Home » MODDING HQ 1.13 » v1.13 Modding, Customising, Editing » v1.13 Weapon & Item Refinement » Balancing for Large Pistols
| Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265872]
|
Fri, 29 October 2010 02:13  
|
|
 sorca_2 |
 |
Messages:202
Registered:September 2010
Location: California, USA |
|
|
Thanks for your reply! I greatly appreciate your input. I'm going to quote and reply to the combat pack part of what you said in the other thread so as to avoid more confusion between the combat pack and large pistol topics. Sorry for that--it was my fault for splitting the topic after I e-mailed you.
ChrisLHowever, adding penalties to the combat pack doesn't have a direct bearing on large pistols. If you did add a penalty to combat packs, you're not going to make large pistols a better option. Therefore you're not "balancing" them in any way. If you want to improve the effectiveness of large pistols, then you really need to look into changes like extra range and/or damage (possibly with added AP cost to use) as has already been discussed. I know these kinds of changes would adversely effect the level of weapon realism Starwalker has always tried to maintain, but at the same time even a slight change might make these weapons more usable in the game. There's a point where realism needs to take a back seat to playability, after all.
Right, the point of the combat pack penalty is to increase the usefulness of all smaller weapons, increase realism, and reduce some of the unfair advantages we have over the enemy AI. You're right, it wouldn't balance or favor the large pistols at all, which is why I split the topic into that other thread. Essentially it's like we went mining for gold and struck oil instead--the issues are not necessarily interrelated, but they're both potentially valuable. 
Right now I think the more important issue is the reload AP/combat pack thing because I think it has more universal appeal and we don't have to argue about touching the balance of the combat system itself. The large pistols would see more use anyway if the other LBE slots were more valuable (like you said).
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant 1st Class
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #266434]
|
Sun, 07 November 2010 21:18
|
|
| P.Val |
 |
Messages:72
Registered:May 2010 |
|
|
I think the problem is, that in real life the large pistols have disadvantages in every area except one which is not used in the game. They are worse than rifles (same or lower damage, and range, speed and accuracy all lower), worse than regular pistols (which are only used because of their speed, mostly in emergencies, so if a big handgun needs as much time to ready an fire than a rifle, than better shoot with your rifle). No wonder real armies don't use these handcannons: they are not practical. Better to use a rifle or carbine (or smg in close quarters) as main weapon and a small, light pistol as backup.
The only advantage of these big pistols would be concealment and legality, none of which are reflected in-game. So if there were cover operations in occupied cities where you would be discovered by having a visible weapon (including on your sling and rifle barrels poking out of your backpack), or maybe in San Mona everyone would turn hostile if you had non-civilian weapons, handcannons would be useful if you needed something to make a bigger punch.
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal
|
|
|
|
| Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #266466]
|
Mon, 08 November 2010 11:34
|
|
| Kellomies |
|
Messages:50
Registered:October 2010 |
|
|
AFAIK the major reason would more specifically be convenience and portability, tho - for military purposes pistols are pretty much strictly backup weapons (bar more specialised stuff such as sentry removal and whatnots, natch, and maybe CQB if the primary weapon is too unwieldy for it) and obviously some honkin' big piece of ironmongery fits the bill rather poorly. Your average grunt is heavily laden as it is, why would he want to waste LBE space and extra encumberance on an unnecessarily large pistol? Nevermind now having to carry the ammo for the thing too...
Another would be controllability. Most of the bigger calibers have a wee bit of a really nasty recoil which AFAIK isn't really something you want in a backup gun that's most likely going to see use in short-range emergencies where you need to ventilate the other guy fast and reliably - and unless I'm entirely mistaken it takes some practice to get used to that kind of recoil too, practice time that would be obviously better spent on the main long-arm.
So, yeah. Which said, don't some SpecOps types occasionally prefer to carry, say, .357 revolvers for sidearms? But then, .357 Mag is basically just 9mm on steroids and very much from the "sane and practical" end of powerful handgun rounds - its more or less direct (conceptual?) ancestor, .380 Super, was a reasonably popular "combat" round back during the Prohibition due to being able to easily enough defeat the early body armour of the time...
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal
|
|
|
|
| Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #266537]
|
Tue, 09 November 2010 12:12
|
|
| usrbid |
 |
Messages:1506
Registered:December 2008 |
|
|
Pistols work best against a guy with a knife. It is really hard to defend yourself against a guy who knows how to use a knife (most civilians don't) despite the stuff they try to teach you in the self defense videos.
I don't know much about special operations these days, I haven't been in service since 93, however I would imagine a 357 being incredibly loud.
Discharging the gun at the range displaces the air around it so quickly that you can feel a tiny prick on your cheeks (face). That ought to be able to be heard from far away. I know that some police forces will have a backup weapon in their car for pest control to avoid alarming residents.
I hear that some forces in Iraq prefer the use of AKs due to the sound signature not immediately identifying them as enemy troops, however none of my friends serving in Iraq were able to confirm this (but that doesn't mean it isn't happening).
Also a revolver will be slightly wider, not sure how much of an issue this would be. A revolver can be considered more reliable compared to a pistol, just by a little though.
About the recoil, that's something you get used to I feel, however in general a 357 has quite substantial recoil compared to a nine pistol. But again this depends on the person. I can shoot my 45 and get back on target fast, it doesn't bother me anymore.
Recoil is strange, for example my 45 Springfield "feels" like it has less recoil than the 40 Glock of my coworker. I checked the ammo and nothing really indicates this should be happening. My coworker confirms that the recoil feels less on mine as well. I am reluctant to say it is because of the grips / design etc. but I guess it has to be.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #272161]
|
Wed, 02 February 2011 16:33
|
|
| DrunkenGrammaton |
 |
Messages:33
Registered:January 2011
Location: Indiana, USA |
|
|
I've found I only use the large pistols when one of my mercs starts with it, and then only untill they find a 9mm in good condition. Although I make an exception if they find(or are edited to start with) a 2x scope. Then it's useful up until single-shot long arms show up. I once started Ira with a scoped Encore and it was actually a handy poor merc's DMR all the way up to Drassen.
To make them useful longer, how about a muzzle brake attachment that gives an ap bonus and makes the pistol louder? Other than the picture, this would just require XML to make, and a quick and dirty one could be made with the flash suppressor's picture for testing the idea.
Another thought I had kinda like the zipper idea is to give items a 'proper pocket' attribute and an ini option for how much ap to penalize a player for drawing something that's stored in the wrong type of pocket. Maybe a line to ignore this for items without the attribute so it doesn't have to be rolled out for everything at once. This could be applied to just long arms and the sling slot, or taken to where players are encouraged to use all their pockets as intended. No more rifle magazine pockets stuffed full of 40mm grenades unless the player wants to deal with the penalty for fumbling it out of the wrong pocket.
Edit: Just realized an easier way to get the same effect would be to do it by size instead of individual items. Each entry in pockets.xml could have a true/false value for if each item size can be placed and removed without a penalty.
Dieter
Recoil is strange, for example my 45 Springfield "feels" like it has less recoil than the 40 Glock of my coworker. I checked the ammo and nothing really indicates this should be happening. My coworker confirms that the recoil feels less on mine as well. I am reluctant to say it is because of the grips / design etc. but I guess it has to be.
I'll second that, recoil on the .40s&w is very snappy for it's size. Unless I'm using really hot loads, I can't feel much difference between my Sig Pro and .357 Security Six. I'm sure the steel frame on the Ruger has a lot to do with that though.
That gives me another idea though. How about a "hot load" or "wildcat" ammo type for the big magnums?
[Updated on: Thu, 03 February 2011 01:52] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Private 1st Class
|
|
|
|
| Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #273925]
|
Sat, 19 February 2011 12:26
|
|
| Kaerius |
|
Messages:31
Registered:March 2008 |
|
|
I couldn't even feel the recoil difference between a beretta 92FS and a glock 21, despite the glock being both lighter and firing a heavier calibre. I could however see that the glock had more muzzle climb. Recoil is funny like that sometimes.
My bid for the large pistol balancing act is to lower accuracy dramatically(-5 to -10) and up range dramatically(to 20-25 or so), up damage significantly(+5 at least), and lower firing cost as well(at least down to the 6-7 range), while possibly giving them a "rechamber" cost of 1-2 AP, this would simulate, not rechambering, but recovering from the recoil. Of course the downside is if you shoot once and move, this cost is just bullshit, but that's the only thing I could think of.
Remember that it's a game and there's all sorts of funny little quirks happening with range, as much as no pistol would be fired over 100 meters with much accuracy, the effective combat range of most pistols is more like 20-25 meters, ie: 2-2.5 squares.
[Updated on: Sat, 19 February 2011 12:30] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Private 1st Class
|
|
|
|
| Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #274730]
|
Mon, 28 February 2011 20:26
|
|
| Martello |
|
Messages:4
Registered:May 2010
Location: Zabul Province, Afghanist... |
|
|
DrunkenGrammaton
Dieter
Recoil is strange, for example my 45 Springfield "feels" like it has less recoil than the 40 Glock of my coworker. I checked the ammo and nothing really indicates this should be happening. My coworker confirms that the recoil feels less on mine as well. I am reluctant to say it is because of the grips / design etc. but I guess it has to be.
I'll second that, recoil on the .40s&w is very snappy for it's size. Unless I'm using really hot loads, I can't feel much difference between my Sig Pro and .357 Security Six. I'm sure the steel frame on the Ruger has a lot to do with that though.
Weight definitely has something to do with it, but the main difference between the .45 ACP and the .40 S&W is muzzle velocity. For example, a .40 S&W Double Tap Gold Dot JHP 155-grain bullet has a muzzle velocity of 1275 feet per second. A .45 Federal HydraShok JHP with a 230-grain bullet only has a velocity of 850 feet per second. So the .40 is a quick "snap" of a higher velocity bullet, where the .45 is more of a slow, strong push. I have a Beretta Px4 Storm in .40, and it has more muzzle climb and more of that "snap" than my friend's lighter Glock 21 in .45.
Echoing some of the comments much earlier in this thread (I'm a newcomer to this forum), I agree that it was stupid for the mercs to start with pistols or weak, obsolete submachine guns like the MP5K in the vanilla game. The KAC PDW and the MP5/10 the IMP mercs start with in V 1.13 make much more sense as starting weapons. Yes, even the first-tier mercs would probably at least have Ruger Mini-30s, AK variants or cheaper AR-15s, but I guess it's too easy if you start with such powerful weapons. Then again, giving the Arulco Army better weapons and higher numbers would balance that out, basically like it is in V 1.13.
I also agree with many of the posters who said that heavy pistols (.50 AE, .44 Mag, etc) are really not useful for any tactical or military purpose in real life. That's exactly how I like my 1.13 to be - closer to realism than most games. I always hated that the Desert Eagle is usually the best pistol in most shooter games (Counter-Strike, Modern Warfare, etc), because it's actually an absurd weapon. The recoil is enormous despite the weight, the price is prohibitive, and the damn pistol weighs 4 and a half pounds empty. A P90 only weighs 5.6 pounds, by contrast, and holds 50 rounds instead of 7! That and the range is significantly better and the 5.7mm has much better ballistic properties. Basically, if you're going to carry a sidearm over 4 pounds, it might as well be one of the smaller PDWs instead of some stupid Hollywood hand cannon.
Report message to a moderator
|
Civilian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 19 06:26:00 GMT+3 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01862 seconds
|
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
