Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics

@gm29 said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:

Saying "but it's just a game" or "but it's not a simulator (However you define that)" does not logically prove or disprove the merits of what I've said would make the game better and be fitting for it.
You need to be able to articulate specifically why or why not specific suggestions would or would not be appropriate for what Insurgency is aiming to be. You can't just throw out the catch-all phrase of "but it's just a game" and expect that to cover over justifying whatever your opinion is.

That's not my point. My point is that realism is not intrinsically valuable. "But it's like that in real life" is not a valid reason to include it in this game. You have to argue for how it would enhance gameplay, not realism.

Insurgency is not a simulator; it's not trying to be. It's a game with a realistic bent when doing so does not sacrifice gameplay. The lack of weapon jamming is intentional. It's the same reason we have respawning, hit points, and objectives: making those aspects realistic would detract from the gameplay experience, not enhance it.

Fun fact: the only Insurgency title with the word "realistic" or "realism" on its Steam store page description is the mod, and none of them say "simulator." According to this metric, they are striving to be intense, tactical CQB games. Sandstorm advertises itself as skill-based, yet RNG mechanics like weapon jamming are anti-skill, disrupt the flow (and thus, intensity) of the game, and encourage fighting from a distance rather than close quarters.

last edited by cyoce

@gm29 said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:

@angus said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:

If your current gunplay model is a fantasy, yet the goal of your game is to have realistic gunplay, then you will celebrate killing the fantasy model to replace it with the realistic model you strove for.

That isn't the only goal of the game.

Your personal subjective idea about what you prefer doesn't prove or disprove anything about what the game needs to meet it's goals of being a hardcore tactical meticulous representation of modern weapons and ballistics.

Furthermore, it's a logical error to try to use subjective standards of personal preference to talk about what would objectively be a good addition to a game or not - because your personal subjective idea of what you prefer may include a preference for all kinds of really bad elements.

There is no "objective" good addition to a game. "Goodness" is inherently subjective. Your desire for realism at all costs is subjective. The devs haven't said they're striving to make a military simulator. It's a game. That means that concessions have to be made to keep the experience enjoyable. Just how many concessions have to be made--i.e., how close to reality it should be vs. how streamlined the game is--is a matter of opinion. That's what we're discussing, except you are treating your opinion as fact. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

last edited by cyoce

@cyoce said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:

@gm29 said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:

Saying "but it's just a game" or "but it's not a simulator (However you define that)" does not logically prove or disprove the merits of what I've said would make the game better and be fitting for it.
You need to be able to articulate specifically why or why not specific suggestions would or would not be appropriate for what Insurgency is aiming to be. You can't just throw out the catch-all phrase of "but it's just a game" and expect that to cover over justifying whatever your opinion is.

That's not my point. My point is that realism is not intrinsically valuable. "But it's like that in real life" is not a valid reason to include it in this game. You have to argue for how it would enhance gameplay, not realism.

Your statement is wrong for two reasons:

  1. If your goal is to create a realistically detailed representation of modern weapon gunplay, then realism IS intrinsically valuable because that is your stated goal from the start. Realism in your gun modeling can only be said to not be intrinsically valuable if you have decided from the start that you are making an arcade game that follows whatever rules you fancy, with no attempt to concern yourself with how guns behave in reality.

  2. I have already made the case, in specifics, why those things would enhance the gunplay of the game.
    You haven't attempt to deal with any of those specific reasons.

Insurgency is not a simulator; it's not trying to be.

Merely repeating your previous claim doesn't make your claim true.
You haven't dealt with any of the points I made that disproved your claim:

I shall repost it for you:

Both incorrect statements and bad arguments from a logic standpoint.

Incorrect in the sense that Insurgency does attempt to accurately represent, and therefore simulate, how these weapons behave and perform in real life. Just because they don't put themselves on a giant map like ARMA and trumpet themselves with the title of "simulator" does not negate the fact that from a weapons handling and gunplay standpoint they DO strive to accurately simulate the use of these weapons in combat.

By the devs own statements this game is suppose to be a "hardcore tactical shooter with meticulous attention to detail with weapons and ballistics".

They are not living up to the standard they have set with many of the glaring oversights I've mentioned.

Furthermore, the original Insurgency put itself on the map by being the best representation of modern realistic gunplay we'd seen out of a game up to that point. Sandstorm should be trying to continue that legacy by bringing the realistic gunplay and detail to the next level and again set the standard by which other modern shooters are judged.

On to why those statements are bad from a logic standpoint:
Saying "but it's just a game" or "but it's not a simulator (However you define that)" does not logically prove or disprove the merits of what I've said would make the game better and be fitting for it.

If you said you wanted a moonraker laser put into Insurgency, saying "but it's only a game" or "it's not a simulator", doesn't automatically prove that it's a good or appropriate idea to put a moonraker laser into Insurgency.

You need to be able to articulate specifically why or why not specific suggestions would or would not be appropriate for what Insurgency is aiming to be. You can't just throw out the catch-all phrase of "but it's just a game" and expect that to cover over justifying whatever your opinion is.

It's a game with a realistic bent when doing so does not sacrifice gameplay.

Your statement is meaningless because you don't establish an objective standard for what the "gameplay" of Insurgency is suppose to be. You can't even begin to claim that a new feature would destroy the "gameplay" if you don't first define what you are trying to preserve about the game and what you are trying to achieve with the game.

Furthermore, you have given no specifics about how any of the things I've suggested would even negatively impact this supposed standard of gameplay you have in your mind. So your claim that what I've suggested would be bad for the game remains an unsupported and unproven claim.

One persons "bad gameplay" is another person's "perfect gameplay" depending on what your goals and expectations are.
If you can't back up your opinion with some logic or some facts then your claims have no merit.

The lack of weapon jamming is intentional.

You don't know that it's intentional, despite knowing how important it is to realism, anymore than these other oversights are intentional despite knowing how important it is to realism - So don't make claims you can't support.

I suspect all of these issues have more to do with a lack of full understanding on their part about how important these issues are to the realism.

It's the same reason we have respawning, hit points, and objectives: making those aspects realistic would detract from the gameplay experience, not enhance it.

Objectively they are not in the game for the same reasons. You're confusing completely different aspects of the game.

Respawning exists to keep action fast and constant.
Objectives exist to force confrontations, keeping action fast and constant.

Hit points exist because there's very few ways to simulate the human body effectively in a game context. Although head and chest shots doing more damage have been modeled in games for decades, so you can't claim it's a pure hit point model. Either way, it has nothing to do with your claim that they put hitpoints in the game because they wanted to change the alter the pace of the game.

None of those issues have anything to do with malfunctions and how they would change the game.
The overall actions and pace remains the same because it is dictated by factors like respawning and objectives that have nothing to do with the chance your gun could jam anymore than having to reload changes the pace of the game.
Bullets remain the same in their effect and this dynamic is not altered by malfunctions being in the game.

You could just as easily make a bad argument using the same logic that existing realism features, like reloading or aimsway, should be removed from the game because you think it slows down the pace of combat.
The fact you don't seem to recognize is that their goal with this game is to be both a realistic model of gunplay as well as being fast paced action. One doesn't contradict the other. Having to stop to reload or having to take more time to aim because of aimsway and ironsighting does not make the game stop being fast paced - for the same reason having to stop to clear a jam wouldn't stop the game from being fast paced. Jamming could happen 1000 times less often than the amount of times you had to stop what you were doing to reload a magazine yet you're not whining about how the realism of magazine reloads are slowing down the pace of the game.

You're confusing two completely separate game design issues and conflating them together. If what you claimed were true then it would be impossible for Insurgency to even be considered a fast paced game with the amount of realism it already has in it's weapon and movement behavior.

Fun fact: the only Insurgency title with the word "realistic" or "realism" on its Steam store page description is the mod, and none of them say "simulator."

You fail to define what the difference is between realistic and simulation. The truth is, from a dictionary standpoint, the words are synonyms.

From a gameplay standpoint I can tell you why Insurgency doesn't have the sim label - because of the way their maps and objectives are designed. They aren't trying to simulate the entire experience the way ARMA is.

However, you fail to recognize the differentiation I already gave you; Which is that Insurgency, for the purposes of it's weapon handling, does attempt to simulate real world performance. Insurgency strives to be a game that pays meticulous attention to the handling and performance of it's weapons (according to their own words), based on modeling them after reality.

That's why I always liked it. You get all the benefits of simulation quality gunplay but without all the bullshit of ARMA's bad/slow gameplay design.

Insurgency is failing to do that to the extent they should, given the game's nature and goals, and the game would be better off because of that if they amped up the fidelity of their realism along the lines of what they've already strove to do.

According to this metric, they are striving to be intense, tactical CQB games.

Nothing supports your claim that "realism" only means "intense CQB".

When the devs explicitly say the game is "hardcore tactical" the meaning of that phrase also has consequences. That implies a pacing that is based on reality because when you model realistic aspects into the gunplay you both increase the tactical decision making required to do well and make the game less forgiving to mistakes.

You cannot take away realism from the game and still have it remain a hardcore tactical game. By definition you need the realism to result in the gameplay being hardcore and tactical.

In addition, all of my suggestions are in line with enhancing the hardcore tactical nature of the game. Leaving my suggestions out of the game only decreases the hardcore tactical nature of it.

yet RNG mechanics like weapon jamming are anti-skill,

I've already addressed and disproven your claim that RNG is unacceptable in a game like this. I refer you back to what I already posted in response to it.
Merely repeating yourself, without addressing the points I raised, doesn't make your untrue statement anymore true than the first time you said it.

disrupt the flow (and thus, intensity) of the game, and encourage fighting from a distance rather than close quarters.

There are three problems with your claim:

  1. You have given no specific reasoning why anything I've suggested would alter the flow of the game. Just claiming it would doesn't make it true.

  2. No where in their description of the game do they suggest realism is sacrificed to arbitrarily make close quarters combat more intense or common.
    Your claim is disproven by the fact that they have also said their game is a "hardcore tactical shooter with meticulous attention to detail in weapons and ballistics".

If your only concern was fostering rapid close quarters combat you don't need to concern yourself with realistic weapons handling and ballistics - plenty of other games don't, like CoD.

The fact is, realism in weapons handling IS important to the game. It is a foundational pillar of the game's design by the dev's own words and by it's roots in Insurgency.

You are erroneous in your belief that realistic gun handling doesn't lend itself to intense close quarters combat. If that were true then they wouldn't have bothered making the gunplay as realistic as they already have. In actuality, realism in the gun handling increases the intensity of combat by raising the stakes and enhancing the skill expression and importance of smart tactical decision making.

  1. They have actually increased the size and openness of the maps compared with the original insurgency, and incorporate things like bullet drop into long range shooting. So it's unsupportable to claim they don't actually want players engaging at long distance. The truth is, you can't actually be a successful as a realistic tactical shooter without giving players the opportunity to express the differences between different weapons platforms by having both CQB and long range situations. Unless you are only trying to be a CQB simulator, in which case you probably wouldn't even put sniper rifles or squad machine guns into the game. But we know from their map design, ballistics design, and weapon design, that they aren't trying to force only CQB.
last edited by GM29

@gm29 said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:

it is patently false to say that none of these are glaring issues that would have a significant impact on gameplay.

You and I clearly have very different backgrounds when it comes to firearms, and we also clearly have very different ideas about what "hugely," "glaring," and "significant" mean.

I'm absolutely aware, intellectually, that barrel heating and ammo loads have an effect on accuracy. I can't say I've never noticed them in practice, and I certainly have never taken either into consideration when firing. Doesn't matter if I'm shooting cold bore or the last round in a 100-round string of fire, if I'm shooting Lake City M-855 or Wolf .223: I can reliably point my gun at a 6" steel plate and hit it.

In my world, "minute of bad guy" is an acceptable measure of accuracy, and "the rifle is more accurate than you are" is a common truism. Most of the time in a fight, the focus is on landing rounds on center mass as quickly as possible, if you're shooting a 1" group at 50 yards you're absolutely shooting too slowly. Some even have the philosophy that shooting tight groups in a fight is something to avoid - if you hit a bad guy someplace and it doesn't stop them from trying to kill you, shooting them in the same place again isn't very likely to have a different effect, so spread it out. Either way, no one shooting an assault rifle at a target 20 yards away from a half-crouched and leaning position behind cover while being shot at is going to notice the POI drift from his barrel heating up, using 77 grain ammo instead of 62 grain, or many other factors you bring up.

To me, something that is not noticeable most of the time, is not a glaring error that has a significant effect on game play. It doesn't mean it's not an omission, and I'd really like to see many of your suggestions implemented in some way, but I don't think they should be a priority.

ammo can HUGELY change what a particular platform is capable of doing.

You think so? Please, show me an ER surgeon or combat medic that can look at a wound and tell me if it was made with M-855, M-855A1, or Mk.262. Or between .45 ACP, .40 S&W, or 9mm for that matter. They don't exist. Sure, there are differences between projectiles and loads, certainly, but they're not "HUGE."

There is a point that keeps having to be made in the combat and self defense world, because it keep coming up again and again: the person is more important than the gear. Really, when fighting with guns the actual shooting part is the easiest part.

Maybe some tweaks need to be done to the way LMGs work. I have a crazy idea.

LMGs should function completely differently from other weapons.
When not aiming down the sight...

They'll take time to get ready after you sprint (for 2 seconds you won't be able to shoot. Think of this like Red Orchestra Ostfront's MG mechanic but more forgiving)
There will be sway while you're hipfiring (which will make point shooting even harder)
There will be less recoil, but lots of sway, which is almost like recoil it itself because of how extreme it is.

When aiming down the sight while not using a bipod...

Instead of sway, there's sight misalignment, which is like sway with an antishake feature

When using the bipod...

Your mouse wheel is then used to fluidly adjust your stance like in Arma 3 or Escape from Tarkov.
(That way you won't feel like a sitting duck when you deploy that bipod)

Maybe instead of using large magazines, you'll just use ammo belts and you'll have to manage heat. (and get additional ammo belts from teammates like in Darkest hour)

That means MG guys have low ammo by themselves but can be a constantly refilling machine if teammates go to them and press ACTION to give them ammo.

When they do that an animation of the soldier giving you an ammo belt plays. He presses F, then you press F to accept ammo. You have to wait 2 minutes before you can give ammo again. If the MG overheats, he gets 1 barrel change, after that it's a broken gun. Supressors can be equipped but they melt and on night maps they glow bright.

last edited by MusicNote

@maa_bunny said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:

@gm29 said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:

it is patently false to say that none of these are glaring issues that would have a significant impact on gameplay.

You and I clearly have very different backgrounds when it comes to firearms, and we also clearly have very different ideas about what "hugely," "glaring," and "significant" mean.

I'm absolutely aware, intellectually, that barrel heating and ammo loads have an effect on accuracy.

You just repeated the same mistake I already corrected you on. I can just repeat what I already said with regards to that because it still applies.
Furthermore, the reason you don't see the issues I raised as having a significant impact on gunplay in the game is precisely because you're acting blind to everything that doesn't deal specifically with MOA. If you look at the whole of all the issues I have raised and put them together you end up with huge, glaring, significant changes in gunplay, loadouts, and tactics.

Here's what I last posted in response to you:

It seems like a recurring theme that you are only focused on how "accuracy" is impacted and aren't considering all the other factors that go into a weapon platform being effective that don't just deal with raw MOA numbers.

If you look at all the factors I talked about, they have a very far reaching impact on weapon handling and ballistic performance that goes well beyond simple MOA dispersion.

  1. Movement speed.
  2. Position changing speed and sprint wind up time.
  3. Endurance loss rates from carrying and using the weapon.
  4. Weapon swing delays from increased mass or how it's balanced. Weapon swing speed, and ramp up speed, from increased mass and balance. Overswing (how long it takes to stop moving from the increased inertia of mass, or the balance of having too much weight out front). Slower times in shouldering and sighting the weapon based on weight and balance.
  5. Aimsway due to various factors like length, weight, balance, and player endurance levels.
  6. Aim recovery speed after firing, and how much of your sight picture is lost, due to various factors like balance, weight, length, endurance levels, etc.
  7. Sight, hearing, and situational awareness being obscured more by differences in muzzle reports and flashes.
  8. How the trigger quality impacts semi automatic accuracy and firing speed.
  9. How effective the suppressor is on various platforms with various ammos.
  10. How grips really impact your controllability on different platforms, and how that differs from semi auto vs full auto.
  11. How the need to factor in realistic body armor will influence both where you choose to aim, how many shots you'll choose to fire, and what types of guns and ammo you'll choose to use.
  12. How night vision really impacts combat when modeled realistically, and how some weapons and optics are better suited to it than others.
  13. How different ammo loadouts can drastically influence your recoil control, stopping power, penetration, effective range. And the nuances of how some rounds perform better out of shorter barrels, or better when suppressed, or better with heavier rounds. Certain barrel twist rates won't handle all ammo types well. And some platforms just won't have as many options available. These are all real advantages and disadvantages that will greatly impact combat if modeled correctly.
    ---There's a reason the military often commissions particular rounds to be created to solve particular problems with a weapon system - because ammo can HUGELY change what a particular platform is capable of doing. For example, whether or not you're using M855A1 will make or break your ability to deal with barriers or armor plates in an AR platform. And 300 Blackout is seeing some military use in the AR platform (all you have to do is put a new barrel on) because it performs vastly better than the 5.56 out of a short barrel and also performs better with subsonic rounds plus a suppressor. And even though the 300 Blackout has similar supersonic ballistics performance to a 7.62x39 (The 7.62 having more overall energy though), the 7.62 loses a lot more energy and ballistic performance when shooting supersonic out of a short barrel or using subsonic rounds.
    ---The differences between what different rounds are capable of is significant enough that they should not be abstracted as merely "generic AP round", "generic hollowpoint round", or "generic suppressed round". For one, these ammo types have disadvantages that aren't even being modeled currently. Second, not all weapon platforms even have ammo options in these categories, or the options they have aren't as good, which is a mark against the versatility of that particular weapon. Those are differences worth representing to balance out why one platform is preferred over another. Some weapons will simply be better at barrier penetration, or better at suppression, better at long range accuracy, or better at stopping power for a given caliber, purely because of the different ammo options available to them. It would add a lot of value and variety to the game for this to be represented accurately as well as increasing the realistic representative differences between the various firearms.
  14. How you deal with malfunctions, how that impacts the way you use the weapon, and how that influences what weapons or accessories you choose to run will also have a significant impact on the game.
  15. A flip mount magnifier on a red dot, or even a variable power 1-4 optic with a red dot, both have significant differences between them, and furthermore present a huge potential impact in combat performance compared with a plain red dot or flat 4x magnifier like an ACOG.
  16. How your point of aim shifts or MOA gets worse as the weapon heats up.
  17. Heat management. You can't mag dump rifles too much without reliability problems. Barrel changes on SAW.
  18. How some weapons get too hot to hold after firing a few magazines, or how some weapons handle it better than others. You need things like vertical grips or handguard covers to overcome that which add weight and effects balance. Or wear gloves - but if you choose to wear gloves that impacts how certain weapons are easier/faster to use than others due to oversized trigger guards or oversized weapon switches.

ammo can HUGELY change what a particular platform is capable of doing.

You think so? Please, show me an ER surgeon or combat medic that can look at a wound and tell me if it was made with M-855, M-855A1, or Mk.262.

You're extremely ignorant of terminal ballistics if you think the severity of wounding with different rounds can't be noticed at an ER.
The kind of wound created by a low speed M855 pinholing someone is vastly different than a MK262 hollowpoint fragmenting on contact to create a shotgun effect in their body.

So much more effective is the MK262, that is is a major reason why the 6.8 SPC was not adopted as an alternative to the 5.56. MK262 will give you similar wounding profiles to a 6.8 SPC, and extend the effective killing range of the 5.56 far beyond a normal M193.

The difference between an M193 and MK262 could be whether or not you can get a fragmenting bullet on the enemy at only 100m or stretching that out to 300m, because the MK262 will fragment at a much lower velocity and thus retain it's ability to fragment at longer distances. This is critical as the barrel length gets shorter, because your effective fragmentation range decreases as the barrel length decreases. So out of a short barrel M4 maybe you're talking about the difference between 50m vs 150m. This is a big deal in terms of your ability to quickly bring down an enemy at longer ranges.

Sure, there are differences between projectiles and loads, certainly, but they're not "HUGE."

It is huge. If you understood much about ballistics and bullet design you wouldn't be making the claim you are.

Huge enough that the poor performance of the M855 green tip in Somalia was the main motivator behind the army putting out a request for new rounds to be developed as a replacement for the 5.56. They were tremendously frustrated that it took then 3-5 shots to bring down each enemy, whereas the guys who had 7.62x51 guns were dropping them in a single shot. The difference between an M855 green tip, which is even worse than an M193 against flesh, and an MK262 is so great that it can literally be the difference between dropping an enemy in one shot or dropping them in 3-5.

Furthermore, the difference between an M193 and M855A1 (a genuine armor piercing round, unlike the M855 green tip), can literally be the difference between having your round stopped by body armor and not stopped by body armor - that's a big f'ing deal in combat.

Advances in hollowpoint bullet design were the only reason that 9mm replaced 45ACP as the preferred personal defense caliber in America. They allowed 9mm to perform just about as well as 45ACP, transferring all it's energy into the target instead of just pinholing through, yet still allow the individual to carry twice as many bullets as a 45. Previously the whole reason you wanted to use a 45 for self defense was because it was a large flat nosed bullet moving at subsonic speeds - which means it would rarely penetrate a human torso and come out the other side, thereby transferring all it's bullet energy into the target. A FMJ 9mm will cut strait through and leave a pinhole, failing to transfer most of it's energy into the target. Hollowpoint 9mm solves this problem so that it rarely exits the target, transfering all it's energy. So the difference between a 45 hollowpoint and a 9mm hollowpoint now isn't regarded as big enough to justify having half as much ammo in a magazine.

Bullet design is everything in determining what a weapon is capable of.

last edited by GM29

I also forgot to point out in my original post, another reason why it would be absurd to have a suppressor on a SAW: heat mirage. Suppressors heat up rapidly because of all the hot gas flowing around in them for extended periods of time instead of exiting the barrel quickly. This creates a heat mirage over the front of your weapon which can make it impossible to aim accurately through your sights.

The type of gun and suppressor you're using can change how quickly that happens, but regardless it would still be absurd to put it on a weapon that is valued for it's sustained fire.

There's a lot of reasons why suppressors aren't standard issue on all weapons. This game should model them so there are real choices to be made with real consequences. Otherwise why not throw it on if you have the points to spare.

I also thought it would be worth sharing some data I came across about the significant of stoppages.
In a heavy dust filled environment, almost sandstorm like conditions, the military tested various rifles for reliability.
The M4 would have a stoppage every 1.47 rounds out of 100. At that rate you will statistically have a stoppage after only 68 rounds.
In contrast, the HK416 would have 0.388 stoppages per 100 rounds. Which means you statistically won't have a stoppage until round number 258. That's 3.79 times longer between stoppages.

Although some soldiers report going their entire time deployed without having a single failure on their weapon, these extreme condition tests show you the potential differences between the systems that could have an impact on gameplay in the context of Insurgency.

If a map took place in a windy dusty environment, almost sandstorm like, you could expect the HK416 to get through a full combat loadout without a stoppage - whereas the M4 would experience a jam almost every second magazine. That could make or break you. It could mean the difference between jamming in the middle of a firefight or not in-game. Which is precisely why special forces are moving towards the HK416, away from the M4.

@gm29

Food for thought

You have many interesting points, but also have blindspots (logical errors that you refuse or are unable to see yourself) that all humans have to a certain degree, me included. It’s an interesting debate here and a lot of cool ideas from several people and I enjoy reading it. Here is a challenge for you: You say NWI is trying to make a milsim and that everyone who disagrees with you is factually wrong, I also disagree with you on this, but will not repeat what is already said as we end up in another circle argument. My point is that you “prove” several arguments “wrong” by this narrow frame of view.

The challenge is as follows, you should be capable at finding at least 100 different statements that will make any video game be different from actual warfare no matter how hard a game tries to depict real warfare, and also a bunch of arguments why it would not be a good idea, both from a gameplay perspective in regards to what is fun, the amount of time invested needed to have any realistic planning, the availability to customer segments across different age groups and so on. I do not ask you to write all this down unless you feel like it(it would be boring to read for me at least) but merely try to think about that perspective. If you possess a true analytical mind, you will in more complex topics most often be able to see pros and cons that is not necesarrily in your own favour. Hope to see more threads from you as it is interesting analysis that clearly takes dedication and knowledge. A good day to you sir!

last edited by Pacalis

IT IS NOT A MIL-SIM, all your arguments are invalid. they can do whatever the hell they want and this imaginary standard you have in your head after reading a snippet of PR about realistic gunplay is totally unreasonable and will never ever happen!

I do agree with what you're saying but things like this would probably be in future updates or New World just wouldn't feel like putting in that many detailed things. Altogether I do agree.

@pacalis said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:

@gm29

You have many interesting points, but also have blindspots

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion. Merely claiming I have blindspots doesn't make it true. You need to be able to logically demonstrating why any specific thing I've said is inaccurate due to a particular blindspot.

If you can logically demonstrate why there is error in anything I've said, you're free to do so. I welcome disagreement if it's based in fact and logic, because then maybe we can all learn something. But just accusing me of doing things I haven't actually done, and not offering any counter arguments to anything I've said, doesn't advance the conversation or help anyone learn anything.

You say NWI is trying to make a milsim

This is where the premise of your entire post is wrong. I never said NWI is trying to make a milsim.
Notice how I've never complained about the game modes not being realistic enough?
"Milsim" can also mean a lot of different things to a lot of people, as people get preconceived ideas in their head about what that means the game has to play like.

I am only holding NWI to their stated goal, as per their own comments in their videos, of wanting to make a "hardcore tactical game with meticulous attention to detail in firearms".

Everything I listed deals with what the game should look like if you want to have authentic weapons handling and behavior that makes the game more hardcore and tactical.

I personally don't want Insurgency to try to be like ARMA in terms of it's map and objective design, or pacing. I want a smaller scale faster paced shooter with realistically modeled weapons behavior and hardcore ballistics with a need for realistic tactics in terms of gun handling to succeed - that's why I preferred playing Insurgency and Red Orchestra to any other online shooter because they both strived to do exactly that.

But, there was a lot of room for improvement in terms of Insurgency's hardcore attention to detail. Which brings us to the reason for my post. I would love to see NWI take Insurgency Sandstorm to the next level in terms of hardcore tactical details in the firearms. It would retain the fast paced nature of the game but up the hardcore tactical gunplay to a level no one has attempted to try before.

The game would be funner and better off for it. For the same reason the original Insurgency was far funner and more interesting to play than other fast paced shooters that had arcade level weapons handling and ballistics.

Game designers probably don't know enough about guns to even think of these things, and their former military advisers aren't necessarily thinking like game designers to be able to recommend all the ways you can incorporate realistic gun handling and movement constraints into the game in ways that aren't clunky or take away the player's sense of control. You really need someone who understands both game design, gun related engineering/physics, and tactical military combat realities, to effectively merge these things together to create something new.

and that everyone who disagrees with you is factually wrong

Your statement is factually wrong - I've never told anyone they were wrong simply because they disagreed with me.
I gave logical arguments and factual reasons why their statements were wrong, and they were unable to refute those logical arguments and facts.

Notice how I'm not saying you are wrong just because I disagree with your conclusion, but I gave factual reasons why you're wrong. I can prove you're wrong by challenging you to find any single correction I've made in this thread to someone's claim that isn't based in using logical argument or facts to demonstrate why they are wrong. You won't find it. Which proves your claim to be factually wrong.

My point is that you “prove” several arguments “wrong” by this narrow frame of view.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely stating that you think I don't prove other arguments wrong doesn't make your statement true. You need to be able to logically or factually demonstrate why anything I've said is untrue or inaccurate, or point to a specific example of why you think I failed to prove a particular argument wrong.

The challenge is as follows, you should be capable at finding at least 100 different statements that will make any video game be different from actual warfare no matter how hard a game tries to depict real warfare, and also a bunch of arguments why it would not be a good idea, both from a gameplay perspective in regards to what is fun, the amount of time invested needed to have any realistic planning, the availability to customer segments across different age groups and so on. I do not ask you to write all this down unless you feel like it(it would be boring to read for me at least) but merely try to think about that perspective. If you possess a true analytical mind, you will in more complex topics most often be able to see pros and cons that is not necesarrily in your own favour. Hope to see more threads from you as it is interesting analysis that clearly takes dedication and knowledge. A good day to you sir!

I don't understand what you're asking. My comment is not intended to be insulting, but it reads to me like gibberish that is not relevant to the discussion. If you can clarify what you're asking, I will make an effort to respond to it.

I suspect, though, that whatever you are asking is based on wrong conclusions you are drawing about what I've said and why I've said it. I've already pointed out how you have two fundamentally wrong ideas. You are accusing me of wanting Insurgency to be a milsim, which was never true. You also accused me of not giving reasons why people were wrong, which is proveably untrue as you won't be able to find a single example in this thread where I've done that.

last edited by GM29

@gm29

I’ll elaborate when I find more time later this week. I agree that I should be clearer.

@zwenkwiel said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:

IT IS NOT A MIL-SIM, all your arguments are invalid.

Your premise is wrong. This game doesn't need to be a milsim for my arguments to be valid. Which then makes your argument invalid.

According to NWI's own words in their videos, their goal is to make a "hardcore tactical game with meticulous attention to detail in weapons".

Everything I have suggested is aimed at that goal in mind of making the weapon handling more hardcore, more attention to detail, and more tactical because of the ways it will change how people equip themselves and fight.

Its the same premise behind the original Insurgency and Red Orchestra. Is red orchestra a milsim because it's gun handling is so realistic? Is insurgency a milsim because it's gun handling and ballistics are so realistic compared to what the competition was at the time? Depends on how you define milsim I guess. I personally wouldn't consider them milsims, but would call them games that aim to have the maximum realism possible in weapons handling and behavior, which separates them from the competition who "balance" guns around arbitrary game design goals that don't concern themselves with realistic tactical hardcore attention to detail.

Given the goal of Insurgency, there's a lot of room for improvement towards meeting their goal. Hench the purpose of this post.

they can do whatever the hell they want and this imaginary standard you have in your head after reading a snippet of PR about realistic gunplay

The only imaginary standard here is whatever you are using, because you have no logical basis for what you are claiming.
I gave you their actual words, and gave you an analysis of how the game is actually designed relative to it's competition, which lines up with their words.

All you're doing is flailing around in anger making unsubstantiated claims.

is totally unreasonable and will never ever happen!

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely claiming my suggestions are unreasonable doesn't make your statement true.
You need to demonstrate with logical reasoning or facts why any of my suggestions would be "unreasonable".

Insurgency can be easy to learn (As it is now) and get a large player base (If optimization will be improved), or go into deep tactical team play with a lot of details to learn and 500 players online on the friday evening will be all time record.

Current gameplay is perfect, a lot of players enjoying it and I think developers are in the right path.

@gm29 What, exactly, is your background and experience with firearms and combat shooting?

While you've called me ignorant plenty of times in this thread I have not seen you offer a shred of evidence or experience to back up even a single claim. You seem to be extremely self confident that everything you know is correct. Where does this knowledge come from?

@maa_bunny said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:

While you've called me ignorant plenty of times in this thread I have not seen you offer a shred of evidence or experience to back up even a single claim.

I've given you basic verifiable scientific facts about how various rounds perform. If you doubt any specific piece of information I've given then post specifically what it is and why you think otherwise. The data does exist to back up what I've told you.

However, the need for data goes both ways - you made your own claims, but you don't even attempt to provide any data to back up your claims. You have given no substantive reasoning or arguments why anything I've said couldn't be true. All you've done is express your disbelief without giving any valid reasoning or counter-facts as to why you would have reason to disbelieve it. So your disbelief, by itself, doesn't represent a valid counter-argument. It only, if anything, highlights the fact that you're ignorant of this topic and don't really have much to add to the discussion on it.

If any real counter-data did exist, and you knew where to find it because you actually knew what you're talking about, then you could just post that and prove me wrong - but you can't, because it doesn't exist. So all you can do is demand I waste a lot of my time tracking down links to data to satisfy your own personal unbelief.

However, I am willing to indulge you and search out some links to data as examples of why what I've said is true, if you will be more specific about what you doubt and why you doubt it.

last edited by GM29

@smoussie said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:

Insurgency can be easy to learn (As it is now) and get a large player base (If optimization will be improved), or go into deep tactical team play with a lot of details to learn and 500 players online on the friday evening will be all time record.

Current gameplay is perfect, a lot of players enjoying it and I think developers are in the right path.

You speak as though you are stating facts but you are only stating your opinion. So let's me clear about the difference here is between a fact and an opinion, because you seem to arrogantly think everything that pops into your head is as good as fact.

I will point out the fact that there are some people who are of the opinion that a game like Insurgency or Red Orchestra is taking things way too far in terms of realism, pointlessly too far, absurdly too far, and losing out on potential players because they don't make their game more like COD. They scoff at the idea of having to change barrels on an MG, or the idea of one shot kills from fully automatic weapons, or the idea of free aim and realistic aimsway with no arbitrary bullet spread patterns to "balance" things out.

Do you know there was once a time when people like you said it was ridiculous to force players to look down the iron sights of a gun to aim in a video game? Now even the most arcade of shooters incorporates this because it turns out it was actually a smart and immersive idea of how to translate the experience of shooting a gun into a video game. What you're doing is no different than what they did back then. You're dismissing things you don't fully understand without attempting to give any reasons why it should be dismissed.

Yet, Insurgency and RO have been very successful and popular. As popular as COD? No. But you don't need to be as popular to COD to be a success. Both of those games have proven there is a viable and significant market out there for gamers who want meticulously modeled gunplay and hardcore tactical action.

That's why you don't use your personal opinion as a basis for determining what will or won't work in a game. You need the analytical intelligence to be able to determine how a given change will impact the game.

And, on that subject - you have given not a single factual or analytical reason why anything I've suggested would negatively impact the gameplay in a way that would make the game suddenly too difficult, too complex, or why it would result in a complete tanking of player numbers.

For your claims to have any validity, you'd need some logical reasons to back up why your claims are true.

last edited by GM29

@gm29

Here is why I say you claim NWI is providing a milsim:
Statement 1 and 2 said to you in this thread:

  • 1 Sandstorm isn't a simulator.
  • 2 This is a game, not a simulator.

Your answer was to this:
Both incorrect statements and bad arguments from a logic standpoint.

My answer: You say you never claimed it was a milsim, but you clearly denied it was not here. Claiming anything else would be manipulation. This shows both that you have blindspots and say people are wrong when disagreeing with you just to say it. Reason I didn’t give examples, was because I thought that you might have written stuff in a haste and overlooked errors, and therefore checked your past posts as there is plenty of these errors.

Example 2 said to you in this thread:
Adding RNG removes skill and leads to players feeling cheated.

Your answer:
Your position is logically inconsistent and contradictory.
You have random bullet dispersion that no amount of skill will ever be able to overcome.
Yet you don't complain about the fact that the game doesn't make every bullet a laser.
You have some randomness involved in aimsway and don't have direct control over what happens to a degree.
The fact is; firearms are inherently random in some ways and any realistic modeling of them has to include this random factor to be realistic.
You only feel cheated if you have unreasonable expectations about what you should be capable of doing that don't line up with reality.

My answer: RNG in itself contains no skill, that is the concept of random numbers generated. Many players feels cheated by RNG, both the poster here, me, and many other people.

There is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in that sentence. You derail the argument by talking about expectations and again refer to reality. You could add information and talk about expectations, but you don’t. You say it’s logical inconsistent. That is a blindspot and you are either incapable or unaware of seeing this.

I didn’t post here to you to argue, I posted because I think you have interesting ideas and that it would be more interstesting to read your cool ideas if you didn’t focus that hard on all the arguing=)

The last part of my post with the challenge part was about being able to think about video games both from a gameplay perspective and a realism perspective, as there is clearly a line somewhere as those two can’t be too close to each other. Where this line is will vary from game to game, and I think NWI has delivered in trying to implement realistic aspects while being aware of the gameplay - It is not perfect as no games are, we can often dream bigger than any developer can deliver on. We also have different expectations as individuals that can not all be satisfied. But you have cool ideas so it’s interesting to read and may inspire later games or even updates in this game or something else.

last edited by Pacalis

@pacalis said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:

@gm29

  • 1 Sandstorm isn't a simulator.
  • 2 This is a game, not a simulator.

Your answer was to this:
Both incorrect statements and bad arguments from a logic standpoint.

You're leaving out the context of that statement. And everything else you've said is based on a misunderstanding of what I said.

Insurgency can have simulator attention to detail in weapons modeling and behavior without attempting to be a simulator in other aspects such as level design, objective design, pacing, etc.

Whether or not you put the label of a weapons simulator on it is irrelevant when, in practice, you've made a game that you said aims to meticulously model the gunplay according to realism in a hardcore and tactical way. That's functionally more a simulator of weapon handling than it isn't.

Furthermore, a simple comparison of the gunplay in Insurgency to other genres will quickly determine where the game actually falls on the spectrum. It's gunplay, movement, and ballistics is functionally quite similar to games like ARMA, Squad, and Red Orchestra, but it's miles away from CoD or Battlefield.

No one can continue to claim, given the dev's own stated goals, and a comparison of where Insurgency actually is relative other games, that it is not attempting to simulate realistic gunplay and weapon behavior. And given those facts, I treat the game accordingly and expect more from it.

Example 2 said to you in this thread:
Adding RNG removes skill and leads to players feeling cheated.

Your answer:
Your position is logically inconsistent and contradictory.
You have random bullet dispersion that no amount of skill will ever be able to overcome.
Yet you don't complain about the fact that the game doesn't make every bullet a laser.
You have some randomness involved in aimsway and don't have direct control over what happens to a degree.
The fact is; firearms are inherently random in some ways and any realistic modeling of them has to include this random factor to be realistic.
You only feel cheated if you have unreasonable expectations about what you should be capable of doing that don't line up with reality.

My answer: RNG in itself contains no skill, that is the concept of random numbers generated. Many players feels cheated by RNG, both the poster here, me, and many other people.

Your summary of our discourse shows very clearly why your response is contradictory nonsense.

-You said you don't like RNG.
-I showed how the game actually does have RNG.
-You only repeat that you don't like RNG, ignoring the fact that the game already has it, and so does every shooter for that matter, because it's the nature of how ballistics and gunhandling work.

Your response makes no sense at all and completely missed the point.

You derail the argument by talking about expectations and again refer to reality. You could add information and talk about expectations, but you don’t. You say it’s logical inconsistent. That is a blindspot as you are either incapable or unaware of seeing this.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely claiming something doesn't make it true. You haven't given a single example of me derailing anything.

I would respond to the rest, but I don't understand what point you're even trying to say. You make references to blindspots and inconsistencies without any context about what you're actually referring to or reasons why what you claim would be true. It just sounds like incoherent gibberish because it lacks clear context. I don't think you're forming your ideas clearly enough for me to be able interact with them.

I didn’t post here to you to argue, I posted because I think you have interesting ideas and that it would be more interstesting to read your cool ideas if you didn’t focus that hard on all the arguing=)

If you want to claim there's no need for what I suggested, or that it would be bad for the game, you had better have real logic or reasons to back up your claim. Because you will get challenged on it. And if you haven't really thought through your objection clearly, or don't know what you're talking about, then that's going to show when you're challenged.

The last part of my post with the challenge part was about being able to think about video games both from a gameplay perspective and a realism perspective, as there is clearly a line somewhere as those two can’t be too close to each other.

Logical error, false presumptions. You make a false presumption that I did not make those suggestions with the idea in mind of how that would impact gameplay.

It is precisely because of how it would impact gameplay for the better that I suggested them. And I gave many examples of how that would change the dynamics of loadouts, movement, and weapons handling for the better by resulting in greater authenticity, more hardcore tactics, more realistic differentiation between the weapons, and more tactical variety and choices to make about what gear/weapons you want and why you want it because the consequences of your choices have more of an impact on your performance. And that impact is based in reality, not based on arbitrary constructs for arbitrary ideas of balance.

If you think the opposite would be the case then the onus is on you to provide some logical argumentation or reasoned analysis, or facts, about why you think it wouldn't be good. Merely screeching about how you think this game isn't labeled a "simulator" therefore we shouldn't ever talk about making anything more realistic ever for any reason (as some here have done), without going into any reasons why these features would result in something bad (especially when these suggestions are in line with the dev's own stated goal), is a nonsensical and pointless way to respond.

We also have different expectations as individuals that can not all be satisfied.

My expectations come out of what the game itself is striving to be, and what the devs themselves have said they want.

If you say you want meticulous attention to realism in the gunplay, along with hardcore tactical gameplay, then i'm helping you realize what that would look like.

The only reason you wouldn't expect those things to be in a game like this, given their goal, is if you don't understand enough about guns and ballistics and combat variables to understand why these issues would add significantly to the game experience.

If you understand these things then you do expect them because you understand how much of a difference they would make on gameplay for the better.

I'll use an example you can probably relate to: If someone never understood how an AK47 recoils more harshly than an M16, then they might not ever feel like anything is missing from a game that fails to model that difference between them.
But to someone who understands how these two weapons differ, to see them both perform as copies of each other becomes a glaringly obvious mistake that detracts from the game's claim of authentic hardcore weapon modeling.

Now, some here seem to have the misconception that in order to play a game with an AK47 having more recoil than an M16 that you need to have a PHD in physics and understand all the reasons why they are different. No, you don't need to understand why things work the way they do in order to play the game and learn by experience how they handle differently. You can learn by experience how they are different, adapt, and succeed in your use of those weapons by figuring out through experience what they are good at and what they aren't. That is, in fact, part of the fun of a game like this. It's fun even for someone who understands guns because they won't necessarily get a chance to fire everything represented here, let alone in the context of combat.

But you do need to understand why things work when you are the game devs building the game. If you don't understand how and why things work then you can't accurately model them. If the devs take a deep understanding of how and why these weapons/gear work, and translate that into a game, then we all benefit from their hard work by having a game that is that much funner due to the tactical and hardcore variety it brings to the table, and more authentic to play around with.

last edited by GM29