Rifleman Archive
Thread: Melee penalty: Rationale please?
So, I get myself a trusty spraystick for some rapid fire, closer range support. I'm very excited about this because I'd ultimately like to drop pistols from my template. Anyway, while out running around and using my new trusty sidekick, I get HAMMERED by any melee attack from mob.
Which leads me to ask a question that's probably been asked and answered (but I'm kind of lazy today): what's the rationale, be it real life or balance oriented, that justifies the melee penalty for simply holding the weapon?
I can understand getting hamstered when we're prone; the image of my character kicking and flailing away at my attacker while I'm on my back seems reasonable enough. I can even accept have a range penalty for trying to whip around the long, heavy weapon at close targets. I cannot, however, get my mind around the idea that when someone hits me in the legs (or head), it hurts me more because of what I have in my hands.
So, to paraphrase Craig Kilborn, "What up?"
There isn't one, plain and simple.
Ony option we have at the moment is to unequip the rifle and go bare fist... better odds.
Or as I did pick up Two-handed sword, works great in conjunction with the rifle; Head shots for rifle finnish up with one or two mind shots with the sword.
I feel the same way...Why?
It makes no sense?
I to have to unequip my rifle and start punching and kicking...
We already have the short range penalty...isn't that enough?
The melee penalty is to give meleers a chance against ranged weapons in combat.
The part that doesn't make sense is that this penalty is higher for riflemen than it is for pistoleers. Riflemen do not do more damage than pistoleers, we actually do less, we do not get knockdowns, we do not get defense vs knockdowns.
I think our next letter to the developers should contain this bullet:
- We request that all ranged weapons be given the same penalty when being hit with melee weapons. There is no current justificationfor pistoleers to get a 1.1x damage bonus against them while rifles get a 2.5x damage bonus against us -- this has created an imbalance. We suggest you make it a 2x bonus for all ranged weapon users being hit by melee.
I personally agree with the bonus. Without it, there would be no use whatsoever for brawler classes, but the fact that pistoleers have almost no penalty defeats this. It has created a ranged class which is not vulnerable to melee. It makes riflemen fodderous compared to pistoleers and we don't have any bonuses to offset this.
Our bonus is mind damage and a tendency towards armorpiercing weapons, which is already offset by our significantly lower damage-per-second and lack of defense and knockdowns. If they're going to give us more penalties, we need more bonuses.
Not true Pecos...
We get a huge disadvantage up close already...We miss!
With that being said though...I'm not against having us take more damage in melee, but not at it's current level. Anything that would make me have to put my weapon away in a FIGHT is ridiculous.
You're right though. Whatever the penalty, it should be the same for all ranged weapons.
Yes I have fired a laser before. But it was a laser sight on my one pistol. This is the rationale for it. Now it makes sense why you take more damge while in close combat because you are more encumbered, not as easy to block or defend yourself with the rifle in your hands, and the way they show this is by the added dmg. A carbine being smaller then a rifle easier to defend with but still kinda bulky. A pistol pretty much no encumberance what so ever to keep it in your hands while fighting in melee range. So don't take this the wrong way but when someone asks why something is the way it is in a game the only right answer is BECAUSE thats the way the coded it. Most people will try and explain it using real life situations. But it comes back to the real answer..which is simply because thats how it is and you and I and the rest of the gaming world will not agree with 100% of why things are done certain ways, in a game or in real life, so just change your play style and they never said go weaponless. I mearly gave you suggestions on how to handle close combat fighting and why dmg taken was increased based on weapon choice.
Take it or leave it hehe your choice. 
Jer_Jedi...
I understand that they wrote the code that way...What I want to know is why? Rationale?
Let me explain in a real simple way...For the purpose of the GAME...why did you make holding a rifle during melee more damaging then with a pistol, carbine or bare fists? The "code" they write is to balance the game, so all I'm asking is why they need riflemen to take more damage up close? Why? Why not pistoleers?
And again you go to a real life example of encumbrance...Please don't talk about real life...I walk around carrying 4 sets of chitin armor, crates of componets, thousands of hides and bone...etc...Please...
Rifle...hit from distance, miss from close...ok
Pistol...hit from distance, hit from up close...hmmmm?
Rifle...3x dmg melee
Pistol...1.5x dmg melee
I simply want to know why?
and please don't tell me a story on how when you were last camping with your laser rifle it was hard for you to defend yourself from the agro squirrels...
By the way...are you a Pistoleer?....Brawler?
We can argue all day about whether a pistol is better at blocking a sword than a rifle. You say the pistol, I say the rifle. I dare say 5 seconds in a ring would demonstrate which is the better blocking weapon, but that'll never happen so we'll just leave it.
The bottom line is that by the words of the developers,brawlers aresupposed to have a clear advantage against ranged weapon users when fighting when fighting from point blank range.
With pistoleers, this is not true. Therefore rifles vs swords is working as intended but pistols vs swords is not. This is effectively a nerf for rifle users, making us less useful than pistols in yet another way. Everyone wants to be a pistoleer because not only do they do more damage per second and have knockdowns, but they're also far less vulnerable to melee attacks than a rifle.
That's what we in the business like to call "unbalanced".
Pecos...
Well said...and let's not forget that while pistoleers are in melee, they can at least hit their target.
I understand the penalty...but 3x compared to 1.5x?
We all should allbe at 1.5 IMO.
I am a riflemen. I have not once during what I thought was a discussion on the rationale of the dmg incurred while in close combat, attacked or made snide comments about your or anyone elses comments. You have just choosen to not accept my reasons for why they have coded it this way. I gave you real life examples of why I feel they instituted this system for calculating dmg vs certain types of weapons while holding others. I gave you the reasons that made the most sense to me but you disagree. Why do you think that we take more damage while clutching our rifles in a fight against a Martial Artist? Why do you think a Pistoleer will beat us in a fight at close range? Why do you think someone with a Sword would do more damage to someone refusing to drop a rifle in a hand to hand fight then they would do to a person weilding a pistol? Why in just about any paper and pencil RPG do you have a penalty for dual weilding any weapon, take a penalty to your defense abilities etc.?I think it is a penalty you take for choosing NOT to change weapons in close combat. I think it makes sense as to why it is this way. My opinion...whats yours?
I can see this is getting nowhere...
Let me just say it one more time...
Rifle...3x dmg melee
Pistol...1.5x dmg melee
I simply want to know why? Why doesn't a pistoleer have to "change" weapons? I had some basic skill in pistol just for this purpose, but I ran out of points (I'm also an armorsmith). I had to drop it.
I have never once said that we shouldn't have a penalty.
I just want to know what the original poster wanted to know.
The issue can be missed quite easily. The game is about ballance and how is it ballance to be LESS accurate and take MORE dmg while dishing out insigificantly better dmg.