snappled

Down to Rifles

52 posts in this topic

On 3/3/2017 at 1:51 AM, major0noob said:

awhile back i suggested giving the riflemen pistols...

they'd still be outclassed by LMG's and SMG's in CQB, but at least the goofy-bolt-dance's would go away.

Agreed. That would make the rifle CQB less one-sided when facing smg's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, lipton said:

Agreed. That would make the rifle CQB less one-sided when facing smg's. 

Also agreed.

Look, my complaint was not with the rifle itself, per se .... the weapon works fine in its intended role (which is not inside a CP!). My complaint was that it is obviously used less than any other unit type (despite all the cheerleaders of the rifle that have appeared in this thread), and that reveals a problem with the TOE quantities. We are being provided a whole bunch of rifles not because they are useful in one of the most common types of engagements encountered in the game, or desired by most of the playerbase, but for some other reason that is not all that clear. This solution .... give the rifleman a "backup weapon" ... would make the rifleman a far more desirable unit to use, and would have the effect of keeping people in the fight a little bit longer. Myself included.

If we can't, or are unwilling, to adjust the lop-sided number of rifles available in a given brigade (which I still maintain the majority of players seem unwilling to select as their first choice to play with), then lets at least equip the type for that part of the game that is so predominant ..... CQC. I predict this will lead to a whole new complaint in chat, and one that is far more relevant and realistic .... "We are down to SMG's"

<S>

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, snappled said:

Also agreed.

Look, my complaint was not with the rifle itself, per se .... the weapon works fine in its intended role (which is not inside a CP!). My complaint was that it is obviously used less than any other unit type (despite all the cheerleaders of the rifle that have appeared in this thread), and that reveals a problem with the TOE quantities. We are being provided a whole bunch of rifles not because they are useful in one of the most common types of engagements encountered in the game, or desired by most of the playerbase, but for some other reason that is not all that clear. This solution .... give the rifleman a "backup weapon" ... would make the rifleman a far more desirable unit to use, and would have the effect of keeping people in the fight a little bit longer. Myself included.

If we can't, or are unwilling, to adjust the lop-sided number of rifles available in a given brigade (which I still maintain the majority of players seem unwilling to select as their first choice to play with), then lets at least equip the type for that part of the game that is so predominant ..... CQC. I predict this will lead to a whole new complaint in chat, and one that is far more relevant and realistic .... "We are down to SMG's"

<S>

The reason rifles are the most prevalent unit in game is because they were by far the most prevalent unit on the battlefield in WWII. The numbers as they are in game are an attempt at representing that fact. WWII Online has in the past made every effort to be a war simulation which is its niche. There were always things added in to facilitate game play but the basis was war sim. When WWII  Online thought it would compete with games like COD and move the bar on realism to do so it got in trouble in a hurry. I would guess they they would lose far more people by adjusting units based on preference than on historically accuracy. Your history buffs who appreciate the war sim aspect probably make up most of the player base at this point. The others left long ago for games with better graphics where they can bunny hop with automatic weapons to their heart's delight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree saronin. The rifle was the prevalent unit of WWII, and I want it to continue to be the prevalent unit in this game. As it should be.

But, in this game, 99% of the fights are in towns. Close quarters.

Moving the fight outside of towns would fix a lot of these issues. 

WWII was not just a bunch of town battles. Battles were fought to control land, bridges, crossroads, etc...

We need longer distance battles where the rifle shines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the game had a much higher number of players on you would see a lot more Rifles as a result... but its doesn't hence the "good stuff" goes go first. I really do think that a large majority of players, do look around for something other than a rifle. I admit, it's not my first choice of weapon but will take one if that my "only" choice...  

During the war, the rifle was easy to mass produce and arm troops with... LMG, SMG and other automatic weapons are much more complicated to manufacture (except possible for the British Sten gun, stamped and a few welds...), ammunition consumption rate and supply is also any issue.

It's a struggle in a game like this to please all, that's for sure... perhaps CRS could look at the Rank system more closely to reward players with weapon access more closely ? But again that certainly has issues and could drive players away.

Would it be possible to create an intermission scenario to "trial" less Automatic weapons and promote Rifles. Getting player feedback to access the success of it all ?

Thinking Out Loud... interesting conversation.

Cheers,   

private116 (I prefer playing a Sapper)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with rifles in Tier 0, out of the 3 bolt action rifles, the K98 has the slowest cycling between rounds. The enfield has an advantage here, at ranged encounters it's not a big deal but in CQBs I've lost on several occasions because I can't shoot fast enough due to the slow K98. Even if I fire first and we both miss, by the time the 2nd shot comes around I'm already at clear disadvantage. It's a very noticeable speed difference between the two too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lipton said:

Hence the pistol suggestion. Also know as the great equalizer. 

I would love that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they're 2 shot kills already, and only accurate up to 5m (for some reason...). outside CP's they're useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, lipton said:

Hence the pistol suggestion. Also know as the great equalizer. 

Exactly.

If we are not going to adjust the quantities  ... then this is the alternative solution. And pistols would be exactly that, ... equalizers. And how can one advance a fairer argument for this, than that? Armed with a pistol, even I would then grab a rifle and re-enter the fray. As in Mons this evening ... I arrived on pfmosquitos mish, spawned in with the last grease gun to defend the CP he so courageously capped .... and was immediately sawed in half by a German LMG. two more attempts, first with our own LMG .... dead in seconds ... then with an SMG ... same effect.  Then, we were down to rifles, and I went to Brakel. Rifle vs ELMG .... waste .... of  ........ time .. no point in even attempting. BUT....if that rifle had a small automatic available ...... then I would have kept charging into the breech. There would have been at least some hope .....

The Mons attack floundered btw .... and not because I was the only one that left.

We were down to rifles, and nobody wanted one.

<S>

Edited by snappled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like equalizers, everything should be different and a combined arms team.

 

Rifles can be key, just stake out a street and none shall pass cut of enemy infantry.  You don't have to fight it out in the depots.

 

I also disagree that 75 SMGs and 75 rifles would end up being even use, it would still be 0 SMGs and 50 rifles.

 

There is another factor you gents are not considering, the sub factor.

 

If rifles were the everything weapon, what benefit would subscribing bring for inf only guys?

 

A lot of the newer weapons are subscription candy- put rifles on an even basis and you eliminate incentive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kilemall said:

I don't like equalizers, everything should be different and a combined arms team.

like it or not teamwork is less efficient than 5 guys doing their own thing, teamwork usually gets in the way of progress too. better to have 5 guys going for a CP from different directions than 1 on point, 2 on the flanks, 1 guarding FMS and 2 more in the center with support weapons. not all the 5 guys will make it to the cp but they cap it faster.

"teamwork" and "combined arms" are too underdeveloped to play with. all we got are marks and a chat bar with no "quick comms", need to use acronyms too much. 5 guys using the chat bar actually makes the chat bar less effective...

 

1 hour ago, Kilemall said:

You don't have to fight it out in the depots.

absolutely 100% have too... i mean the spawns are literally 1 meter away, can't cut 1 meter with a rifle.

 

1 hour ago, Kilemall said:

I also disagree that 75 SMGs and 75 rifles would end up being even use, it would still be 0 SMGs and 50 rifles.

i want bolts with pistols cause CP fighting with bolts is just plain silly. CP fighting is a huge part of the game

 

1 hour ago, Kilemall said:

There is another factor you gents are not considering, the sub factor.

If rifles were the everything weapon, what benefit would subscribing bring for inf only guys?

A lot of the newer weapons are subscription candy- put rifles on an even basis and you eliminate incentive.

not talking about giving them P90's... these are the pistols we already use in-game, they need 2 shots to kill, kick like .50 BMG's, and are wildly inaccurate outside 5 meters.

paying players already have a lot of complaints about the "sub only" weapons, most have been nerfed or bugged to uselessness like the SMG's extreme recoil and inaccuracy as well as the LMG's sight picture + their deployment animation

 

there isn't much incentive to sub...

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, major0noob said:

there isn't much incentive to sub...

There would be if FTP was required to join the game on the Low Pop side. 

Oh... and I agree with everything you said in your post. 

Edited by lipton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, major0noob said:

like it or not teamwork is less efficient than 5 guys doing their own thing, teamwork usually gets in the way of progress too. better to have 5 guys going for a CP from different directions than 1 on point, 2 on the flanks, 1 guarding FMS and 2 more in the center with support weapons. not all the 5 guys will make it to the cp but they cap it faster.

"teamwork" and "combined arms" are too underdeveloped to play with. all we got are marks and a chat bar with no "quick comms", need to use acronyms too much. 5 guys using the chat bar actually makes the chat bar less effective...

 

absolutely 100% have too... i mean the spawns are literally 1 meter away, can't cut 1 meter with a rifle.

 

i want bolts with pistols cause CP fighting with bolts is just plain silly. CP fighting is a huge part of the game

 

not talking about giving them P90's... these are the pistols we already use in-game, they need 2 shots to kill, kick like .50 BMG's, and are wildly inaccurate outside 5 meters.

paying players already have a lot of complaints about the "sub only" weapons, most have been nerfed or bugged to uselessness like the SMG's extreme recoil and inaccuracy as well as the LMG's sight picture + their deployment animation

 

there isn't much incentive to sub...

Disagree. The times I've seen this game shine were when people were on voice comms actively communicating. Shoot. Move. Communicate. There is a reason that was drilled into my head. It's because it works. If you have people cutting a depot from the outside while people are capturing and everyone is talking things work well. Run into a cp by yourself you are highly likely to do the rifle dance. 

It was also common practice to issue pistols to those that carried LMGs at the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's why...

8 minutes ago, saronin said:

voice comms

 

8 minutes ago, saronin said:

voice comms

 

8 minutes ago, saronin said:

voice comms

 

8 minutes ago, saronin said:

voice comms

 

8 minutes ago, saronin said:

voice comms

 

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Kilemall said:

There is another factor you gents are not considering, the sub factor.

 

If rifles were the everything weapon, what benefit would subscribing bring for inf only guys?

This is a good point, and perhaps a review of what impels someone to take-up a subscription is needed too. But that isn't the main point of this thread (most people don't want to use rifles/what needs to be done to improve this?), and if anything underlines the point that I am making .... that being that most players do not choose rifles, instead just move on when that's all that is left. 

But since you have taken me down this path now ..... players that are paying to play should never be penalised with a restriction on game access .... I'm talking about Side-lock and spawn-delay here. Maybe that should be the carrot for a sub .... rather than access to SMG. In fact, I can absolutely guarantee I have never, never waited through a spawn-delay in order to fight my way into a CP with a rifle. That is a combination of factors that would definitely cause me to leave a fight, and often-times, the game. If that was what I was getting all the time with subscription ...... well that'd definitely be the end of my subscription. As it is now, that combination arises often enough that it causes me to rethink my sub everytime I am confronted with it. Try and force me to use a rifle in these circumstances?? Buh-by, cause that ain't the game I am interested in.

<S>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2017 at 9:40 AM, saronin said:

It was also common practice to issue pistols to those that carried LMGs at the time. 

 

When would an Axis LMG EVER need to use a pistol in a CP?  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you factor in the absurd accuracy that simple mouse-aim gives people even cover is mostly meaningless.  Simply put, the life of an infantryman in the game usually ends as soon as an enemy spots him.  Is he prone in a berm?  Dead.  In a window?  Dead.  Behind sandbags?  Dead.  Hiding behind a crate?  Dead.  Victory doesn't go to the most patient, the most clever or the most skilled.  It goes to whoever runs faster, lags more and is quicker on the trigger.  Only speed matters - a high ROF and a higher PING to kill them before you've even rendered.

Move the battles into the countryside and make cover meaningful then perhaps riflemen will see more action.  But as it stands right now, if you're standing within the city limits with a bolt-action rifle then you're doing it wrong.

Edited by frogdeth
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm torn on the idea of side arms for rifleman. I have encountered scenarios where I would like to have one but there are also many times where I never need one.  Probably because I am personally not as aggressive when I deploy with a rifle. I personally see rifles as a tool in the larger toolbox. They are great for cutting at distance, cutting alleys, or patrolling out to and assaulting FMS positions. I don't grab them if I know I'm going to be fighting in/around CPs and Depots.

In our current environment, if supply is bled out to the point that all you have is rifles to use, then you are likely facing one of two common scenarios. An attack that has reached the point of being spent or you are overrun/will be overrun (that is, outnumbered) as a defender. I don't know if a pistol is going to do you much good in either scenario.

The larger problem is one of player numbers and their respective styles. Some enjoy and excel at a slower, methodical style of play. It favors positioning, situational awareness, shot placement etc. Others enjoy an aggressive style of play that features more run and gun. Others still, blend the two as the pace of the game shifts over a given period. I’d prefer to see a continued evolution of the game that supports both play styles so that you can engage in fights with what you want, when you want. The ability to determine your own pace. What that translates to in terms of supply numbers, I have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2017 at 8:35 AM, lipton said:

 

When would an Axis LMG EVER need to use a pistol in a CP?  :lol:

What about Allied LMGs?  There was a reason it was common practice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2017 at 11:35 AM, lipton said:

 

When would an Axis LMG EVER need to use a pistol in a CP?  :lol:

When would ANY LMG ever need to use a pistol in a CP?

 

Please, Lipton... just please.

 

As to the suggestion others have made about issuing pistols to all riflemen, NO.

 

Hardly any were issued pistols. Why not just remove half of the rifles in the game and replace them with SMGs then? Since you want to go off the rails and all... why not make it fun?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2017 at 6:37 PM, snappled said:

So what do you think? Increase the SMG's and decrease the rifles? Great idea, yes?

You're going about this problem completely the wrong way.

There's a reason we don't have an entire army running around with LMGs and SMGs, because this is a military combat simulator and that isn't how armies are equipped.

The problem is not that we don't have enough of them. The problem is we don't have enough people who are willing to take one for the team and spawn an inferior rifle to support the LMGs and SMGs doing their specialized job.

Worst yet, the system is broken because there's no incentive for you to spawn a vanilla rifleman when there's no cost for you to just spawn a rifle grenadier or sapper - You get all the benefits of a rifle with a load of extra perks. So why not waste those first? Afterall, you're a selfish player who doesn't care about anything but your own kill count (I'm not talking of you personally, but of the average player in general). So why not take one of those valuable sappers/RGs and play them like a rifleman, because maybe you'll come across a tank and you want to have a chance to kill them too. You probably won't, but who cares, right? No skin off your back, just a lost battle for your team. Forget spawning a sapper with the sole intention of ambushing tanks, even to the extent that you actively avoid infantry combat.

No, you're trying to deal with a real problem but doing it in the wrong way.

There are two ways to solve this in a way that enhances both gameplay and historical tactical realism:

1. Throttled spawning of equipment on all facilities, unless an OIC disables it, or partially disables it. This would force players to utilize proper rifle to specialized weapon ratios, and would be a great boon to the game. The downside is that it would prevent quality team oriented players from getting something they actually need when the situation really calls for it. The average player is just going to scoop up whatever specialized weapon is available as soon as they see it on the list, then procede to waste it about as quickly as they did before throttles were put in place.

No, we need more personal accountability here. I favor:

2. Personal spawn points. Riflemen are free to spawn. Everything else costs points, based on how valuable and rare it is. You can keep spawning that SMG and charging headfirst into the enemy like a lemming if you want to, but you can't keep doing it forever. And if you burn all your points with rapid fruitless deaths it's going to be a long while before you can waste supply like that again.

You gain points by doing a range of activities that are useful: Getting hits on enemies, kills, captures, giving ammo, etc. You can even use this system to encourage good behaviors like rewarding players for being in proximity to others who are getting hits/kills/captures, being within 600m of a CP that is captured, spending time near a CP when a town is under attack (it presumes you are aiding the defense of that CP), giving rides to players in vehicles, etc. There's many possibilities.

The advantages of this system is:

-It gives you a way to positively encourage teamplay and good behaviors.

-It will cause players to play smarter, fearing death more. This will result in more realistic tactics and player behavior, with more desire for teamwork.

-You will see a higher ratio of riflemen to other equipment. You won't see the enemy army frontloaded with all the specialized equipment followed by nothing but rifles.

-You will still have specialized equipment available well into a battle. Sappers and LMGs might actually be in the spawn list when you need them, even during the later stages of a battle, because nobody wants to waste points spawning them if they don't actually intend to use them to their full potential. If they just want to do general purpose infantry vs infantry combat they will learn to make do with the rifleman, leaving the sapper for someone who specifically wants to hunt tanks, and the LMG for someone who specifically wants to play it safe in the role of firesupport for other riflemen. 

-It gives you a way to leverage free to play vs paid accounts while still giving free to play accounts access to more equipment. If free to play players had a smaller pool of points, and gained them drastically slower, they would be able to experience more of the game but then desire to upgrade so they can use equipment more freely.

-SMGs and LMGs would actually be more valuable in combat because most people would be riflemen.

 

Edited by rise27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.