Rifleman Archive

Let my try to explain it using something other then guns. Maybe it will make more sense. Hold a brick, get into a fight with someone I don't care what they use a sword, a club, a stick and defend yourself as best you can as well as putting up some kind of offensive. Ok now hold a cinder block and try the same test. You will be hit many more times while holding the cinder block then you would be holding the brick. You might even win using the brick due to being able to move better and put up a better offense, heck you might even win. No sarcasm intended here but does this make more sense? Why should someone holding a pistol take the same amount of damage as someone holding a rifle? That is my question to you. I really do want to know so please reply. Thanks

Jer...

Again, stop talking about real life. We want a explanation regarding balance in the game. Tell us one good reason (for balance purposes) that a pistoleer should take less damage than a rifleman during melee.

And I'm talking about the GAME, not real life.

Bricks???? Cinder blocks????

You're still not getting it...

A couple of other points and then I'll shut up cause I'm tired of this argument....

• If a martial artist is going to hit something connected to me very hard, I want it to be my rifle.
  


• If I'm going to smash something of mine into his face, I'd rather it be a rifle butt.

Joy and Wayne,

You are asking for a rational explanation of something in a game. That is just not a realistic request. In Knights of the Old Republic for X Box another Star Wars based game. You go through the charecter creation, developement, and play style based on the type of charecter you made. As a Scoundrel you don't have the same abilities as a Fighter. Your defenses and attacks are different. Then based on the weapon and armor you choose your defense rating can go up or down. You are able to defend youself better with a Light Saber then a regular sword, being a Jedi in both cases. So in SWGI feel that youare taking a penaltyto your defensive capabilites depending on the weapon that you choose to use at any given time. Is thisa better explanation that you could accept?

we should get some special move up close called rifle rifle butt or something. Where we take our rifle and just wack the **edit** outta the other guy. I mean pistoleers get pistol whip. We should get the same basic thing.

Wayne, I was a soldier, I was trained in close combat rifle fighting. Our rifles had bayonets though. We were also told to use hand to hand if needed. The scenario of men running forward rifles in handwith fixed bayonets is a very good example. Watch that movie again after the initial butt strike to the head or groin or whatever, you will see alot of them start to wrestle with the enemy, then pull out the knife they have in their boot and use the knife fighting techniques they were taught. But if I was using my sniper rifle and my spotter and I got ambushed you bet I would pull out my side arm and fire at them. I would just roll over on my back place both hands out slight bend in my elbows and aim as best I could being much more accurate then trying to pick up the rifle andget a pot shot off. But with my last post I used in game reasons as to why I had the opinion I did thats all. You can agree or disagree either way no big deal.

Hey Joy have you ever been in combat with a Rifle? Ok maybe if you are military and were taught how to use it but lets go one step further. Have you ever gotten into a fight up close melee range 1 meter with a sniper rifle in you hands? Well since the answer is no let me tell you, to swing a 17-22lbs Barret .50 cal sniper rifle at someone close quarters would be ludacris. Not only would you not be able to pull the trigger with any accuracy they would just stay in close, pull a knife or a pistol and end your life. On just about any standard size rifle your arms are just not long enough, if the person is right up on you, to get that muzzle pointed at them and keep it on them long enough to pull the trigger. So it is VERY realistic that we suffer a huge penalty when in melee combat with a rifle in your hand. Pull out a sword, a combat knife, a pistol, etc. something other then a rifle and you just might last longer. So yes throw the rifle down and put up your dukes.

The accuracy penalty isn't the point.

So someone is attacking you with a sword. What's easier to block the sword with, a rifle or a pistol? So why do pistols only take a 1.1x damage increase when hit by a sword but rifles take a 2.5x damage increase?

Sure, the pistol can shoot the swordsman while the rifleman can't, fine, but it doesn't make sense that pistoleers also take less damage when hit by a sword. Do pistols generate a magical force field that somehow dulls the edges of swords or what?

I agree. I can see our accuracy going down the toilet at close range. There's just no room to aim with a big gun in close combat (except for the spaystick. How dida rifle class weaponend up looking like a can of mace?) I can even see putting a defensive penalty on us, since, theoretically, we are not use to close combat. But where did they come up with the idea that a sword will hurt me more if I have a rifle in my hands than if I have a pistol? Maybe there is an unseen magnetic field that our rifles generate that pulls the sword in at a much quicker speed, thus cutting us deeper?

Jer_Jedi...

Have you ever fired a laser before???

Lets talk about the game and not real life.

Just like Pecos said, why do pistols and carbines "absorb" more damage than a rifle?

make it real hard for me to hit someone with my rifle at short range (already that way), but even in REAL LIFE, it would be plain stupid for me to throw down my weapon.

To me this whole thing isn't about how hard it is to fight in combat. Sure,a rifle is, theoretically heavier than a pistol and harder to swing than a pistol (but so is a 2 handed sword compared to a survival knife). I can totally understand there being a negative to defense and no ability to hit the target (which I really think is the best solution)... but what I don't get is that if I stand still holding a rifle and let someone hit me, it hurts more than if I stand still with nothing in my hands and let them hit me. To me, that's the real issue and I just fail to see the logic.

I think everyone is arguing over the ability fight close quarters with a rifle and I really don't think that's the main problem. The problem is some mystical reason why what you have in your hands determines whether you just got slugged by Peewee Herman or Mike Tyson.

You try to block a sword with a 6" stick. I will try to block a sword with a 4' stick.

Let's see who does better.

The designer's intent was clear: they wanted pistols to be better against melee than rifles, but believe it or not, even professional video game designers can totally screw up a system. They aren't all knowing gods and sometimes they implement things wrong.

This is one good example.

Pistols are already better at point-blank range because their accuracy doesn't suffer as much as a rifle's. That much is good and realistic. Throwing in this damage difference was an extra, unneeded measure that throws balance out of whack. They should simply make it a 2x damage modifier across the board for pistols, carbines and rifles.

And let me speak for my swordsman half (I'm a rifleman/swordsman) when I say that this impacts brawlers more than riflemen. For riflemen, it's merely a sad testament to poor balance, that we are so vulnerable when pistoleers are not. For swordsmen (and all brawlers), the fact that pistols do not take much extra damage means we can rarely beat them in a toe to toe fight, even if they're nice enough to stand still. This needs to be changed, if not for the sake of balancing riflemen, then for the sake of letting brawlers work as intended.

Simply put from a game point of view or a realistic point of view this is ridiculous

Game

Rifleman does less DPS, has the same maximum range as every other ranged profession and takes a 2 times damage modifier once somebodies in melee range. Anyone who can't see imbalance here needs there eye's tested.

Real Life

There is no case in real life where someone has been injured twice as much from holding a rifle, simple. Also rifles aren't exactly as unwieldy as a cinder block. Also i can accurately fire a rifle at something anywhere between 2-100 metres away without a sight and standing. Given the option at point blank range of sticking a rifle against my enemies chest and pulling the triggeror dropping it and facing him hand to hand i think i know which i'd choose. All this and i certainly wouldn't consider myself worthy of the title sniper.