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.
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.
Customer support service by UserEcho