Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Halving revolver damage

  1. #1

    USA Lieutenant General

    Kane Kaizer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Free Kansas
    Posts
    92

    Halving revolver damage

    I didn't really get much feedback on this idea before so I'm making it its own topic. I really think this idea could kill two birds with one stone, though, and should be easy enough to implement. If the revolver requires two hits to kill rather than one, much like the bayonet, it should curb ramboing by a significant degree, IMO. Mainly due to the fact that a rambo could only hope to get three kills instead of as many as six, and even that would require achieving all six hits without dying. That also means that even a rambo who gets his three kills and dies would still be costing his team more than helping (unless by some miracle he whips out his sword and kills a bunch more without dying).

    The second "bird", if you will, is that this would justify adding revolver reloads, because the OP nature of it would be eliminated. Reloading would take a considerable amount of time, so a rambo would have no hope of reloading and continuing his onslaught in enemy territory. The revolver would be, for the most part, reduced to its intended purpose which is for self-protection.

  2. #2
    Revolvers have two purposes in this game right now (Sergeant majors fall into this category also)

    1) For an officer to defend a smaller unit from an attacking force. Whether that attacking force is two or three soldiers sneaking up on the line or an enemy unit charging the position, both require an officer to be successful and for anything to happen on the map. The same goes for if a unit is charging, an officer can make or break these charges because a good one can significantly aid in the charge and result in a win. This may sound stupid, and further reason to change the officers' pistols, but, in these small skirmish game modes where clumps of units will fight clumps of units and result in a stalemate, an officer can break this deadlock and result in anything happening and let things move along. Until people start to try and use other strategies than just 'flank over and over no matter how useless it is,' only an officer will break that deadlock or a MASSIVE, overwhelming force.
    2) Self-defense of the officer, but this ties into function one.

    Cutting the damage in half would make officers not as efficient at doing function one, and for the small skirmish maps we have right now, this function is essential because often the strategy for an attacker or defender is to break up their forces and have an officer lead that force. However, when we get out into the much bigger maps in the future, I would argue that you don't need to do this even then because I doubt an officer will sprint all the way to the enemy line on a massive map just to get a kill or two before being spotted far far away. In fact, I think in the bigger maps you could allow for an officer to reload (only once though) for the aforementioned reason.
    Last edited by McMuffin; 01-19-2018 at 10:41 PM.

  3. #3

    USA Major

    Shiloh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Shepherdstown, WV
    Posts
    715
    I really like this idea Kane and it's brilliant in it's simplicity.

    The way it is now is almost suicide to charge a unit that has one or two officers. They are the 'difference makers' in these situations and one officer can easily down 5-6 guys quickly on a charge (or half the charging numbers) out of the equation almost automatically. If you have two officers than you're talking about 10-12 guys that can be taken out almost instantly effectively rendering the charge a waste of tickets as how often are we charging many more guys then that? Even if you have 15 guys who began the charge two officers can easily take 2/3 of that attacking force out and with even numbers, there's no way that charge can succeed unless the officer(s) are/is taken out early which is hard to do when you're charging.

    I can't tell you how many times I've gotten the jump on an officer by bayoneting him in the back or side on a charge only to have him spin around and shoot me dead instantly. It always leaves me shaking my head on how unbalanced that feels.

  4. #4

    USA Lieutenant General

    Kane Kaizer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Free Kansas
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by McMuffin View Post
    Revolvers have two purposes in this game right now (Sergeant majors fall into this category also)

    1) For an officer to defend a smaller unit from an attacking force. Whether that attacking force is two or three soldiers sneaking up on the line or an enemy unit charging the position, both require an officer to be successful and for anything to happen on the map. The same goes for if a unit is charging, an officer can make or break these charges because a good one can significantly aid in the charge and result in a win. This may sound stupid, and further reason to change the officers' pistols, but, in these small skirmish game modes where clumps of units will fight clumps of units and result in a stalemate, an officer can break this deadlock and result in anything happening and let things move along. Until people start to try and use other strategies than just 'flank over and over no matter how useless it is,' only an officer will break that deadlock or a MASSIVE, overwhelming force.
    2) Self-defense of the officer, but this ties into function one.

    Cutting the damage in half would make officers not as efficient at doing function one, and for the small skirmish maps we have right now, this function is essential because often the strategy for an attacker or defender is to break up their forces and have an officer lead that force. However, when we get out into the much bigger maps in the future, I would argue that you don't need to do this even then because I doubt an officer will sprint all the way to the enemy line on a massive map just to get a kill or two before being spotted far far away. In fact, I think in the bigger maps you could allow for an officer to reload (only once though) for the aforementioned reason.
    Honestly, I think the reason why the officers have that "purpose" is only because the revolver gives them the power to do it. I believe that officers should be the ones planning out the strategy and trying to make sure that it gets executed properly, rather than trying to do half of the job themselves (They really shouldn't be the ones leading the charge like Alexander the Great, either). There are so many situations in which being a regular infantryman feels like a handicap by comparison. I would argue that perhaps in those later, larger battles where the ratio of revolvers to muskets is much more heavily weighted toward muskets, the change could be reverted, but we'd have to see. And I really do believe that this change would drastically reduce ramboing (or at least make the attempts far less effective or beneficial), and I also wouldn't mind them getting more than a single reload so long as it takes two bullets for each kill (except, perhaps, a headshot).

    In short, as a dedicated rifleman who never plays NCO or Officer classes, I think the officers should lead by their example, while their men do the lion's share of the actual fighting. I'm pretty sure that most of us bought the game for the fun of blasting away at each other with muskets, not to roleplay as Jesse James.
    Last edited by Kane Kaizer; 01-19-2018 at 11:35 PM.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiloh View Post
    I really like this idea Kane and it's brilliant in it's simplicity.

    The way it is now is almost suicide to charge a unit that has one or two officers. They are the 'difference makers' in these situations and one officer can easily down 5-6 guys quickly on a charge (or half the charging numbers) out of the equation almost automatically. If you have two officers than you're talking about 10-12 guys that can be taken out almost instantly effectively rendering the charge a waste of tickets as how often are we charging many more guys then that? Even if you have 15 guys who began the charge two officers can easily take 2/3 of that attacking force out and with even numbers, there's no way that charge can succeed unless the officer(s) are/is taken out early which is hard to do when you're charging.

    I can't tell you how many times I've gotten the jump on an officer by bayoneting him in the back or side on a charge only to have him spin around and shoot me dead instantly. It always leaves me shaking my head on how unbalanced that feels.
    Mathematically that could happen where two officers wipe out a charge but in reality they would get maybe 4-5 or so at best before being stabbed so many times and dying or being shot, they can't instantly pull back the hammer and snap aim which would let them take all of those guys out. And I can't tell you how many times I have bayoneted someone in the back, only to have them spin around and shoot me with their rifle. I know it is frustrating to have it happen to you, but, if you nerf officers like this you're going to get a lot more stalemate gameplay on bigger events because strategy is almost non-existant now.

  6. #6

    USA Major

    Shiloh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Shepherdstown, WV
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by McMuffin View Post
    Mathematically that could happen where two officers wipe out a charge but in reality they would get maybe 4-5 or so at best before being stabbed so many times and dying or being shot, they can't instantly pull back the hammer and snap aim which would let them take all of those guys out. And I can't tell you how many times I have bayoneted someone in the back, only to have them spin around and shoot me with their rifle. I know it is frustrating to have it happen to you, but, if you nerf officers like this you're going to get a lot more stalemate gameplay on bigger events because strategy is almost non-existant now.
    I respect what you're saying McMuffin but an officer can spin on you way faster than an infantry soldier and if you go back and watch some videos from Cody or any of those guys you'll see how quickly an officer can snap off six shots and stunt a charge. They also don't have that aiming sway like most have with a musket. They are crazy deadly right now in close quarter fighting and to me it feels unbalanced.

  7. #7
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Thank you for your suggestion.

    We're currently working on an officer specific system that will both limit ramboing as well as add to the role of the officer. In short: an officer is worthless alone on the field without men to lead and thus he will be relocated back to HQ with a message stating so. If this isn't going to get rid of the unwanted behavior we will makes changes to it (could be to strip the officer of his rank should he find himself alone too many times or it could indeed be to try out your damage suggestion).

    - Trusty

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiloh View Post
    I respect what you're saying McMuffin but an officer can spin on you way faster than an infantry soldier and if you go back and watch some videos from Cody or any of those guys you'll see how quickly an officer can snap off six shots and stunt a charge. They also don't have that aiming sway like most have with a musket. They are crazy deadly right now in close quarter fighting and to me it feels unbalanced.
    I know how fast an officer can send shots off, I've seen it plenty of times, hence why they are so effective and defending against a charge/leading a charge. I think that it's worth just dealing with it instead of severely nerfing the officers to where they are kind of useless. And you are going to have to expect some of this when you take what can be upwards of 70-80 people, put them in a small map where the point is also small, cluster them together with rifles and muskets then throw officers into the mix.

    But some of the systems on getting rid of rambos, if implemented, could solve this problem without having to nerf officers.

  9. #9
    Don't start nerfing weapon damage. Please for the love of all that is holy. Try to capture the actual reasons why officers didn't rambo in real life rather than getting into that stupidness. It's absurd enough that officers can't reload and that needs to change. The very opposite direction needs to be pursued. Not buying more into the "take away their bullets" campaign. There's no greater way to admit defeat than to do those sort of things.
    Gameplay Suggestions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjUuaVXTJsY


    Old Pennsylvania Discord: https://discord.gg/MjxfZ5n

  10. #10

    CSA Major

    John Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    Don't start nerfing weapon damage. Please for the love of all that is holy. Try to capture the actual reasons why officers didn't rambo in real life rather than getting into that stupidness. It's absurd enough that officers can't reload and that needs to change. The very opposite direction needs to be pursued. Not buying more into the "take away their bullets" campaign. There's no greater way to admit defeat than to do those sort of things.
    This is an interesting thread and one that perhaps defines better than most the difficulty of implementing an historically accurate simulation vs game. Pistols at the moment are 'gamed' in other words their effects are exploited (understandably) by those who wield them. Not all officers Rambo but there seems to be a reasonable number that do. I have been on the receiving end of a Rambo's pistol more than once, and its kind of annoying.

    Pistols were, and remain, as much a symbol of leadership, as of any practical value [and I say that as someone who helped invade a country in 2003 armed with a Browning Hi-power and 13 rounds of ammunition, feeling distinctly under-armed]. An officer's job is to motivate, maneuver, inspire, lead and occasionally cajole and threaten his troops into doing whatever is required to achieve the aim of the higher command. This was even more important during the Victorian/Civil War period, as battles were largely won or lost through the fire and maneuver of blocks of men directed by officers and NCOs. I'm happy to be corrected but I have read frequent accounts of sword and pistol armed officers being shot/stabbed and killed but relatively few where a pistol wielding chap routed solid infantry, as we seem to get at present.

    That said, pistols do put holes in people, especially at close range, so to nerf damage seems inappropriate. It seems to me that Campfire are on the right track with proposing a penalty for misuse of the officer class, rather that nerfing the damage. I like the elegance of Kane's solution, but it potentially solves the gaming issue, not the one that is at the heart of the realism question.
    Last edited by John Jones; 01-20-2018 at 10:59 PM. Reason: spelling mistake

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •