Balance, Tactics, and the Problem with Pistols

Average semiautomatic pistol, according to DICE

Author's Note: This article will include discussion of both real-world and virtual weapons deployment. If you are unfamiliar with one or the other, I strongly suggest doing some research on your own so that you can have a better understanding of my claims.

I play Battlefield 3. A lot. Like, an awful lot. As in "I give myself insomnia playing this" levels of "a lot." While the game is certainly fun for the most part, there's a certain element that has bothered me since launch, and, curiously, it doesn't seem to bother anyone else. In fact, it doesn't seem to bother anyone in Battlefield 3, it didn't seem to bother anyone in Modern Warfare 2, and it didn't even bother them in Rainbow Six: Vegas. Maybe it's simply because it's such a small part of the actual gameplay, but I feel like I'm the only one who's bothered by this. Whether or not anyone else notices, it's a problem that has gone on for far too long and needs to be addressed. 

The problem? Automatic pistols.

It does seem like a non-issue, right? Wrong. There are currently 18 (including the DICE-exclusive M1911A1 S-TAC variant) handgun variants in Battlefield 3. One would think that with so many guns available, everyone would be using different sidearms. The problem is, the community as a whole uses three main guns - the M93R, the Glock 18, and the .44 Magnum.  Of these three, the latter does enormous amounts of damage in comparison, and the former two are automatic. 

Still seems like a reasonable choice, right? A sidearm is a last resort, after all - why not use the most powerful ones? Well, to put it simply, the automatics can double as primary weapons due to their extreme rate of fire (ROF) and damage in close quarters. I've lost track of how many times I've turned a corner, opened fire with an assault rifle, and been instantly killed by a quick burst from someone's pistol before he keeps running, usually killing one or two more people with it rather than using the shotgun or sniper rifle on their back (it's always -always!- a Recon player).

This shouldn't be happening. If you decide you want to slip through enemy lines with your sniper rifle, your approach should be one of extreme caution and stealth. It should NOT be as simple as swapping to a Glock 18 and cutting your way through anyone who happens to be there. By giving people something that is effectively as powerful as a primary weapon, you a.) discourage certain playstyles, and b.) put anyone who isn't using one of these weapons at an extreme disadvantage. It's a bit hard to justify using the M1911 or any of the stock pistols when you could pick a weapon that basically boils down to "point it in the general direction of the enemy and receive kills."

This is, in essence, my issue with handgun balancing. It has been an issue in nearly any game with automatic handguns I've ever played - in the name of "realism," they often have either equal damage to the semiautomatic handguns or such a high rate of fire that the damage output and reduced accuracy is negligible since you're able to spray a wall of lead at anything that moves. Rainbow Six Vegas pistol-only matches were often ruined by one person using a Glock 18C, which inevitably turned what would have been a slower, more intense match into yet another run-and-gun disaster. 

The only game that has ever managed to properly balance automatic handguns (that I've played, anyway), was, oddly enough, Battlefield: Bad Company 2. The M93R made an appearance here as well, but it was balanced in accordance with its damage per second (DPS) compared to the other handguns. In addition, it was relatively inaccurate past spitting distance, which made it a great "OH <censored>" weapon when you were caught off guard, but relatively useless otherwise. At close range, it could easily tear through enemies, but past about 10m its inherent inaccuracy and spitball-like damage became apparent. Oftentimes, I would deploy with the M93R as a backup in case I ran out of ammo at knife-fight range, but would find myself needing to engage targets at a slightly longer range and wishing I had taken a standard, more controllable semi-auto instead.

The fact of the matter is that handguns should be balanced by keeping these sorts of trade-offs in mind. A handgun should never be an acceptable replacement for a rifle, shotgun, etc. without requiring exceptional caution and skill on the part of the user. In real life, modern combat handguns in a military or counter-terror scenario are used primarily as backup weapons - they are carried and trained with almost exclusively as defensive weapons. Typical standard operating procedure for handguns is to deploy the secondary (handgun) only when the primary weapon (rifle, SMG, etc.) is empty, dropped, or otherwise not an option, and to use the secondary to fight your way back to safety or to a position where you can bring your primary weapon back into the fight. Attempting to fight on using only this secondary weapon is generally not recommended. 

Translating this back into game balance theory, it means that games should strive to emulate Bad Company 2's handgun balance. By giving each weapon its own niche (all-purpose backup, emergency sidearm, high-damage/high recoil/low capacity gamble, etc.), however unrealistic that may be, developers will encourage players to emulate real-world pistol tactics. When players begin gravitating towards sidearm choices that best fit their playstyle, they'll vary their weapon selection more, and when multiple weapons are viable choices, the game becomes better balanced, more dynamic, more enjoyable, and more likely to capture and retain a loyal fanbase.

Thoughts? Be sure to sound off below!

P.S.: Stop putting the IMI Desert Eagle in games. It's an overrated, ineffective piece of junk in real life, even more stupid than "realistic" automatic pistols in video games, and is worthy of an awfully long post in its own right.

Seriously, I've shot one before. It's a terrible choice for a combat handgun.