+21
Under Review

Pistols

Beef Squisher 1 month ago • updated 8 hours ago 24 1 duplicate

Again and again you see squads with 3 or more people all using a pistol. Why? Because they're extremely powerful. Why wouldn't you use a gun that reliably one hits anyone within a trench fight, whilst still being semi-automatic and generally quicker and easier?


There a many, many issues with this, from both a gameplay and authenticity standpoint and I'll outline just a few quickly:

Issues with the pistols themselves

-It's incredibly unfun to play against a fast weapon that can be sprayed from hipfire and still be more effective than a rifle.

-Even from a range of around 30-50 metres they're still effective enough to be threatening, and potentially scoring 1 hit kills.

Issues with the number of people using pistols (which stems directly from the balancing of them, they're overpowered so they're overused)

-It's completely unrealistic. It's difficult, at least to me alone, to find the exact numbers of each weapon produced or used in ww1, especially with the m1911's length of service, but by all accounts the numbers of pistols used in ww1 were absolutely dwarfed by the numbers of rifles. So, when you run around trying to immerse yourself in the ww1 experience you find it completely ruined by the majority of the enemy team running about with pistols.

-It ruins the unique draw of Verdun against other games, such as Battlefield 1. The beauty of Verdun against other shooters was the reliance on bolt action etc. Games like Battlefield 1 don't feel authentic like Verdun has done in the past, due to the influence of automatic and semi-automatic weapons - which makes it feel the same as just any other shooter on the market. The greatest thing about Verdun is the almost rhythmic playstyle that comes from most people using a bolt-action rifle. That, however, DIES when automatic and semi-automatic are so much more attractive to use.

-It stamps out any variety. This affects especially the American squads, and the French squads second, as their main rifles aren't as fun to play as any other squads', while their pistols are the best. As such, when you have an American squad you won't expect to see 2 springfields, an M1917 and a M1911, you will see 3 M1911s and a M1917.

-The issues from the first category again, but now you're dealing with LOADS of people.


Changing the possibilities in loadouts will not cut it, nor does "muh recoil" suffice, given one shot kills so it actually doesn't matter if there's recoil after the enemy is already dead, when people are hipfiring anyway they don't tend to care about recoil AND when people are proning the effect is reduced (so it really incentivises proning with pistols, which is a TERRIBLE THING).

The solution to this scourge is the reduction in damage of pistols, with the potential exclusion of the slow-firing revolvers. Other than headshots, one hit kills should become far more rare or even impossible - the only exclusions being perhaps people within 2 metres. The default expectation for a pistol should be a kill in two shots, unless one goes to the leg or the enemy is 80+ metres away (mid/long-distance shots aren't a problem as it's hard enough to hit anyway)


I recognise that 4 weeks ago there was a post about this, but given the poster is now banned and that post had absolutely no response, I figured I'd post again about it, besides our views are slightly different. I also recognise you have a spreadsheet for this, but it's really not something that returns the same level of impact, simplicity, detail or response that a thread here has.

Game Version:
Regular Verdun
Reproduction steps:
Shoot enemy from 20 metres in the chest with a pistol, he dies. Hipfire from 5 metres, you will hit before he aims and hits you.
Output Log:
Gameplay Weapons

Duplicates 1

Maybe read it next time before commenting thanks

The devs are going to ignore this so hard

+1

Yeah thought I could get enough upvotes but people aren't doing it thanks to having to log in ffs. Keeps the voter base as that select group of passionate morons. Also doesn't help that no-one believes this site can lead to change so again, they don't bother.

-1

Yeah, you could probably tell the devs exactly what to fix and they still wouldn't fix it. Cause that would take effort

-2

It is good you have to log in for voting, as before, the voting was rather useless. You were able to spam votes with new cookies/browser sessions. People were abusing it. Now the spammers have at least to create multiple accounts, what seems to be too much for most spammers ;-)

+2

I completely agree. I think the easiest way of fixing this is just by making any pistol 2 hit kill, independent of distance. Maybe you could let the head still be 1hk, but rest just 2 hits. Also make the rifles 1hk. This would instantly reduce the amount of pistols and make Verdun more rifle-friendly again.

So what you're saying is bring back the old damage model? No matter how much we all want it it'll never happen.

My problem with the whole "independent of distance" idea is that it's not realistic. I see people in the thread here pointing out real life and I have too in the past when they nerfed rifle damage over distances. So, I must say, if a soldier shot another soldier with the .45 ACP round fired out of a Colt 1911, the shot soldier is done. I don't care who he is.


Over distances, it becomes harder to aim a handgun for the simple fact that there is really no second or third point of contact on your body to steady the firearm. That, and it fires a smaller projectile. So, reducing the distances for handguns is fine, but I say rework each pistol's effectiveness at range individually instead of just making all of them a 2hk. 


Again, the point on rifles I agree. With the distances represented in the game, we should never see a "hit marker" for a rifle ever. The distances are at most 300 to 400m at most IF I am correct. And IF I am, rifles should be changed and they will become more popular. 

This isn't a point for realism, though. Every game takes license to choose what elements of reality to keep and which not to, in almost all games, regardless of the level of realism, weapons that would kill in one require more shots in game for the sake of gameplay balance, because that always has to come first in a game.

+1

historically only NCO's and machine gunners would have had pistols at all, maybe with the exception of trench raiding parties. anways, the best solution IMO would be to reduce psitols to those two classes and then also reduce overall number of magazines significantly (gunners had like only two spare magazines). pistols already suck on distance, they would feel even more underwhelming than the shotgun if damage was reduced further.

+2

why not remodel to how they worked before ? 2hk at any distance, more balanced imo

We shouldn't use realism to balance

if headshots are still 1HK as suggested by Pepula. i still think there should be damage drop-off for very long distances.

yes pistols ruin immersion everything else is very immersive

also my name is not Madis is Ülo

-1

It would be indeed more realisitc, if pistols were not that powerful. Especially the aiming should be harder. It seems that the iron sights line up in the fastest way compared to other weapons (rifles), what would never happen in reality. In reality it is way harder to aim with pistol iron sights than with rifle iron sights. Maybe you don't have to reduce damage, but just make it harder to aim with pistol. Hipfiring should be really hard. In reality it happens very easily that you miss a target on 25m, so aiming should really not be that easy as it is at the moment.

-7

Clearly it would be stupid to make hip firing worse than it already is, I mean it already sucks big time. If there's anything fishy about pistols is that you can snipe someone 1km away with it. Everything else is fine imo.

But then again that's Verdun : with any gun it's easier to kill long range than hip firing when they are 2-3 m away from you.


People should stop whining about semi-autos... it's not even that good. Put your feelings aside and actually count which weapons have killed you the most. That's right, SMLE and KAR98 are the most used despite the common claims that semi-autos are OP...

+2

Completely disagree. But you have a right to your awful, awful opinion. I'm imagining you're trying to protect your own favourite weapons? No problemo, I'd do the same. 


Kar and SMLE are two weapons from squads other than the American and French squads which I directly referenced. You kinda proved my point there by not mentioning American or French rifles, MPs and MGs are only less used because they are less accessible, and the feel of the luger is not as good as that of the ruby or M1911, I think statistically they are supposed to be more or the same, but the sights are weak and it gives the impression of greater recoil. As I mentioned in the OP, the webley is no-where near as problematic due to its slow fire rate.


You're simply wrong about the long range vs hipfire thing. Completely pulled out of... Well, hipfiring should be all means be close to useless, in comparible games such as rising storm, hipfire is far less effective than it is in Verdun. In all cases except point blank, people should be expected to aim. It's true that it is possible to miss like 5 shots with a pistol from hipfire if you're around 10 metres away, or very confused, but at the end of the day, chances are the bullet spam will come through and one shot will hit - which is all you need. It takes no level of skill to hipfire pistol, it's not fun to play with or against, and it should not be protected or encouraged.

-5

lol... I say "put your feelings aside" I get a 100% emo response -- and  what's more a personal attack.


Pistols are very accessible for any squad. Yet rifles are used a lot more. That was the point.

If pistols are that OP how come zero pro player relies on them?..........

I said hip firing 2-3 m away, not 10. Even point blank hip fire missed a lot in Verdun, if you play the game you should know that.


And so if you disagree completely with my opinion that implies you want to still be able to snipe 1km away with a pistol. How odd.


Seriously... chill down and think before you post nonsense.

+2

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I'm typing nonsense?

Okay.


For the record I took the 3m and 1km complaints as both complete overstatements and as such just ignored them ;), like how you ignored the points I made in my last comment. It's complete bs that rifles are used more in French and American squads in maps like Artois, champagne, douamont and Argonne.


Look, I'm 900 hours in across 3 years, don't patronise me about how hipfire works. Good players don't rely on pistols because they don't need to, a lot of them played back in the day when they weren't as they are now and at range they're useless while most experienced players like staying fairly far out. 


Hope that wasn't too emotional ;(

Many pro player (of which I include myself (as player in many past and future events) the issue is pretty easy: we prefer rifles because we can train ourselves into mastering them: aiming, shooting, jumpshots, reaction time etc. What we see with pistols is that hipfiring them requires nothing i just mentioned. I used to use them a lot too, but they just don't require any skill in using them, same as mp's and mg's...


Next point, we see the kar and smle being used mire because almost every role can use them. The mg and mp are limited to few squads and even fewer roles. If you would give everybody a mp18 you won't see much rufles in the game anymore. 

I like pistols being able to kill in one shot up close, but I don't like how spammy they are. An increase in recoil (we are firing them one-handed after all) and a decrease in fire rate would make me satisfied; a damage reduction would be okay as long as they're still useful up close. The M1911 in particular has very little kick for the stopping power it has.