For that awkward middle range of the two man rifle "Dance", these weapons would be fast and have no recoil. Though to balance them, they would only have a range of about 75 blocks, and have half the damage of the rifle. This means you won't be able to fire eight bullets across the map dead-on. This means it can only be used in a few situations, and this would totally make the combat in this game much more balanced.

Despite what Call of Duty may tell us, soldiers don't carry sidearms with them into battle. They hand you a rifle, and that rifle is your life.

Besides, we have enough objects to carry, with two different tools, the blocks, our rifle, and a few grenades. The last thing we need is more clutter.

Learn to accept the dance. If you become actually good at the game, you'll not do the dance and take time to focus and headshot the guy prancing around. If you're not the one who has total self control and would risk standing still, then be a pro hip-fire-er ;)

toss a grenade near them you win the fight. -dance-

grenades don't work that well outside of bunkers.
ive had plenty of my nades blow up beside guys with no effect.

I vote "yes" for pistoles. But that would be enough weapons for now imo. Other features like map-changing or a proper menu, etc. are more important now.

Pistol for engeniers

I like omichs idea, engineers should get a pistol instead of a rifle(you should probably read his engineer class thread first)

So you want a new weapon, that is essentially the rifle, but... just not as good?

The difference is that it has no recoil, and a higher rate of fire

Why can't anything stay simple?

it should have a 25 block range because you can see 150 blocks before the fog makes everything else completely invisible.

agreed

What's complicated with a pistol?

Because then it would go on.

What's complicated with MG? What's complicated with shotgun? What's complicated with RPG?

And bam. CoD clone #347534 is born.

silly drury, they didn't have RPGs back in the day

Um kay but soldiers do carry side arms not all the time but mostly

Yeah that has no place in this milsim

http://ace-spades.com/forums/topic.php?id=594#post-5642

"Because then it would go on.

What's complicated with MG? What's complicated with shotgun? What's complicated with RPG?

And bam. CoD clone #347534 is born"

And here we go with blowing everything out of proportion again.

Adding in a pistol, an SMG and a shotgun make this NOTHING like CoD. If these weapons were made exactly like they ARE in CoD, your incredibly broad statement would actually have some merit.

Again, I understand about not wanting this game to be like CoD (as I've had that fear for many FPSes given today's mentality), but the way some of you are acting is hilarious, in both humor and sadness.

@Zak the cool dawg.

True too all of that. Things like a shotgun or a submachine gun, unless it is extremely similar to CoD, is not like that. the link I put up was a link to a weapons forum. Place your ideas there folks...
/thread

I approve pistols, but they should do 10-20 damage... and 40 damage if hits the head

what if the next cod includes everything in existance?
"oh, you can't make games anymore, all new games are COD clones"
thats the most retarded argument i've ever seen.

I really think pistols are a bad idea waiting to happen,

I rather simply have enemies drop their remaining ammo/grenades upon death.

@Sgt.Newman: No, they don't. I recommend you check out a history book. Sidearms are generally only issued to officers, and possibly NCOs.

Pistols aren't a completely bad idea. The number one warning I would give to Ben is this: No more than three typs of guns. Ever. For any reason.

Of course, if we DO get pistols, the choice should be rifle OR pistol. Not rifle AND pistol. Plus, pistols need to be carefully implemented for best balance. The game right now is really well-balanced through sheer simplicity: everyone has the same weapons, everyone has an equal chance. The only deciding factors are skill and luck. Maintaining balance will get a lot harder if new guns are added.

For starters, it might simplest to give players a choice between rifle and grenades or pistol by itself. The pistol would be better in bunkers because of its close-range advantages, and the fact that its shorter barrel wouldn't show around corners (although I'm sure some cheaters would modify that. A length-limit might need to be implemented). On the other hand, grenades are also very useful in bunkers, and the pistol-user wouldn't have any. This could set up an interesting mechanic for bunker-crawls between pistol-users and rifle-users... or it might just suck.

I definitely think pistols should be tried, at least. If they have to be removed in a later update, then so be it, but a chance to see what they do to AoS could be interesting.

Oh yeah, and please, for the love of all that is good and holy, never add an SMG to Ace of Spades. I'm seriously opposed to the idea... the game would spawn spray-and-pray COD kiddies, and at the short fog distance, we really don't want that.

...Ace of Spades dont looks like CoD at all.
Why is that :

1. Destructable Stuff...

2.Griefers

3.Has a spade and a Pick.

4.Hasn't the greatest ghrapics (voxelstein is better)

5.Granades blow in hand.

6.Griefers

In all ..pistols would be nice ( SKINS!!!)

what the hell? did this really need necrobumped TWICE?

Call of duty has griefers though, ever heard of team killing?
Battlefield has it worst if they just want the chopper, they kill you take the chopper, and because they suck at flying they crash it within a few seconds and the guy riding with them is all fuck you.

id like it if someone made a akimbo pistols if possible tht wood be cool