Home » MODDING HQ 1.13 » v1.13 Modding, Customising, Editing » v1.13 Weapon & Item Refinement » Balancing for Large Pistols
Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265063] Tue, 19 October 2010 03:14 Go to next message
sorca_2

 
Messages:206
Registered:September 2010
Location: California, USA
Now that I've played through 1.13 a few times, I've noticed that the large caliber pistols aren't very effective. So, I was wondering what the board's thoughts are on the following possibilities to increase their value:

1) Give them longer range. Right now the Desert Eagle .44 Mag has 1 more range than the SIG P210 9mm. Since finding longer range weapons early in the game is crucial, this would increase their overall usefulness significantly.

2) Make them fire a little bit faster. Right now firing a no-extra-aiming shot with a Desert Eagle .44 is slower than a lot of bigger weapons like the M1 Carbine, the F2000, the Steyr... hell, even the Super Shorty shotgun is 5 AP faster.

3) Make reloading all weapons take a LOT more APs. If, for example, it took 60APs to reload an assault rifle, it would make backup weapons much more useful in general. There would be a lot more situations where you would have to switch weapons until it is safe to reload. As an aside, I think this adds an interesting tactical element in prolonged battles and would also increase the usefulness of having larger magazines.

4) Make some kind of AP cost for using the pack or sling. Oh crap... an enemy just rushed your sniper from the side. After firing on his turn, he's got 60AP left... no time to rack the bolt action, turn to the side, and get a shot off. Instead, he could draw a .357 and go to work. Of course, the way the game is now, you could just as easily switch to an M16. However, if there was a zipper AP cost for the regular pack and/or sling, that would make holster slots a much more viable option. Imagine if you could only swap weapons with your sling weapon by pressing the hotkey, and that act costs X APs (which is still much less than Y APs for digging into the Tactical Tailor pack).

5) Reduce the amount of weapons a single merc can carry. Wait! Wait! Hear me out on this for just a second. I know, you're thinking "sorca, I'm a packrat... I have to pick up every last item that isn't securely bolted to the ground." I understand, and I sympathize... but I think the balance and realism of the game could be improved. Right now, my stronger mercs could carry six G36C rifles and shoot most of them in the same turn, thus precluding the need for any true backup weapon.

The good news is that, in the infinite awesomeness of the new inventory system, it actually knows to check the size of the weapons to see if they're too big to fit in the pack slots. What if that size was increased so regular packs (not backpacks necessarily) could not hold anything bigger than, say, Machine Pistols? This would increase the usefulness of holsters and holstered weapons significantly in addition to adding more realism (haven't seen many guys running into combat with 4 rifles stuffed in a pack). You'd still be able to carry plenty of ammo, severed heads, etc. but you'd be forced to make a realistic choice about what you can afford to bring in to battle.

Just thinking out loud here. Thoughts?

[Updated on: Tue, 19 October 2010 03:20] by Moderator

Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265065] Tue, 19 October 2010 03:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2814
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
I've actually tried a few of these in UC-1.13.

2) sort-of - using the alternate aiming system where draw cost factors into aiming. Pistols tend to be faster overall due to lower draw cost. However, in the balance of things, attaching a scope causes the greatest AP jump due to the penalties I've added. Many large caliber pistols can take scopes (if it can fit a pair of scope rings, it can take a 10x scope), but the penalties make this a very bad idea when you have a choice of weapons to fit scopes to.

3) Still in Use - I remember needing to scale back the AR reload costs due to feedback.

4/5) See last few pages of the recently closed UC-1.13 thread. Basically involves resizing all items, and setting aside item sizes for special purposes (over sized weapons that only fit one subtly different backpack slot).

EDIT:
additional 4) has been suggested before, but there were concerns that an AP cost to swap between sling/holsters would preclude experimenting to find the best weapon to use by simply swapping in an out of inventory. Players would quick save/reload while trying to find the optimum weapon to use, or get frustrated by the AP cost if they clicked on the wrong item. Increasing draw cost achieves basically the same thing, and the cost is applied on firing. (Presently in use in UC-1.13 and recently enhanced by the alternate aiming system which uses a fraction of draw to start aiming.)

[Updated on: Tue, 19 October 2010 03:50] by Moderator



Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265067] Tue, 19 October 2010 04:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Missing Name

 
Messages:63
Registered:July 2010
Location: SPADS Camp, Calaveritas I...
It's true that larger pistols (.44 mag, .50 AE) are more accurate than smaller calibers. But they ARE pretty heavy (A DE is almost the same weight as an M4) and more awkward to use. This also applies to larger "normal" caliber pistols, such as the Mk 23. I dunno if I would really want to use one in real life.

But then again, this is just my opinion.
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265078] Tue, 19 October 2010 07:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lepidosteus

 
Messages:93
Registered:November 2007
Location: Land of Buns.
The heavy pistols have the benefit of suppressors and AET ammo over the rifles found at the same time or a bit later.
Thus, I find them quite handy for night-ops early in the game, or as backup further on before you get Five-Sevens for that role.
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265093] Tue, 19 October 2010 12:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gazz

 
Messages:32
Registered:October 2010
Location: Bavaria
1.
Range seems to be the single best stat a weapon can have but yes, they are set a bit too low. The (somewhat) longer barrels and substantial weight of those hand-held nukes would also support the resulting accuracy increase.

+2 or +3 range would get them into the range of SMG but with small magazine sizes and no burst mode they aren't going to replace SMG.

Good idea. I'll change that in my game.
MD got his starting revolver changed to a Ruger Redhawk yesterday so he'd have a weapon I wouldn't immediately throw away. But even then the Redhawk's days would be numbered if the range stayed as is.

Some other mercs I like to hire also got more high powered handguns - usually .44 because that's a caliber I can actually find early on.
Since I wanted them somewhat useful, I gave them a free Reflex Sight along with it, too. And I won't just put it on the "real" merc's weapons. =P

2)
Not neccessarily needed. Maybe a bit faster but not very much.
Gotta be careful about what it turns out after adding reflex sights.

5)
Veto!
I'm a terrible pack rat and have even increased the pocket capacities and pocket slots on the various LBE.
I don't need understanding and sympathy. I need a pack donkey. =P
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265097] Tue, 19 October 2010 14:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mauser

 
Messages:799
Registered:August 2006
Location: Bavaria - Germany
well, range of course is very important - except for CQB weapons, which pistols unfortunately simply ARE!

for me, the biggest problem with heavy pistols is, that their damage to mag size ratio is just way too small compared to the standard pistols.

a 9 mm Glock with 18+ rounds magazine does only slightly less damage, than a massive Desert Eagle .50 AE, where in my opinion, the Desert Eagle should have an at least 50% higher base damage, more in direction of the .50 Beowulf rifle, in order to offset the fewer but heavier rounds in the magazine.

heavy pistols and revolvers should do pretty much assault rifle damage, just at much shorter range, but still some more range than regular pistols. also, their stamina damage should be considerably higher due to the knockdown effect those heavier rounds with greater energy transfer have. two to three hits from a .50 AE round should pretty much cripple any enemy and knock him down, regardless of body armor or health.
monster calibers that are used to hunt big game should have an according effect on much smaller human targets!

as another balancing factor, heavy pistols and revolvers should possibly have the option to use smaller, robust advanced optics on them, increasing their accuracy at range, where standard caliber pistols should rely on speed and short range accuracy as well as lightness and compactness only.

the whole idea behind heavy pistols after all is, to bring the target down with less shots, less emphasis of shot placement due to much greater general stopping power. therefore they are generally heavier, bulkier and slower to shoot, requiring more skill from the shooter to cope with the greater recoil and stress on the hands.

personally, i would simply up the damage to the large caliber pistols and revolvers significantly to almost rifle proportions, up the stamina damage considerably, up the range to mid field SMG proportions and put the draw time and handling related penaltys between standard pistols and SMGs.

generally speaking, a heavy pistol/revolver should be able to reliably kill a bloodcat with 2 - 3 shots at max, an unarmored or just lightly armored enemy with 1 - 2 shots at max, draining their stamina considerably.

this way, they

☆★GL★☆
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265118] Tue, 19 October 2010 15:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Beka

 
Messages:90
Registered:November 2009
Location: Vault 13
Mauser
... generally speaking, a heavy pistol/revolver should be able to reliably kill a bloodcat with 2 - 3 shots at max, an unarmored or just lightly armored enemy with 1 - 2 shots at max, draining their stamina considerably. ...


Totally agree with you. I think heavy pistols/revolvers (hp/r) should work very similar to (most) shotguns in the way that both have rather short range, require lots of AP, have a small mag-size but do lots of damage.
After all, when using hp/r in a video game, may it be a rather realistic game like JA2 or an arcade-like shooter I always have to think of Dirty Harry and his .44!
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265129] Tue, 19 October 2010 16:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kazuya

 
Messages:222
Registered:January 2009
sorca_2
Now that I've played through 1.13 a few times, I've noticed that the large caliber pistols aren't very effective.
Just like in real life. There is a reason, why smaller calibres like 9x19, .40 and .45 dominate the market for police and military handguns. Look at the sidearms that armies all around the world use. Only in Hollywood, people use Desert Eagles or similar weapons.
So, regarding point 1), I completly disagree with increasing the range. Remember, the range in game is the effective weapon range and this is not just determined by the bullets kinetic energy. Larger and bulkier guns are harder to aim. And increased weight does not necessarily translate to better recoil control. The opposite can be the case as well, depending on where that weight actually is. If you compare the muzzle blast of a DE .50 with a Beretta 92F, you will immediately notice that a Beretta is much more comfortable to hold and to shoot, which usually means more accurate shots. The blast of the DE, is very inconvenient. A friend of mine, who actually had a DE in calibre .50 once told me, that he had to go to a doctor after he fired several rounds. The doctor diagnose a mild photokeratitis. So I'd say no to 2) as well.

I somewhat agree, with point 3, But I'd be carefull with it. The mercs are quite fast at reloading magazines. I'd say that there should be a random AP value added to the amount of APs needed to reload. The random AP value becomes smaller the more experienced the merc is. Another thing that I would like to see, is the tactical reload of a gun. Right now, when a gun is fired, the game takes a bullet right out of the magazine. This way, when I change a magazine, that is not completly empty, I don't get to keep the bullet that would be in the chamber in real life. If a had an empty AK for example with an empty magazine, I would have to do the following things to get ready for combat:
1. Operate the magazine release
2. Put the empty magazine in my pocket
3. Insert a new magazine (30 rounds in the magazine, chamber is empty)
4. Operate the charging handle (29 rounds in the magazine chamber is now loaded)

I'm now ready to fire 30 rounds. But if I reload, before I have spend all rounds, I'll end up with 30 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber, so I would have 31 rounds in total now. On top of that, I should be faster this time because I wouldn't have to operate the charging handle.

Now to your fourth point: I agree. Switching rifle should give an AP penalty. Readying a pistol instead should be faster. Good old Sunny Puzikas demonstrates this nicely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB96LfLE-sA&

Point 5: I agree, that it shouldn't be possible, to put several rifle into a combat pack. On the other hand, If I only had to carry several rifles, I wouldn't use a back pack at all (assuming all guns have a sling). So carrying rifles from A to B, would become unnecessarily hard.

[Updated on: Tue, 19 October 2010 16:54] by Moderator

Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265143] Tue, 19 October 2010 19:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gazz

 
Messages:32
Registered:October 2010
Location: Bavaria
Kazuya
So, regarding point 1), I completly disagree with increasing the range.

From a realism point of view - and in a free standing pose - probably.
But when prone or resting the gun on some cover, I'd imagine a greater range than 13.

In game I'd probably do that with a higher range but also lowered general accuracy of the gun.
At shorter ranges it should more or less even out but at longer ranges you'd at least have a chance to hit something with the powerful rounds because of staying within nominal range of the gun.
(yes, in reality - and especially under combat conditions - you just don't shoot any pistol/revolver far beyond 100m =)

That it hurts to shoot such monster pistols, well - if you're fooling around you can seriously get hurt when firing a 7.62 MG. Flyweight soldiers aren't made to be machine gunners because even disregarding carrying the thing, the MG ends up aiming them. =P


Now in my game my mercs are going to battle loaded like a gypsy caravan. Phunsics are in full effect.
In the real world the best they could manage is fall over slowly. I've been marching with full combat gear so I know how likely it is that the team would be bringing 2 extra weapons per soldier, 15 magazines, grenades, explosives, and of course... the kitchen sink. But so what. =P
So when it feels right (not realistic, mind you) that high powered revolvers have a small range advantage, that's what's going to happen.
Besides, it adds a little spice when you can't automatically disregard every enemy soldier who's "just" holding a pistol...


What accuracy/range you get from which caliber bullet fired from which weapon under what conditions - that would fill volumes. Or I should probably say, JA gun nuts have filled volumes with such gun talk ever since JA / Hired Guns / UFO / Sabre Team / Whateva came out. =P
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265146] Tue, 19 October 2010 20:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Buns

 
Messages:677
Registered:September 2010
Kazuya
Just like in real life. There is a reason, why smaller calibres like 9x19, .40 and .45 dominate the market for police and military handguns. Look at the sidearms that armies all around the world use. Only in Hollywood, people use Desert Eagles or similar weapons.


I agree with that. Magnums and the like stuff are suitable weapons for gangsters who need a large gun to impress or frighten their opponents, but they are more or less useless as a quick-action side-arm. That way they are indeed pointless for any serious military use.

The sniper of the above example would indeed be better off with an M4 as "side-arm" than a DE, but in fact a proper side-arm would be something like a Five-seveN or 9mm with reflex sight mounted and AET ammo loaded.
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265169] Tue, 19 October 2010 23:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Hairysteed

 
Messages:194
Registered:December 2007
Location: Finland
5. SMGs and carbines usually are short enough to fit inside a backpack but full length rifles are too large unless it's a rifle bag
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265290] Thu, 21 October 2010 01:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sorca_2

 
Messages:206
Registered:September 2010
Location: California, USA
Wow, thanks to everyone for the replies.

@wil473:
That's interesting. I haven't tried that mod yet, but now I'm intrigued! I get what you're saying about #3 and #4-- it would definitely have to be an INI option for advanced/realistic users. The last thing we want to do is make the game more complicated for n00bs.

@MN:
I guess part of what I'm saying is that it doesn't make much sense to compare a DE to an M4--of course I would pick an M4 as well for a primary weapon. But if I had to pick a backup weapon to use against heavily armored opponents, I might prefer the .44 DE over, say, the Beretta 92. See the North Hollywood shootout for what I'm talking about. Besides, if you were someone like a heavy weapons grunt, a machine gunner, or sniper, I'm not sure if you'd have room to lug around another rifle.

@Lepidosteus:
Honestly, I haven't tried that, but it sounds good. I'll have to check the coolness level of the AET ammo for the larger pistol calibers to see where they are in relation to the better SMGs and Assault Rifles. Maybe new AET calibers would be in order?

@Gazz:
1. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. They don't need 10 extra range, but I think 2 or 3 is completely justifiable and would at least give them a decent advantage over pistols that can be fired twice as fast.
2. I get what you're saying about the reflex sights, but at the point in my games where they were unlocked, these weapons were eclipsed long ago by faster weapons with equal or greater damage, auto fire, range, and attachment capabilities. I'm not complaining--I wouldn't want it any other way--but I still think shaving a few extra APs off would make them more viable.
5. Ha, yeah, me too. That's why I don't really have a problem with being able to stuff an elephant in the backpack... it's mostly a gameplay conceit to make the game easier to manage. But wouldn't it be nice to have a reason to use those pistols you've been collecting since Omerta? Smile

@Mauser:
Yep, I agree with most of what you said. It does seem strange to put a scope on a weapon with a tiny range, but I understand the logic--otherwise a lot of the weapons in the game would have longer range than the map.

@Kazuya:
[quote:Kazuya]Just like in real life. There is a reason, why smaller calibres like 9x19, .40 and .45 dominate the market for police and military handguns. Look at the sidearms that armies all around the world use. Only in Hollywood, people use Desert Eagles or similar weapons.[/quote]
I see what you're saying. On the other hand, I think there are a lot of other factors that influence the decisions about what sidearms are issued to military personnel. Most police targets aren't armored, so that's a no-brainer (see the North Hollywood reference above). Cost is a huge one--the military (U.S. anyway) is notorious for picking the cheapest option rather than the most effective. Otherwise the entire military would use what the SEALs use. Ease of handling and training is another, just as you say. However, as Mauser points out, people with the right skills could use them to take down heavier targets with fewer shots. The Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic do well in the car market, but that doesn't make them better than an Aston Martin Vantage--they're more popular because they're cheaper, convenient, and easier to drive.

Anyway, getting way off topic there. Regarding your point about #2, I wish there was a way to factor recoil into the AP cost of subsequent single shots. The big revolvers would get close to regular AP for the first shot, then proportiately worse AP for subsequent shots compared to smaller caliber weapons. I guess that could be Possible Suggestion #6 added to the list in the first post.

Regarding #3, I think the skill-based reloading AP is a great idea, just like the CTH bar scaling to the merc's skill. Really, any idea that increases the RPG elements of JA2 will get mega points from me. My only requirement would be that it display the value--I wouldn't want it to show 20 and cost 28. Make sense?

@Gazz again:
That's an intriguing idea. I wonder what the gameplay result would be of doubling range and nerfing accuracy way down. Might have to try that to see what happens.

@Buns:
Again, I'm not even saying that large pistols should even be more effective than small pistols--I was just saying that they are disproportionately worse than they should be right now, and that back-up weapons in general aren't as useful as they could be with a few realistic and minor changes.

@Hairysteed:
Right, I'm not opposed to the backpack at all because you are already tactically penalized plenty for putting stuff in there. Hell, I wouldn't mind if you could carry a duffel bag in both hands with 6+ rifles. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't be able to fit in the regular (ex: TT 3-day) packs to stop you from bringing 6 different rifles ready to draw at any moment. This would make the holster weapons (pistols, large pistols, machine pistols) much more useful as back-ups later on in addition to keeping Day 1 weapons in the mix.
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265303] Thu, 21 October 2010 04:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Missing Name

 
Messages:63
Registered:July 2010
Location: SPADS Camp, Calaveritas I...
I have several views on handguns (speaking from others' experiences, seeing how I can't actually buy one right now and I obviously can't have one in my dorm.) I'm also not a very big person, so a smaller handgun would most likely be best for me. So these are what I feel I could reasonably handle in a combat situation (to be changed when I finally have a chance to try them all out.) Judge me if you want.

- A 9mm is practical when you want lots of bullets in a fairly small frame. I'd pick a USP, BDA or SIG 226. I've heard all 3 are quite reliable and accurate (considering they ARE handguns). Of all handguns available, I'd probably pick a 9mm despite a fairly low stopping power.

- A .38 Special. A S&W 10 with a 4 inch barrel is accurate, has low recoil and is quite reliable. Loaded with .38 +P. Second choice here (remember, this is a backup weapon.)

- A .45 ACP. Most likely an M1911A1. A 45 USP would probably be a bit much for me. Actually, so might the Colt...

- Absolute cutoff for a pistol: a .357 Magnum. And NOT an automatic. Even then, most likely loaded with .38 +P again - larger frame than a .38 means less recoil with the same round.
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265313] Thu, 21 October 2010 07:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sorca_2

 
Messages:206
Registered:September 2010
Location: California, USA
Totally off topic here, but...

MN, I'm in the market as well. Have been for a while, I guess.

Here in California the maximum legal magazine capacity is 10 rounds. Since one of the main advantages of 9mm weapons is magazine capacity, I figure I might as well go with a bigger caliber to get the most out of the 10 rounds I'm allowed. I've been looking at the S&W M&P because it's got 10 rounds of .45 ACP with a rail mount to boot. I would consider .40 if the recoil is too strong, but I haven't had a chance to shoot one yet.

About the M1911, I've shot one a few times. Yeah, it does have recoil, but unlike modern designs the weapon is essentially a big chunk of metal, so it absorbs most of it for you. You should definitely try one out if you haven't. I really liked the ones I've shot.

Back on topic at least somewhat:
I fired .44 Special out of my father's Super Redhawk and it was just as smooth as his .38 S&W police revolver. It's basically the same thing just scaled up. I wouldn't call it difficult to handle at all. Easy trigger pull, doesn't wobble in your hand, easy to make small adjustments, recoil negligible. Never fired the magnum ammo out of it though--I think it was pretty expensive. I saw a box of .44 Magnum Black Talon ammo at a gun show once and it was crazy expensive (no longer produced... not even sure if it's legal anymore).
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265317] Thu, 21 October 2010 08:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usrbid

 
Messages:1580
Registered:December 2008
Hi sorca_2, I am also in CA, in the South Bay Area, PM me if you want to go to Reeds or Target Masters.


Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265351] Thu, 21 October 2010 16:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starwalker

 
Messages:769
Registered:October 2005
Location: Hannover, Germany
All guns in 1.13 have their data relate to each other according to how they relate to each other in the real world, meaning that a heavy gun may absorb recoil better, but has worse handling characteristics.

How are large caliber guns used in the real word? They are great for home-defense or for hunting, but definitely not for everyday-carry (and that's why no military in the world uses these things, after the price-tag these guns have...).

Making them better in 1.13 would destroy the realism I tried to achieve (I am fully aware that I cannot achieve 'full' realism, nor is that wanted), because their relation is to each other is no longer true.

Other than that, Kazuya said it all, already. And yes, there are pranksters at gunranges who give the rookie a DE .50AE just to have a laugh...


Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265352] Thu, 21 October 2010 17:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2814
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Aside from the on/off for the alternate aiming system, what I've done in UC-1.13NAS is data entry (XML) based. To be frank, I should add a warning to the documentation not to turn off the alternate aiming system as everything right now should be balanced for it.

As far as relating AP costs to weapon, what I've done is used an expanded range of AP's for draw. The intention for Shots/4turns is for it to represent the effort*** to support the weapon and pull the trigger, which is why in my XML's pistols sometimes seem slower than some of the more compact rifles (presumed to have three points of contact with the shooter). Unfourtunatly, with respect to the main topic of this thread, large caliber pistols represent the majority of pistols with Shots/4turn AP costs that seem high relative to carbines.

See this post for details for the proposed draw cost plan: http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=261200#Post261200

and after some concerns were raised about how far I went, here is what I've tried to implement, and is still in the current UC-1.13NAS v2.75: http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=261209#Post261209

Among the goals of the above is to encourage use of pistols/MP's into late game as they have sizable draw advantage.

EDIT: note that the modifiers listed for select attachments are no longer true, many of the scopes have been changed, and for weapons equipped with folding stocks, the draw bonus of having the stock in its collapsed form has been reduced. The folding stock system I have implemented is a document in itself...


***The definition of AP I use is that it is a combination of time and effort, and not one of either.

[Updated on: Thu, 21 October 2010 17:38] by Moderator



Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265357] Thu, 21 October 2010 18:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gazz

 
Messages:32
Registered:October 2010
Location: Bavaria
sorca_2
1. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. They don't need 10 extra range, but I think 2 or 3 is completely justifiable and would at least give them a decent advantage over pistols that can be fired twice as fast.

That's an intriguing idea. I wonder what the gameplay result would be of doubling range and nerfing accuracy way down. Might have to try that to see what happens.

In my game I have increased all .44 / .357 / bigger pistols by 2-3 range.
Reduced accuracy by 2 and added +5 when prone.
Reduced AP by about 1.5 - 2.
Increased damage by 2.

I'm not even trying to sell this as "better" or even realistic. It's just what I want my Hollywood game to be.
Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya?

So far it seems to work out although for "real" CQB, a small MP is still vastly superior when you go nuts with full auto.
Kinda sad when a .44 mag could really stop an elephant with one bullet. (on a good day =P )
I may reduce the firing costs for pistols even further but I don't want them to do single shot autofire, either...


Quote:
Right, I'm not opposed to the backpack at all because you are already tactically penalized plenty for putting stuff in there. Hell, I wouldn't mind if you could carry a duffel bag in both hands with 6+ rifles. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't be able to fit in the regular (ex: TT 3-day) packs to stop you from bringing 6 different rifles ready to draw at any moment. This would make the holster weapons (pistols, large pistols, machine pistols) much more useful as back-ups later on in addition to keeping Day 1 weapons in the mix.

Well, you really only need a stack of backpacks on one of your characters.
You fill one BP with guns and put it (loaded) into the sector inventory.
When you have a few there, you just put those 4 full backpacks into your real backpack and you can carry 16 different rifles.

And you can have your duffel bag right now. Just carry a loaded backpack in your hands.

The "tactical disadvantage" vanishes if you manually put those backpacks into a combat pack slot. That way you're not "wearing a backpack" but you still have access to the contents if you want.

Takes a bit to disentangle everything on arrival but hey - needs must! There is no such thing as too much dakka! http://www.imagebanana.com/img/9g9i0pji/biggunz.gif

And I increased the Pistol/Holster pocket sizes by one so I could put silenced pistols and small MP there.
Reducing the size of those guns would have been the cleaner solution but that doesn't really bother me.
This "mod" isn't going to be released. =P
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265358] Thu, 21 October 2010 19:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sorca_2

 
Messages:206
Registered:September 2010
Location: California, USA
@Starwalker:

Ok, so you disagree with #1 and #2 for balance reasons--I can respect that. But how does, for example, giving the DE .44 3-4 longer range than the SIG P210 instead of 1 destroy the balance? Surely this wouldn't make them uber, and even among pistols the SIG P210 would still be the better choice in almost every situation. Just trying to understand the balance system.

What do you think about #3, #4, #5 in the first post since they don't change the AP/Accuracy/Range of any weapons? What about Kazuya's suggestion about mercs reloading slower/faster based on skills? These wouldn't specifically help large pistols, but all holstered weapons would increase in value.

@Gazz:

LOL, man I think you might need mental help with all that backpack stuff. I was already describing the game as "Jagged Inventory Management Alliance" to my wife without doing all of that. Very Happy

[Updated on: Thu, 21 October 2010 19:08] by Moderator

Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265360] Thu, 21 October 2010 19:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gazz

 
Messages:32
Registered:October 2010
Location: Bavaria
No, I just need bigger backpacks.
Hmm. I could install 2 more "general" slots across 2 of the small slots on the left...
That probably gets messed up with gfx layer priorities because I think I tried that before and the null slot ended up overlaying the new "2 tile" slot.

You know the scene in Pratchett's "Pyramids", where the young assassin puts on his guild regulation default equipment? That's how my mercs are going to war.
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265396] Fri, 22 October 2010 16:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
wolf00

 
Messages:1130
Registered:September 2006
Location: Czech Republic

.357 revolver,this guns can use .38 special ammo in real world,so why not in ja2 1.13 ?
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265398] Fri, 22 October 2010 16:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Logisteric

 
Messages:3498
Registered:December 2008
Location: B
for the 2.749.921th time: 'cause you cannot have different calibres with one gun :axe: ja-wise
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265402] Fri, 22 October 2010 18:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usrbid

 
Messages:1580
Registered:December 2008
You could make an item merge of old gun plus barrel gives you new gun (completely different item id), however it is better to eject the ammo before the merge otherwise you might get incorrect ammo ejected later.

Another idea is to make two .38 ammo items and change the text of one of them .357. Not sure if you could give the .357 named item a bonus to damage in Items.xml. I mean I know you can type it in the XML, I just don't know if it would work in the game, it probably would.


Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265416] Fri, 22 October 2010 20:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kazuya

 
Messages:222
Registered:January 2009
Dieter
Another idea is to make two .38 ammo items and change the text of one of them .357. Not sure if you could give the .357 named item a bonus to damage in Items.xml. I mean I know you can type it in the XML, I just don't know if it would work in the game, it probably would.

If you do it this way, the .38 Revolver in Game could be loaded with the .357 cartridges, which doesn't work in RL.
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265419] Fri, 22 October 2010 21:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sorca_2

 
Messages:206
Registered:September 2010
Location: California, USA
I got a little confused there, but couldn't you just make a .357 magnum "anti-AET" ammo type that is basically worse in every way and call it .38 Special? Then the .357 caliber weapons could shoot both. Maybe that's what Dieter already said?

If I understand Kazuya correctly, the problem then becomes that the actual .38 revolver couldn't fire that "crappy .357" ammo because it's still assigned to a different caliber. But what if we changed the .38 to use only that ammo type within the .357 caliber... is there a way to restrict a weapon from accepting a type of ammo within a caliber? Example: Could you make it so the Beretta 92 can't shoot HP (for whatever reason)?
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265420] Fri, 22 October 2010 21:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3746
Registered:July 2009
No.
All these workarounds lead to one of two situations:
a) Why the ... can't I shoot this .38 round with my .38 revolver (making 'crappy' .357)
b) Safely shooting .357 from a .38 revolver.

It's one of those minor details that should wait for a redesign of the ammo system.

(another good use would be low powered 12g ammo that can't cycle automatic shotguns)


Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265423] Fri, 22 October 2010 21:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kazuya

 
Messages:222
Registered:January 2009
sorca_2
I got a little confused there, but couldn't you just make a .357 magnum "anti-AET" ammo type that is basically worse in every way and call it .38 Special? Then the .357 caliber weapons could shoot both. Maybe that's what Dieter already said?

If I understand Kazuya correctly, the problem then becomes that the actual .38 revolver couldn't fire that "crappy .357" ammo because it's still assigned to a different caliber. But what if we changed the .38 to use only that ammo type within the .357 caliber... is there a way to restrict a weapon from accepting a type of ammo within a caliber? Example: Could you make it so the Beretta 92 can't shoot HP (for whatever reason)?


To clear things up:

The .38 cartridge and the .357 cartridge are almost identical, except for one thing: The .357 is longer. The imperial calibre is somewhat misleading, because both nominal calibres (the diameter of the bullet) are 9 mm. So if you take a .357 revolver, you can load both rounds, the .38 and the .357 into the cylinder chambers. If you take a .38 revolver on the other hand, the .357 round won't fit in, because the round is longer than the cylinder. That's the reason, why a .357 revolver can fire both calibres, while a .38 revolver has to use .38 ammo. The proposed "solutions" will let the player shoot both rounds from a .38 revolver.
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265427] Fri, 22 October 2010 22:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sorca_2

 
Messages:206
Registered:September 2010
Location: California, USA
Good to know. I had the same case length issue when researching .22LR/.22 Magnum thing with MissingName elsewhere.

Back on topic, it seems like there are a significant amount of anti-large pistol people out there, which is fine. I still haven't seen how 2 or 3 more range and/or 1 or 2 less AP on a few of them is unrealistic or would upset the balance. It seems like most of the arguments are that large pistols shouldn't be overpowered, but I'm only suggesting tiny changes in #1 and #2 to make them suck less. Taking 2 AP off of the DE .50's total AP to aim and fire is just a 5% decrease, for example. I'm in no way arguing that they should be superior in all circumstances.

However, at this point I think the above is less important than last 3 suggestions because they would add more realism in addition to increasing the longevity of smaller weapons. I don't think I've seen anyone disagree with suggestions #3, #4, #5 (besides Gazz' blatant inventory exploit).

#3: Increase reload APs to make having a backup weapon more important and having an empty weapon more scary. Even better, Kazuya's idea for having reload APs depend on skill, if possible.

#4: Have some kind of AP penalty or draw cost for using a weapon from the sling and a bigger penalty for the regular (ex: TT 3-day) pack. This would make holstered weapons more desirable as back-ups since they are faster to switch out.

#5: Change the regular (ex: TT 3-day) packs so they can't hold any weapons larger than a machine pistol. This would limit the number of "big" weapons you can carry to 2 per merc (not including backpacks, which should probably be left alone for donkey purposes and because they've already got their own associated penalties). This would make smaller weapons get more use, and right now it's a little ridiculous to carry a sniper rifle, a shotgun, a carbine, and 3 SMGs around that are all available as immediate back-ups anyway.

If we're worried about messing with the difficulty or AI, #4 and #5 shouldn't impact them at all--if anything they level the playing field so we can't carry 5 more big weapons than the AI without some kind of penalty to get to them. #3 would impact the AI and the player equally. If even 2 of these 3 were implemented, some of the Week 1 guns might be useful even until the end of the game in emergency situations.
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265480] Sat, 23 October 2010 21:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2814
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Purely anecdotally, but isn't the argument against a range boost due to these large calibre firing relatively slow moving bullets? For my own projects .45ACP and above have a lower range equivalent weapons in 9x19mm. (I also played around with sound values/modifiers to make the .45ACP quieter than 9x19mm when a suppressor is attached due to the round being subsonic, also means I don't have to worry about cold loaded ammo for these rounds).

I do however agree that base damage for large calibre weapons should be comparable to that of shorter barrel rifle type weapons in-game. (Checked the new Base Mod, .357 revolvers have have the same damage value as Colt Sub Compact Weapon and CMMG 7.3, .357 Desert Eagle 1 less for balance purposes vs. the revolvers).

[Updated on: Sat, 23 October 2010 21:54] by Moderator



Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265486] Sun, 24 October 2010 01:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starwalker

 
Messages:769
Registered:October 2005
Location: Hannover, Germany
In JA2 a gun has no range penalty up to one third of its effective range, after that penalties accumulate. So changing the range of a gun has quite some meaning, especially at the lower end of ranges, it's sort of giving the gun a to-hit bonus (and that's what Match ammo does in 1.13).

And basically all pistols' ranges are too long compared to the rifles' ranges, otherwise they would not be usable at all (with reality based ranges, pistols in JA2 should have ranges between 30 and 80 meters).

Well, if someone wants to change it for their mod, that's fine, but I am not going to change it in the base 1.13 mod. I still remember how many months I have worked on the weapon balance between late 2005 and early 2006,, to have it all relate correctly to another...


Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265492] Sun, 24 October 2010 02:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Missing Name

 
Messages:63
Registered:July 2010
Location: SPADS Camp, Calaveritas I...
Starwalker
In JA2 a gun has no range penalty up to one third of its effective range, after that penalties accumulate. So changing the range of a gun has quite some meaning, especially at the lower end of ranges, it's sort of giving the gun a to-hit bonus (and that's what Match ammo does in 1.13).

And basically all pistols' ranges are too long compared to the rifles' ranges, otherwise they would not be usable at all (with reality based ranges, pistols in JA2 should have ranges between 30 and 80 meters).

Well, if someone wants to change it for their mod, that's fine, but I am not going to change it in the base 1.13 mod. I still remember how many months I have worked on the weapon balance between late 2005 and early 2006,, to have it all relate correctly to another...


1 - I didn't realize that.

2 - Unrealistic, but indeed the only way to make pistols useful at all.

3 - Somewhat in favor of giving magnums a +1 range. But reworking the entire thing would be a pain, especially for the guys who built the damn thing in the first place.
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265500] Sun, 24 October 2010 09:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gazz

 
Messages:32
Registered:October 2010
Location: Bavaria
I have played with beefed-up magnums for a while now and again, they are going the way of the dodo.

Extended range, damage, and about 2 AP reduced firing costs.
Yet, some tiny Beretta 93R with tracer or AET ammo totally owns them in the sidearm department.

Without turning them into some Warhammer-style Megablasta, they will have no purpose beyond being weapons with some range very early on.
In that role, however, they are kinda nice. They bridge the distribution gap between crappy pistols and mid-range SMG.
It's not much but better than "completely useless at any time". =)

A nice side effect is that you cannot simply ignore some goon with "just a pistol"...
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265522] Sun, 24 October 2010 15:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
nni
Messages:5
Registered:July 2010
Location: Maputo, Mozambique
The point is that large pistols are pretty useless in RL, and that should be reflected in the game.
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265523] Sun, 24 October 2010 16:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starwalker

 
Messages:769
Registered:October 2005
Location: Hannover, Germany
nni
The point is that large pistols are pretty useless in RL, and that should be reflected in the game.

Exactly my point Smile

They do have a /few/ uses in RL, as I pointed out earlier, namely hunting and home defense, but both of these do not appear in JA2 (unless you want to arm the shop-owners).


Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265524] Sun, 24 October 2010 16:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starwalker

 
Messages:769
Registered:October 2005
Location: Hannover, Germany
MissingName
3 - Somewhat in favor of giving magnums a +1 range. But reworking the entire thing would be a pain, especially for the guys who built the damn thing in the first place.

For your own game, just make the Match-Sights attachable Wink


Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265534] Sun, 24 October 2010 17:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gazz

 
Messages:32
Registered:October 2010
Location: Bavaria
Messing around with attachments? Rather change the speeds directly because early on - when you would most need those pistols - you won't get reflex sights.


Changing the values for personal use isn't that hard. There are only a handful of heavy pistols and you can sort by size, which finds them quickly.
The problem is to find values that make sense. Or rather values that are fun...?

Under current rules, a single shot pistol is not going to have the stopping power to ever make it an alternative in the mid-late game.
IRL a .44 Mag might stop an elephant but in JA2 it's only going to piss off that treated-spectra-armored elite.
(tweaking weapon damages is an entirely different can of worms in JA =)
If something nasty comes around the corner right in front of your sniper while he's reloading, you draw that micro uzi and empty half a clip worth of AET into it. That works because with armor detoriation, you practically dig a channel through that piece of armor.

With a heavy pistol you'd get maybe two rounds off if you're lucky. Unless you make them as fast as a small Beretta...
That is pretty much what you have to do to make heavy pistols have any role whatsoever. No or a trivial draw cost, fast single shot around 18-20 AP.

To let heavy pistols work at any range at all, their "official" range must be more in the 15-17 range. Maybe a little above.
Otherwise you get bling-bling-bling "out of effective weapon range" all the damn time and that's simply not fun of you like toting big handguns around. (this is not a competition - the game serves the player, not the other way around)
A generic accuracy malus (3-5 %) would make them pretty crappy as early sniper weapons or you'd at least pay so much for the aiming points that you should have used a longer weapon (SMG) to begin with.
At short ranges (the first third of that range, maybe a bit beyond) they'd be okay in trained hands.

That way heavy pistols would generally be less accurate than SMG or comparable things with at least a token stock.
That bit would be realistic because I know that I could shoot comparable results at about twice the range with a 9x19 SMG vs with a 9x19 pistol.
If your merc is a good shooter he can handle a heavy handgun for close defense, otherwise stick to something more... adequate.

Small caliber pistols should be largely unchanged, possibly just increasing range by one point at no accuracy cost. Can't make them much faster without eliminating the need for MPs because you could fire single shots as fast as they do on full auto. =P


An alternative would be to make .44/.357 ammo more than armor piercing. Like 0.3 - 0.5 instead of the 0.75 (of 1.00) of "AP" rounds.
.44 ball ammo might be 0.65 and "AP" 0.3
From a realism POV that would be utterly ridiculous because a 7.62x51 FMJ doesn't play in the same league with pistol ammo... but you could invoke the Rule Of Cool. Dirty Harry's gun is magical while a generic G3A3 is nowhere close to that level of coolness. It's just a boring, ugly, and pretty heavy rifle.
If it's fun and enriches gameplay, anything goes.
Offhand I can't recall any rifle using that caliber which could exploit the feature.
Effectively these guns would get the Dirty Harry Bonus or DHB. No need to construct any fake logical reasons for that.

I'll probably continue to tinker with that for a bit. I just hate to see a game structured to create useless content.
As it stands, you don't get the attachments or specialised ammo to make heavy pistols useful before you get access to mid range MP and SMG. And at that point all pistols go to the recycling bin.
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265547] Sun, 24 October 2010 19:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sorca_2

 
Messages:206
Registered:September 2010
Location: California, USA
Starwalker
Well, if someone wants to change it for their mod, that's fine, but I am not going to change it in the base 1.13 mod. I still remember how many months I have worked on the weapon balance between late 2005 and early 2006,, to have it all relate correctly to another...

Ok, I can live with that... but I was saying that it's not as important as the other 3 issues I raised in my last post. What do you think about those? They don't give any special favor to large pistols. They would add realism, level the playing field against the AI, and give you a reason to keep holstered weapons around until the end of the game, all without touching the combat system's balance.
Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265567] Mon, 25 October 2010 00:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starwalker

 
Messages:769
Registered:October 2005
Location: Hannover, Germany
Well, reloading is mostly based on the slowest guns to reload, i.e. the shotguns with tubular magazines, which need to be reloaded shell by shell. From that the other reloading costs have been done in relation to that. As you have already noticed, they are too fast.

I can reload a pistol in 4 seconds these days, and my time in the army is over for more than 25 years now. A properly trained guy would be faster than that, but I guess that most JA2 mercs are not IPSC shooters and thus would still take at least 3 seconds under battlefield conditions. So reloading a pistol should cost around 54AP, and everything else should relate to that. But wait, 54AP /are/ around 3 seconds of a 5 second turn, and a lot of guns need more time than that. And we cannot spread reloading over several turns (at the moment this works only 'somewhat' with loose shotgun ammo, we canot do it with clips).

So your idea of upping reload AP would destroy the relation between the guns again.


AP-costs for talking equipment from the LBE were in discussion earlier, but there is a fundamental problem that the Scorpion found: In real life we can estimate the range to throw a grenade, but in JA2 we need to put the grenade into the merc's hand and place the cursor to estimate the probability of hitting the spot we want (after all, throwing range is dependent on STR and stance). If it would cost AP to take the grenade from the vest and then put it back, then this would be the same as charging AP just for looking at a spot and spend a thought about it. Basically, the system cannot distinguish between the two probable things we want to accomplish by taking the grenade from its pocket: To actually throw it, or just use a game-mechanic to estimate the range. The first one could be charged AP, but the latter should not.
Because we could not overcome this problem, AP-costs for handling the contents of LBE have been limited to the backpack (as it was already from the start with NIV).


The amount of guns that can be carried is a problem, that's true. But the combat packs are designed especially to simulate the equipment worn on one's back to have combat essential equipment ready at hand (basically mortar shells, RPG warheads, medical eqipment, and spare ammo). That guns fit into them as well is normal, even in real life, you need just to keep the flap open or distort it a bit so that the barrel of the gun sticks out of the pack. So it is not that unrealistic, IMNSHO.
Of course one can let stronger mercs abuse this to carry spare assault rifles to erase the immediate need for reloading, but this means abusing a game mechanic.

It boils down to this: You ask us to stop people from abusing game features, but we cannot do that, because the game engine has limits and there will always be some thing that can be exploited. If we plug one hole, another one will be found.
People who want to cheat can do that, if they think it's fun, why not?
People who want some realism in their game simply do not exploit these things.

I for myself have a sidearm on all of my mercs (some like Wolf or Grizzly even get one of the larger ones, even if the guns are not really that good), which is used when the mercs enter buildings, because in buildings opponents can appear suddenly at short ranges. And I try to limit myself to a realistic loadout of my mercs, I simply do not need a programmer to restrict me in my choices Wink


Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265568] Mon, 25 October 2010 00:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starwalker

 
Messages:769
Registered:October 2005
Location: Hannover, Germany
Gazz
I'll probably continue to tinker with that for a bit. I just hate to see a game structured to create useless content.

I think you forget one thing: There will always be a worst item (you cannot make several items without one being the worst, unless they are all equal). Make it better, then another one will be the worst and someone else begins to complain. So make /that/ one better, with the /same/ result. Repeat ad nauseam/infinitum.


Re: Balancing for Large Pistols[message #265572] Mon, 25 October 2010 02:01 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Gazz

 
Messages:32
Registered:October 2010
Location: Bavaria
Oh, I'm not forgeting that. In a one-dimensional game (like Wasteland or 1st edition D&D), where a weapon is defined by exactly one number, yes. You're absolutely right.
The weapon with the higher number will automatically be better.

I was considering the game as a completely fictious world where all items could have a role.

Take carbines vs long AR, for instance.
Is one automatically better / worse than the other or is there more than one number or situation involved?


Pistols do not have any role whatsoever beyond a very early point in the game.
From a purely game design point of view, that's a problem because it eliminates a whole class of weapons from the game.
You don't create content in the first place if you intend to make it useless.
For small caliber pistols, there's no helping it. They just cannot be boosted far enough by any stretch of imagination. Large pistols - maybe.


I'm just tossing ideas around and yes, you have the balancing pretty well done for a realistic approach. Pistols are actually way too good already because for any "real" combat use, they are not even on the scale. (100-150 m under combat conditions? That's rather questionable... on a shooting range. =)

In an ideal game, they would have a role. That would make it borderline believeable that a team of "experienced mercenaries" attacks a hostile country equipped with no more than small handguns.
This way of starting the game is completely idiotic. Maybe with a chopper crash, parachute insertion gone wrong, or shipwreck, it could be explained that the mercs arrive with no more than what they could walk / swim away with but even then, there'd be a high probability of them keeping their assault rifles in arm's reach.
I wouldn't expect them to arrive with less equipment than some 3rd world country bum outfit.

For some "civilian" types like Flo or MD, I could understand that they don't have real weapons but any grunt would have an SMG as the absolute minimum.
In fact, if I'd intend to "live off the land" for a while, I'd probably bring AK-47 - not pistols, which enemy soldiers are unlikely to have ammo for.

Maybe if they'd have to "get through customs" - that would be a good explanation. A concealable weapon would in fact be the best some of them could manage.
Previous Topic: Sovereign's Gun Art (Re-Opened for Business)
Next Topic: threewing's guns & stuffs
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Jul 23 01:35:47 EEST 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01223 seconds