is not the majority view with the Riflemen community. The community that knows the profession best. Remember, it isn't that Riflemen are opposed to being snipers, its that because of the game mechanic limitiations put in, it isn't feasible.

For sniper to be feasible we would have to greatly increase their range. At least double it. They would have to increase rifle damage. Remember the sniper motto is "one shot, one kill" and they would fire slower. The slower rate has to do with aim time, not with sniper rifles firing slower. They would also have to remove all AoE attacks from Riflemen. Snipers don't spray fire. They would also have to reduce the long range accuracy of all the other ranged professions. Right now they all hit the accuracy cap at max range at Master. They would also have to have the ability to camo and remain unseen for a couple shots at least. For sniper to work that is a bare bones start. But it would also destroy any semblance of balance. Especially since we have professions instead of classes. If they increase range for rifles I could snipe you at long range. By the time you got into your range you are injured. But I could then switch to pistol. Normally this would be an even fight (given same level in Pistoleer). But I've already hurt you for ranges you can't reach. What are your odds? What are the odds for a melee?

The main complaint about Rifleman is that they are overpowered. Yet if Riflemen become Snipers, then we have to make them truly like snipers do we not? That means the ideas I mentioned about. That will acutally make snipers MORE powerful than they are. Remember, the Sniper is the single most cost effective soldier on the battle field. What was the amount of ordinance expended by the US during Vietnam per casualty? It was measure in tens of tons if I remember correctly. The sniper was at 1.5 bullets per confirmed casualty. How do you add something that effective and still attempt to have balance?

Yes it is also the view of the Devs. Something Riflemen are going to be fighting against. But isn't the view of the Pistoleer as a defensive template also the Devs view? Just look at your branches. Lots of defenses. It seems that view is held by the Devs too, not just me.

Message Edited by Waste93 on 05-09-2004 06:42 PM

---

Raptor2k1 wrote:

Not to pick at you post or anything, but I just found it kinda funny that commandos are the ones with the shocktrooper title. Maybe that means we'll get assault weapons eventually *(speaking as a commando, not a pistoleer mind you )?

---

---

JawaJoey2 wrote:

Yeah, they've been asking for an E-web for a while.

Yes and it makes sense.

I only see a very fine line, if any, between your differences of Carbine and Rifle. Could you please explain exactly what you mean by Infantry and Shocktrooper? You say "close range" but as you'll readily agree, pretty much all combat is "close range" comparitavely. So how would a close range variation be different? These shocktroops sound a lot like your Infantry, where's the class difference and balance there?

I think we can agree that the basic military combat unit is the infantryman. But within infantrymen there is subgroups. One is snipers. You also have grenadiers and such.

Shocktroops are also a variant of infantrymen. They are infantrymen but with a specialized task. That task is usually high risk entry situations like encountered by SWAT teams. Another is assaulting fortified locations or ships. A good example is the opening scene in SW A New Hope. The Stormtroopers cut thru and board Leia's ship. That is a high risk and close quarters situation. In WWII the Soviet Guard units were equipped with SMG's. Entire units. That means they had to get close to be effective and where their high rate of fire was better suited than the long range of the rifle.

Now that is the real world examples but how does that translate into SWG? First lets look at the weapons. They are smaller and lighter. So their ideal range is the middle band. They would be more accurate at close range than rifles and more accurate at long than pistols. They also put out lots of firepower. That is shown by AoE attacks. It also accounts for their status change attacks. It's to keep the enemy off balance.

Infantry is an overpowered and unrealistic goal for Riflemen. Granted, sniper is too in a sense, You're saying that Riflemen should be something that

Why is the goal of being infantry overpowered or unrealistic. Infantry is the basic unit of military combat.

No. Nobody thinks that. Where are you getting that? Why do you think that? How does that make any sense? Whoactually agrees? The abilityto fend off attacks? No! Why would you say that? Andbalance isn't onlybetween offense and defense. They game will be more fun and better balanced if offense is balanced also.

But you can't. If you balance offense then you would also have to balance defense. If you don't you would have this. Pistols, Carbines, and Rifles all doing the same dps correct? But Carbines would have more status effects changes and Pistols would have more defenses. Is that balanced overall? No it isn't. So you would have to balance those factors to. Which means you end up with three professions exactly the same. Same offense, same defense, same status effects. Only difference is graphics.

Which is why I argue for circular balance. Remember how I said change MOB to high HAM in one pool, then a mid in another, and weak in a third? Circular balance is the same as that. But we are using offense, defense, and status changes (also known as combat multipliers) instead. So one has say high offense, weak defense, and low status effects. Another would be high defense, mid status effect, and low offense.

I agree that Riflemen can't be true snipers, but it's the idea of snipers: Lot's of damage

You agree riflemen can't be true snipers. So why push for something that can't be done? The Devs want snipers because it's expected from people playing other games. You'll almost always find snipers so gamers expect that option whenever firearms are available. But because of the limitations put in it is also impossible in this instance.

I agree that carbineers shouldget more status changes and everything and some should be more defensive than others, but themain differences in classes should be the different aspects of offense.And how is differentiating offensive strong points "all the same." Different specials, different pools, different damage, different speed.I sayoffense should be balanced more. You say that by doing thateverything would be equal. What?You're missinga stepin your logic there.How is balancing stuff amking everything the same? Asitis now, there is a huge difference. Riflemen are good at everything, Pistoleers suck. [That's was an oversimplified exageration, so don't try to use that as a point against me]. If we balanced offense more, then the game would be more balanced, not everyone equal.

No. How would you balance offense? Is it to give everyone the same damage over a set time? That would factor in raw damage and speed and accuracy. Is that how you are thinking of balancing offense? If so lets say you decide that the damage over a minute should be 5000 units. I'm just using that number. So adjust everyones speeds and raw damage and such to equal that number. The specials would be different but that doesn't matter. The damage over time is the same. For everyone. That's how they all end up being the same.

Riflemen are not good at everything. Hit them with a status effect and it will stick to them more likely than a Pistoleer. I was in the Geonosian cave the other day. When you try to get to the first door there are some of those enhanced Kwi. I watched a Master TKA decimate them with almost no damage to himself. He was fighting two at the same time. I tried to get passed two more and got torn apart. I did little damage to them though I was using the Riflemens best attack and it was AoE. I only escaped by gettin to the control room in that dungeon where they couldn't enter. So no, Riflemen are not good at everything.

I know. That's exactly it. The greatest differences between classes should be offensive, of course with some other differences as well, but you seem to be mainly talking about balancing defense and offense.

I'm seeing a contradiction here. You earlier said offense should be balanced. Now it sould be the biggest difference? I'm talking mainly about overall balance.

I guess that might make things a little more interesting, but overall I'dthink it'd just be more annoying, and hardly worth the trouble. I really don't see any reason to be so enthusiatic about the idea.

But it would be great for groups. Want to go take out those Night Sisters? Well they have lots of mind but low Health. They also use lots of Force Powers and status effect attacks. Makes sense to get some Pistoleers in your group then. Want to take out Snorbls? Invite some Carabineers since they have low Action.

Decent melee defenses and good status defenses don't make it an effective defense proffession, and hardly signify that the devs want pistoleers to be that way. Maybe someone else can find a quote on the Dev's view on Pistoleers, but I doubt it's "the defensive ranged proffession." Logically, there's no reason using pistols should be more defensive. You are the only person I've ever heard that thinks Pistoleer should be and is defensive. Most people would agree that pistols are fast and light. In fact, I'd like to see what people said if asked, "What should the major differences between the ranged proffessions?" And if the Dev's do think that, I have a feeling that "Pistoleers shouldn't be tanks" will go over a little better than "Riflemen shouldn't be snipers."

Actually why I think Pistoleers should be the defensive template of the ranged professions is the same reason you gave for what most people think of Pistoleers. Fast and light. They are carrying a smaller and lighter weapon. This allows them greater manuevarability. Movement is a great defense in combat. Also based on my circular balance view there does need to be a defensive range profession. So of Riflemen, Carabineer, Pistoleer, Smuggler, Commando, and BH. What better choice than Pistoleer? Smuggler isn't a complete combat profession. Commando is heavy damage. While the BH is lots of offense and variety. Riflemen are basic infantry or pseudo-long range (I refuse to call 64m long range). Carabineers are the AoE and status effects. Based on my circular balance view there has to be the defense profession. Can you point to another ranged profession and say it makes more sense for them to be the defensive anti-melee profession than Pistoleer? Look at some of the Pistoleer skills. PointBlank and MeleeDefense. Those fit in with my view do they not?

As for using pistols not being more defensive you are wrong there. Pistols are inherintly a defensive weapon. Not an offensive one. That is why you see cops using them but not infantry. Officers use to carry them not for attacking, but to signifiy their role of leadership. The early officers were to busy trying to control their own troops to use weapons. But they had to give them something for emergencies. Vehicle crews also carried them. But it was more of a weapon of last resort if they had to abandon. No, the pistol IS a defensive weapon.

---

true_Kieran wrote:

Waste you still almost only talk like a rifleman. 90% of everything you say in here is to defend of what you think rifleman is or should be. I'll be honest enough to say: I don't care! Because it doesn't matter at all in here! We still are in the Pistoleer Forum, we are here to talk about pistoleer, if rifleman is mention in here, then it's to compare, not to discuss what it is.

How can you compare if you don't know what it is?

I would like to ask you something, are you a rifleman with some pistoleer skills or a rifleman and a pistoleer? Take your time to think about it. If it's the first, I think you may indeed be at the wrong place, if it's the second, which I hope, then try to leave your rifle at the door when you come in here. Most of your suggestions base on a new system which most likely will never bring the balance to the game it should, I think we both know that. We will most likely never get a system where a defensive combat class is balanced to high damage combat classes, by the way, we can never be the tanks, because that's what melee professions are for.

I'm both. But because we are discussing balance we do have to discuss everyone.

That's where we disagree. I don't think there can be balance using any other system then the one I've explained. Because of the ability to pick and choose skills.

You are correct in stating that Pistoleers can't be tanks compared to melee professions. But they can be compared to the rest of the ranged professinos. They can also fill the role as the anti-melee profession of the ranged professions.

And bottom line is my friend, since you like to draw lines to rl, the bullet from a pistol is as deadly as the bullet from a rifle as long as it hits and every armor has it's weak points and as a combat experienced person, you have to know theses weak points, therefore in rl I would have no problem killing an armored person with a pistol, all of this is fact.

Wrong. Modern body armor has ratings. The lowest rating are those that protect against pistol rounds. Lets also remember than only one bullet resistant vest has ever failed in the US vs a weapon it was rated against.

Cops wear body armor. It will stop almost all pistol ammo. It will not stop rifle ammo. Why?

Rifle ammo is fired at a much higher velocity than pistol ammo and it is usually smaller. This translates to greater penetration value. It's also how a sabot round works.

Now as for damage. Both rifle and pistol ammo is deadly. But rifle ammo is overall more deadly. The higher velocity gives it greater distance. So it is deadlier than a pistol round that bleeds off velocity over range. Rifle ammo with its higher velocity also creates a greater shockwave as it passes thru the body. Remember that the body is mostly water and we both know how shockwaves like to travel thru water.

---

---

Waste93 wrote:

You are correct in stating that Pistoleers can't be tanks compared to melee professions. But they can be compared to the rest of the ranged professinos. They can also fill the role as the anti-melee profession of the ranged professions.

Certainly not. Making a close ranged combat an anti-melee profession takes away the hole sense of melee professions. A ranged professioned character can take out melee characters at long range, a melee professioned character can take out a ranged professioned at melee range, that's how it is, how it has to be and always will be, not matter if you like it or not.

Wrong. Modern body armor has ratings. The lowest rating are those that protect against pistol rounds. Lets also remember than only one bullet resistant vest has ever failed in the US vs a weapon it was rated against.

Cops wear body armor. It will stop almost all pistol ammo. It will not stop rifle ammo. Why?

Rifle ammo is fired at a much higher velocity than pistol ammo and it is usually smaller. This translates to greater penetration value. It's also how a sabot round works.

Now as for damage. Both rifle and pistol ammo is deadly. But rifle ammo is overall more deadly. The higher velocity gives it greater distance. So it is deadlier than a pistol round that bleeds off velocity over range. Rifle ammo with its higher velocity also creates a greater shockwave as it passes thru the body. Remember that the body is mostly water and we both know how shockwaves like to travel thru water.

I see you misunderstood me. It doesn't matter at all how strong this armor is. Cops wear body armor, most use bullet proof vests, this doesn't make a headshot less deadly at all. Even the armor used by SWAT teams doesn't protect every since part of their body, because it's not possible! A suit of armor protecting your hole body for 100% will leave no possibilities to see, breath and move. Even the composite armor has it's weak points.

As for Rifle ammo, I have a hunting rifle myself and several books about rifles and pistols, I doubt you will be able to tell me much about it that I don't know yet. The ammo of a rifle is not more deadly, because it just can be deadly or not. Both are deadly as long as they hit their target where they should.

And by the way, the lowest rating does notprotect against all pistol calibers.

---