Rifleman Archive
Thread: why does a rifle and pistol have the same range...
please explain this to me....when i saw that their was a rifle i was first to go HELL YEAH... but now im like what the....the range on the rifle and pistol is the same thing. now i dont know who thought that up but it wasnt the best of ideas... when i fight a person who has a pistol and is at the same lvl i get killed every time... and i give more damage... the pistol should be a great close quarters gun not a 64m gun the rifle needs to have more range cause the range for the pistol is good and the carbineer needs to have more range then the pistol but less than a rifle. every time i stand with a rifle i cant hit the enemy and if i kneel they run up and kill me...so its a lose lose situation... if a developer could respond to this that would be great
thanks again
Rich (Troy Barton) of kettomoor
If rifles could not only 1 shot mind pool as they currently do, but could also do this out of range of any pistols/carbines, no one would play anyting but a rifleman. I'd untrain tonight and start up the tree..who wouldn't? That would mean, at the start of a fight (visual on radar), you'd basically always get to shoot first, and possibly multiple times, before your opponent had a chace to counter. Which would mean, coupled with1-2 shot capability....there would be no contest. Whatfun would that be? We'd all just become riflemen. As it's set up, you have distinct, and enviable advantages.
You hit mind pool. You should know by now this is insanely advantageous...to the point of the rest of us are wondering **edit** we are doing attacking health and action...
You can 1 shot at range.
You have front loaded damage...your first shot hits for about 2-3x a pistol hit during the same amount of time (0 seconds).
You have even higher damage potential with armor piercing. The T21 I saw did max 550 damage (!!!!!) and supposedly is rated AP 3, meaning..vs player crafted armor you do 50% more than base damage (!!). FWG5, scout blaster...all AP0. That is, they do 25% less damage. 75% damage delta on armor...
Trust me, I picked pistols for RP reasons...for PvP..I just dont see how rifle coupled with medic + close range damage can lose...and 1 shotting has got to be fun as all get out. Smart players watch, and wait, and know who to strike and when, no matter what the class. And rifles..have the goods in executing that the easiest. Excpet of course when we get into knockdowns...... 
Styphathal wrote:
Jaegen: Why? because if we had to lie prone to get a decent chance of hitting you at that range, we'd only have one, maybe 2 shots before mr pistoleer/brawler is up in our face dishing out the pain, with a large damage bonusand we are -50 to hit. Also, there are MANY times when LoS issues will prevent long range sniping and up close and personal will be the only means of engagement.
Which is how it should be. If your indoors in close quaters you shouldn't be using a rifle. Rifle is meant to be king of locations where you can see people coming from far off and get the drop on them.
And yes, you should have to lie prone to get a good shot, and two shots should be all you need to knock most people down.
Some one commented that when the best armor comes out your not going to be one shoting people, well remeber we haven't exactly seen the best rifles in the game yet either. I expect with the best rifles fully experimented, and correctly powered up in the hands of a rifleman will still be knocking most people down in one or two hits no mater what they are wearing.
I wasn't complaining that LoS issues would get in the way. I agree it should be that way. I'm saying that increasing rifle range to something remotely reasonable, wouldn't overpower them because LoS would just become more often a problem, the further away you get. I know rifles aren't meant to be used in enclosed areas, I'm fine with this and want it to be this way. I just would like to have as much of an advantage at long range as a bralwer or pistoleer does up close. That's quite different than wanting my close range disadvantage done away with.
We already have a huge advantage when attacking a target at max range. Even with burst run it should be possible to get to head shots in, which is going to take down almost anyone unless you get really unlucky with your dmg. If you extend the range of rifles out farther then you will kill every melee class. You will end up with a world where everyone that PVPs is a Rifleman.
That may be more realistic but it would kill game play for any non rifle weilder. Not to mention the problems it would cause as far as increased network traffic.
okay. then lower carbine and pistol range. There just is no way around the fact that a pistolshould not be able toshoot as far as a rifle.
Even if what you say is true, that would mean rifles would win the long range fights and brawlers would win the up close fights. Isn't that how it should work? I mean if I'm in a city and mr TK or whatever runs at me from around a corner, I'm toast. BOOM I'm knocked down and dizzy.. WHAM WHAM WAHM SPLAT: dead rifleman. That's the way it should be. The reverse at long range should also be true.
You hit it on the head in one, with that last statement, Styphatal
I think this is why all of the rifleman are complaining.
It isfor the simple fact that, a TKA in close combat "does and should" kick our ass, but in what is supposed to be long range, we do not have anymore benefits than those that use carbines and pistols, yet we have disadvantages because we use the rifle.
Im not sure how many times we can all say the same thing. We are preapred to accept that we should incur double damage, infact if changes where made, i think most would agree to a slight increaseif we are involved in Melle combat, but we should also have an advantage if we are in a ranged combat, As it stands, we are almost the same as pistoleers and carbineers, yet we face double damage, we face the inability to heal ourselves while in our best "shooting" position (prone), yet we are disadvanted becuase the pistoleer and carbinner, can both shoot roughly the same distance us, can heal themselves while in theit best shooting position (kneeling) and generally shot alot faster than us as well.
As i have stated before, Rifleman, should be able to shoot further than a carbineer and a pistoleer as it make perfect sense.
I think the ideal soultion is as i have previously posted.
Pistol 20m Ideal Range, Max Range30m - Attack Speed 3.0, No Melle disadvantage
Carbineer, 30m Ideal Range, Max Range 50m - Attack Speed 4.0, No Melle disadvantage
Rifleman, 45 - 55m ideal Range, Mar Range 75 - 85, Attack Speed 5.0, Double Damage in Melee.
It seems reasonably simple to me that these would make more sense than the current situation. I also dont think that it is a given that you should be able to shoot at those distances. It should be like advancing you skills. The more advance you are the further and more accurate you can shoot.
Would this result in everyone being a Rifleman. I dont think so, it will become a specialst field due to its limiations, which it should be.
At a guess i will say most rifleman, will or do intend on getting involved heavily in PvP - Rebel v Imp at some stage. Can we as rifleman run from anywhere and get into the fight, no, due to out limitations we know it is best served for all parties to be futher away getting orders from a our squad leader to "take out" a specific target. Where as the TKA pvper will be runinng around going mad hitting everything and everyone which is the reason why people become rifleman and other people become TKA's.
The above statement is true for me, its what i intend to be for the PA that i am involved in, but at the moment, i have no more benefit than a pistoleer, yet have double the danger involved. And that my friends is what i think we are all complaining about.
And as someone else has said
"if you can see me, you are already dead"
ScottLarrin - Novice Rifleman, Bloodfin.