Rifleman Archive
Thread: Where did the idea of rifles being slow come from?
fromanxxxx wrote:
I think the problem is that, in real life, rifles are better than pistols in almost every instance. I really dont think any solider would pick a sidearm over a rifle, and this leads to a problem. How does one balance two classes, if one of them is inherently superior to the other?
-Ockam
I would agree except for a few points.
British SAS teams use glock (19sI think) pistols and MP5 SMGs. When it comes to infiltrations, the pistol is used primarily for the use of double tap. It is a lot more accurate at close range and a lot easier to control then the assault rifles that typically used by American teams. Of course, the assault rifles will be better at long range and in terms of fire power.
On topic, I would agree. I guess when people think of rifles, they think of WWII when rifles had a very small magazine and manual cocking was needed for each round.
Zadokk wrote:
fromanxxxx wrote:
I think the problem is that, in real life, rifles are better than pistols in almost every instance. I really dont think any solider would pick a sidearm over a rifle, and this leads to a problem. How does one balance two classes, if one of them is inherently superior to the other?
-Ockam
I would agree except for a few points.
British SAS teams use glock (19sI think) pistols and MP5 SMGs. When it comes to infiltrations, the pistol is used primarily for the use of double tap. It is a lot more accurate at close range and a lot easier to control then the assault rifles that typically used by American teams. Of course, the assault rifles will be better at long range and in terms of fire power.
On topic, I would agree. I guess when people think of rifles, they think of WWII when rifles had a very small magazine and manual cocking was needed for each round.
All special forces use MP5's and various pistols. However, those are compact weapons primarily used for close quarters combat within an enclosed area like a house or other similar structure. Up close and personal their relatively small take down power is maximized and very effective (and can be silenced much more easily) but over longer ranges have been known to be stopped by thin aluminum and even heavy clothing (hollowpoints and denim dont mix). Outside in the open those same special forces feel...lacking if having to use those same weapons as their main weapon as opposed to something with much more kick. There's a reason Navy SEALs still like to use the old M-14 as a support rifle. A 7.62mmx54 clears through small tree trunks that 9mm's would bounce off.
As far as rifles being slow, i agree with a previous poster. Except for the TK anomoly melee weapons are scaled according to damage and speed and therefore people associate that same model with ranged weapons. If its fast it supposed to be light damage and if its slow its supposed to be heavy damage. But then again, those are melee rules, and melee rules shouldn't apply to ranged weapons.
Reardo wrote:
I've thought of this several times, just never got around to posting anything about it, but where did the idea of rifles being slow come from? Rifles are in reality relatively faster than a pistol and there is no difference in speed between pulling a trigger on a pistol as opposed to a rifle. Generally speaking, heavy weapons are more often than not faster than pistol sidearms with a few exceptions. So, has this misconception come from a gaggle of individuals who have no experience with real firearms, and why do so many people agree with it?Decreasedaccuracy at close rangeis another strangemisconception - I know I can hit a target at 10 meters with a rifle just as easily as I can with a pistol, whichis generally less accurate than a rifle anyway. Any idea where this started? Was it just from the other ranged professions?
As to the original poster, I would have to say that I believe it was a balance issue. As far as I know, the devs orignally planned something like this:
Pistols - Low damage, High speed, Short range. A get in there and mix it up type of ranged profession.
Carbines - Medium damage, Medium speed, Medium range. The middle ground. Would also be used as "crowd control" by way of the state-attacks
Rifles - High damage, Slow speed, Long range. The Riflemen would keep at a distance, landing critical shots every so often as well as performing the sniper shots.
While this criteria is not really true to life, it would have at least served to balance the game. Sure, the Rifleman could hit harder than the others, but it would be at the cost of rapid fire. Not terribly realistic, but it would have worked...in theory.
I believe that the devs originally wrote up the Rifleman as a sniper. The only way to make a sniper "fair" in this type of game would be to give them crappy defenses and a slow refire time. The slow refire speed would presumedly encompass the Rifleman looking through their scope to line up their nextlethal shot. In real life, mostly all automatic longarms can fire faster than pistols, but as we all know, real life rules do not apply here.
As for the weapons themselves, we can't apply real life principles to them because these guns don't actually exist. Most of the technical data I've seen on Star Wars guns describes them as "blaster" based weapons. The guns are loaded with a "power pack" of blaster gas which acts as the weapons ammo magazine. The trigger is pulled, and a burst of gas is released into the reaction chamber. After becoming excited, the gas moves into a focusing canal (the barrel of the gun) where it is propelled forward in the shape of the blaster bolts that we see in the movies. These guns are NOT lasers, according to the literature on them. They are some type of gas/energy weapon, whereas a laser would be based on light.
The common themeseems to be that thepistols use a smaller burst of gas to fire, which would thereby equate them to being less powerful than say a rifle or carbine. I think I'd heard something saying that if like...a DL-44 power pack could give the pistol 40 shots, it might only give 20-25 in an E-11carbine...a rifle would naturally sap the powerpackeven further, perhaps only yielding 10 shots. The carbine would hit harder, but would expend the ammo quicker. It can be theorized that the larger guns, using up more of the gas per shot, might need to cool down. Or perhaps the reaction takes longer, given the fact that a more powerful bolt is being produced.
Regardless of comparisons to real life, the original ranged weapons idea would have worked for striking a balance in this game, but sadly the combat system is broken on a number of levels. We can only hope that the Upgrade will clear everything up without any nerfing involved. We shall see.
Zadokk wrote:
On topic, I would agree. I guess when people think of rifles, they think of WWII when rifles had a very small magazine and manual cocking was needed for each round.
As for WWII. Of the five major powers in the war. Three had semiautos in use. The US more so than the others with the M1 Garand (8 shot clip). Germans had the G43 (or K43) (10 shot detachable clip) and the Soviets had the SVT40 (10 shot detachable clip). One thing to note, is that of those that had semiauto, their bolt action weapons had less shots (5 shots) than the semi-autos.
The British did use a ten shot detachable magazine with their bolt action Lee Enfields. But generally, the bolt action weapons carried about half as many rounds.
That is also ignoring some of the special automatic rifles like the BAR and the AVT40 that were also used. Though they were used more like light machine guns than rifles.
Gooney wrote:
It comes from the simple fact that aiming a rifle takes significantly longer than aiming a pistol or assault rifle (carbine).
-Gooney
An Assault Rifle is not a Carbine. It's a Rifle. Hence the name Assualt Rifle. Nor do Rifles take longer to aim than a Pistol or Carbine.
Aim time is determined by range to target. Not really by the weapon in hand. Firing a Rifle, Carbine, or Pistol at a target at 25m will take about the same amount of time. The reason is that they all use about the same sighting system.
Generally you have a couple sighting methods. You havea peep sight like that used on the M16A2 Assault Rifle which is exactly the same as the M4 Carbine. Or you have the three posts as used on most pistol which is very similar to the dovetail (blade)sight of many rifles.
At the ranges we are using in SWG you wouldn't bother with a telescopic sight. Which is what would greatly increase the aim time. But also the accuracy. However you could use a dot sight system. Which makes it even faster to aim than using just the iron sights. These usually have low levels of magnification if any at all. Just put the dot on the target and fire.
Gooney wrote:
BrerLapin wrote:
¬.¬ Looking at realworld examples youll notice that all automatic weapons can fire at the same baseline of 600 rpm (Its a functional standard) this is because its agreed. The MG-34/42 & AN92 can fire much faster to better effect for specific roles. The difference between SA, Auto, etc isnt applicable to DEW's so ....
We have an equal ROF for all weapons all things being equal.
Saying it takes longer to aim a rifle is redundant, because after the first shot your lined up & can fire repetively from a stabler base assuming you are suffering recoil an unlikely event as your firing a DEW.
So what your actually saying is it takes longer to line up the first shot & tbh thats dependant on range. It takes longer to aim a pistol at distant target than a rifle, which would affect the ROF (now dependant on the abstract aiming principle) significantly.
If all ROF's were equal & ammunition infinite youd be better holding down the fire button & lining up the target as thers no need to worry about ballistic effects. As for pistols this actually eliminates the rifles advantage. As a Pistoleer could guide his shots onto the target more effectively at range than aiming across the smaller line up zone of his sights (Explaining the scope on Hans DL-44)
However since this is a game that uses RPG mechanisms to emulate real world effects, they should have put some thought into the mechanism dictating aiming, ROF, accuracy of the weapon & user & enviromental effects beyond the rather limited Range, Stance, Special,Weapon Spd & Target Ranged Defence.
Therefore their idiots.
Dont even get me started on the 11 hit locations system in a damage system comprising of Health Action & Mind ¬.¬
Look man, ROF has nothing to do with Weapon Speed in this instance.
I said it once Ill say it again. Its an abstraction of native weapon speed + aim time...its a simulation. Aim time meaning the shortest time you need to hit a target at your weapons optimal (NOT POSSIBLE) range.
And dont try to tell me that a 30.06 has the same ROF as an M16, it doesnt and it cant.Real world weapons have very specific uses. Theres a reason Police carry 9mm pistols and not M16's.
AIM time has everything to do with it if your setting up a balanced gaming system.
So real world examples not withstanding a general "Rifle" will have a slower weapon speed than a general "Pistol", NOT because you can physically send ordinance down the barrel faster in either one, thats only part of the equation. The ability to actually hit something at that ROF is the most important aspect.
A pistol is faster because you dont need to aim for 2 or 3 seconds when the target is 15m away. With a rifle you can not shoot that fast and still realiably hit your target (at 100m+ or whatever game distance)...unless you are somehow superhuman or an elite sniper. Even then they dont shoot that fast.
It is simply illogical that a rifle would have the same INGAME speed as a pistol.
-Gooney
A couple of points for you slick..........
1- Most Police departments carry .40 S&W, not 9mm (9mm is underpowered)............ALSO they carry pistols for ease of motion. When they have to go into a combat situation the rifles come out (SWAT teams carry pistols...AS A LAST RESORT)
2- At 15m you don't aim, you POINT!!!!!!!!!! rifle, shutgun, pistol, slingshot, spitwad..........at that range you don't aim.
3- All semi-automatics have the SAME FIRE RATE (as fast as you can pull the trigger)
4- In a combat situation aiming has little to do with speed (if you're hunting you have you rifle shouldered or your pistol drawn)
A) Because it is in balance sense, what needs to be done. Heaviest hitters need to hit the slowest, or other wise they would get overpowerd.
B) Your talking about futuristic weapons, so you can't compare to now adays tactics and weapons. A laser rifle probably has to use alot of energy from the energy pack to hit as hard as it should. Therefore the rifle has to cool down, and the rifle's computer won't let you overcharge the rifle shot...so in that case, a rifle is slower.
RemoMoxey wrote:
A couple of points for you slick..........
1- Most Police departments carry .40 S&W, not 9mm (9mm is underpowered)............ALSO they carry pistols for ease of motion. When they have to go into a combat situation the rifles come out (SWAT teams carry pistols...AS A LAST RESORT)
2- At 15m you don't aim, you POINT!!!!!!!!!! rifle, shutgun, pistol, slingshot, spitwad..........at that range you don't aim.
3- All semi-automatics have the SAME FIRE RATE (as fast as you can pull the trigger)
4- In a combat situation aiming has little to do with speed (if you're hunting you have you rifle shouldered or your pistol drawn)
/applaud
Good points, my friend. Most people don't that stuff into account because they have an extremely limited understanding of firearms and the tactics behind them. I wish I'd brought them up, but you beat me to it
The only time that aiming a rifle takes me longer than aiming a pistol is when I'm sighting in a scope on something at 300 yards 
Other than that, I can aim any one weapon about as fast as I could the other. In fact, I find it easier to aim long guns than I do pistols, mainly because the longarm become a part of your body. My eyes seem to take to the sights more readily than with a handgun. Pistols will always have greater ease of motion though, as you said, which is why they're useful in a CQB environment...it has nothing to do with "aiming speed" as some people like to think.