TTK needs a kick up the @#$*

Its almost like no one goes back and actually reads the thread, only the couple posts above ...
The same arguments are being recycled in the same exact thread.

@benz said in TTK needs a kick up the @#$*:

@ctbear1996

In general: 5.56 should have bigger dmg-falloff at range than 7.52, while 7.52 should have lower ROF.

For close-mid ranges:

Unarmored:

  • 5.56: 2 shots
  • 7.52: 1 shot

light armor:

  • 5.56: 2 shots
  • 7.52: 2 shot

heavy armor:

  • 5.56: 3-4 shots
  • 7.52: 2 shot

bolt actions

1 shot everything (chest+belly+head).

add +1 shots for long ranges (excluding snipers). Headshots should obv. be 1 shot with every weapon.

Armor in this scenario should also slow you down more. Also: way more stopping power for bullets.

I find this hilarious.

Why? Because this pretty much was the TTK before the Heavy Armor nerf, with a couple exceptions:

-> 7.62 couldn't one-shot an unarmored player.
-> 5.56 took three shots against Heavy armor.

That's it. I don't get all of these "Ins2014 vets" who want 5.56 to one-shot Heavy Armor because they don't feel like buying a bigger gun since there's "more recoil" or some dumb shit. This is a game and game balance should exist at some point. If 5.56 can one-shot weapons like the M14 EBR might as well not even be in the game, and as an Ins2014 veteran wit 1400+ hours I can guarantee I have thousands of kills with the M4A1 and M16A4 and maybe a hundred with the M14 EBR because it was complete garbage by comparison.

Also, now 5.56 two-shots Heavy Armor, so AKs are basically inferior TTK-wise. Yeah, great game balance here.

Benz's numbers are a little off because of the fact that AKs do indeed struggle more with penetrating armor than 5.56 rifles would. I don't see why this kind of asymmetry is a problem, especially since anything can be solved by messing around with point costs... just make the 5.56 rifles the most expensive. Make armor actually work but make it more expensive, I don't see why the things themselves need nerfing.

@thehappybub Eh, higher supply costs can work for balance reasons but people will just pay the supply to get a weapon if it's blatantly overpowered. Only works (kind of) if the Insurgents get some kind of counterpart.

@MarksmanMax If players had to choose between heavy armor which could suck up a lot of torso shots or equipping a rifle which would do well against heavy armor (i.e. a 5.56 rifle or MP7 or something) it would balance, as long as players can't do both.

I'm also speaking in terms of versus/comp in coop play I don't see why everyone running heavy armor if they want to is a problem, though I still think it should cost 5 points (more than a compensator at least lol).

@thehappybub said in TTK needs a kick up the @#$*:

@MarksmanMax If players had to choose between heavy armor which could suck up a lot of torso shots or equipping a rifle which would do well against heavy armor (i.e. a 5.56 rifle or MP7 or something) it would balance, as long as players can't do both.

I'm also speaking in terms of versus/comp in coop play I don't see why everyone running heavy armor if they want to is a problem, though I still think it should cost 5 points (more than a compensator at least lol).

For Competive purposes a Compensator isn't even that good lmao. Just crouch and your recoil for most weapons is nonexistent.

@benz said in TTK needs a kick up the @#$*:

@whitby said in TTK needs a kick up the @#$*:

Since none of my previous points were challenged, let's try some new ones.

woooosh

  1. Make premise
  2. Gets challenged on his claims
  3. Doesn't agree.
  4. Pretends challenge didn't happen
  5. Dodges
  6. Profit

Nice way of discussing things. I'll give you a quick reality check on the discussion so far:

  1. You say low TTK = "high lethality, punishing, rewarding"
  2. I counter, saying:
    2.1 a higher TTK wouldn't be less punishing for the attacker
    2.2 a higher TTK would be more punishing for the camper
  3. You bring up this argument for why a higher TTK is less punishing: "people can run around more" and completely dodge my 2nd claim regarding positioning of the camper
  4. I counter by bringing in a different solution for punishing the movement problem you mentioned: tagging
  5. your argument against tagging is: "because it would be just another generic shooter" = that's not a gameplay argument. You offer 0 gameplay reasons for not having more tagging in order to punish people moving in the open
  6. your argument against having recoil management in the game: see 5. Again no real gameplay reason to not have it in, but another "because other shooters already do it"
  7. Since you like punishment: i asked you what you propose to punish bad positioning and aim from campers -> dodged

Summarize:

  1. dodging my "lower TTK = positioning matters less" claim
  2. only argument against tagging and having more important recoil management in the game: "because other shooters do it". No gameplay argument.
  3. dodging my request of how you'd punish bad aim+bad camping positions

"Since none of my previous points were challenged"... good joke. If that's how you discuss things... I'm sorry for you.

Everyone can read the posts to verify it. So don't even try to spin this up.

Challenge didn't happen.

  1. Yes.
    2.1. How is actually dying from being shot not more punishing?
    2.2. The camper gets punished by losing because he did not get the objective. This is a cornerstone thing in NWI's games.
  2. Can't dodge it if it's not a valid point. Camping doesn't work due to the way the objectives are designed. You camp, you don't do objectives, your team loses.
  3. Solution not required if target is already dead.
  4. Making Sandstorm into a generic shooter is a valid issue. You have no shortage of samey shooters with high TTK, tagging, etc. Creating a successor to Ins2014 with awesome gunplay creates a game with better gameplay which is in its own market niche instead of being the next Call of Duty.
  5. I don't have an argument "against recoil management". The whole recoil management thing is my explanation of how your "higher TTK means aim doesn't matter" argument is idiotic. In Ins2014, you could choose to spray a target down and manage the recoil. Made a lot of sense on some weapons, not so much on others. Semi auto was viable in Ins2014 unlike in Sandstorm. Again, it made for much better gameplay.
  6. They miss the target, don't get a kill, give their position away with a muzzle flash and get shot by your teammate who is covering, etc. I can't believe I even have to write this.

Summary:

  1. If you can die faster being in the middle of a street dancing through a hail of fire is no longer normalcy. I'd say this has a pretty substantial effect on how much your positioning matters.
  2. The gameplay argument is easy. Ins2014 was more fun than Call of Duty. That's why I'm here playing Sandstorm. Why are you here? You don't like good gunplay but you have thousands of titles to choose from which fit your wishes. Why have another? The argument here which holds weight is a market niche argument. Ins2014/DoI are success stories because they differentiated themselves from the competition and because they did gunplay better.
  3. They miss the target, don't get a kill, give their position away with a muzzle flash and get shot by your teammate who is covering, etc. I can't believe I even have to write this.

You challenged nothing I wrote. I feel sorry for me too, having to explain myself repeatedly to witness you go off on a tangent and avoid awkward points you cannot address.

Good gunplay isn't one-shotting everything that moves regardless of armor.

OSK ruins coop play completely and doesn't add any depth to versus. I have a lot of fun in coop as the game stands right now, making armor meaningless will just make the game revert to the 100-200 K:Ds of ins2/doi, which I didn't find fun for very long tbh.

Armour should provide protection from shrapnel and pistol rounds. It's not redundant at all. (And smaller rifle rounds past a certain range, but the hitbox for armour needs to be the size of the sapi plate if so).

One shot kills already happen in the head. I'm saying they should too in the upper torso with a 5.56 and the lower torso/legs with a 7.62 nato. The depth and weapon choices include that heavier rounds can OSK in the torso from further away and smaller rounds have less recoil so they're more use in closer quarters. Furthermore, heavier rounds punch through cover.

Makes everything great, just like Ins2014/DoI. OSK absolutely does not ruin cooperative play, it makes it fun. Means you and your team have to play sensibly instead of just charging around like a terminator which is presently what coop is all about.

last edited by Whitby

@whitby said in TTK needs a kick up the @#$*:

I made no claim that "aim doesn't currently matter". I stated: "there's barely even an advantage to properly aiming before you pull the trigger since you're going to have to manage recoil on the super soaker regardless."

Properly aiming before pulling a trigger is always an advantage. This is not tied to TTK.

You're quote is suggesting that you can just fire full auto without aiming and win, which is not the case. That's where my "aim doesn't matter" came from.

I'm defining aiming as putting the crosshair on the target and firing. I'm defining recoil management as holding MOUSE1 and compensating for the directions in which the rifle jumps as you offload 2/3rds of a magazine onto the humanoid spec in the distance in order to make him fall down.

Thank you for clearing this. There's also a third area: tracking. Which simply means tracking a moving target. Note that this is not same as recoil management. Example: we could have a weapon that has 0 recoil, but we still have to track moving targets when aiming.

So we have:

  1. Target Acquisition (properly aiming at the target before pulling the trigger)
  2. Tracking
  3. Recoil management

OSK effectively eliminates 2 and 3 and leaves the game with just 1. So it becomes a point-n-click game.

Now someone is going to argue "Not if they miss the first shot" which is same as "The game works fine as long as players are not skilled enough".

Pulling the trigger and spraying without first acquiring the target and just trying track and manage recoil is a very bad idea. You're trying to acquire a target and manage recoil at the same time, which makes acquiring target much harder. Thus, properly aiming at a target before pulling the trigger is always an advantage.

In Sandstorm semiauto works great. As long you properly aim at your target before shooting 😉

You refer to the previous conversation in which I made this distinction, resulting in my post being thumbed high above the surrounding posts in the discussion. I made the same aim/vs management argument here. There was no credible argument made against it there much like you've sidestepped the topic here too.

My argument is now above for you to see, I've made this point before in other threads, but maybe didn't see my posts then. OSK = Point-n-click. Balanced TTK = Balanced skill requirements for aiming skill areas (all three of them) = more satisfying and rewarding game.

"we know that aim always matters more when you need more than 1 shot to kill" do we? We're all in agreement on this challenged point with open fallacies... What a crock of shit.

See my points above. All three aiming skill areas matter more, when you need more than 1 shot to kill. One-hit-kill is only target acquisition. This works like a law of nature, there's no fallacies there. Only people who deny this, even when they know it, just to get their agenda forward.

One of you High-TTK advocates, explain it to me. Why do you want a game of recoil management like the other 5,000 shooters instead of a high lethality, punishing, rewarding game like Ins2014 or DoI? Then explain to me why you're here, on this forum, playing the successor to those titles. There's a fucking contradiction for you gentlemen.

There's no contradiction. It's just that One-Hit-Kill advocates are making false assumptions. You're assuming that all the people here who do not want one-hit kills, want 10 hit kills game. This is a false assumption.

I don't want a 7 hit kill or 5 hit kills either and from the posts it seems to me, that so does not all the others who are speaking for this "high" TTK. So no recoil management game wanted here. Three areas of aiming skill should be balanced. One-hit-kills is not it.

For me it seems that all so called high TTK advocates do not wan't high TTK, but they wan't balanced lethality. That's what I want at least! One-hit-kills are not it. DISCLAIMER: I think there are certain situations that should be one-hit-kills. But I see some people here wanting one-hit-kills for every situations, which is what I'm against.

last edited by jensiii

This post is for everyone: One hit kills do not make a tactical game by itself. Still this is suggested as a solution for movement related problems.

@Benz, myself and other players have suggested that movement mechanics should be tweaked and tagging should be added. These balance the game and make it more tactical.

Here we have the ultimate OHK-game:

Youtube Video

Why are these guys not positioning themselves tactically even though it's OHK? Why is this not ultimate tactical simulator even though it's OHK and FORCED semiauto firemode? Why is the game so fast even though it's OHK?

This video should be the wet dream for some people right now. Is it? Why not?

How would you make the game in the video more tactical?

This video demostrates in an obviously exaggarated way what it means when OHK is a main feature: it puts huge emphasis on reflex and makes positioning matter less. There's also no tracking or recoil control, which mean less aiming skill needed. Just point-n-click and reflexes.

OHK was already made in UT 1999 so it's nothing unique by the way (to all those of you who say that OHK makes INS2 unique). Quake also has instagib mode.

Let's discuss!

last edited by jensiii

@jensiii

Okay. Then I'm going to state:
Target aquisition being the predominant required skill makes for a more fun gameplay experience. (Ins2014/DoI being amazing examples of fun gameplay.) If you're using a SMG or something, you're still going to be tracking and compensating recoil, etc. But the core go-to weapons are low-TTK lethal rifles. That makes for great gameplay.

There is a contradiction. You're assuming I'm making an assumption about how many shots you think is "correct". The contradiction is: Why do you want a game of recoil management like the other 5,000 shooters instead of a high lethality, punishing, rewarding game like Ins2014 or DoI? Then explain to me why you're here, on this forum, playing the successor to those titles. You haven't addressed the contradiction. If the gunplay in Ins2014 and DoI was so abhorrently terrible... why are you here?

As for the "tactical" thing, I assume that was aimed at somebody else. Though, higher lethality definitely slows down the pace of progression. I'd lean-peek a corner in Ins2014. In Sandstorm I just charge around it and play super soakers. I don't feel the same fear of being molested by flying lead. This sort've makes the game more tactical in that I'd be more inclined to be more communicative, especially in coop. Simply, because it becomes necessary.

@whitby said in TTK needs a kick up the @#$*:

@jensiii

Okay. Then I'm going to state:
Target aquisition being the predominant required skill makes for a more fun gameplay experience. (Ins2014/DoI being amazing examples of fun gameplay.) If you're using a SMG or something, you're still going to be tracking and compensating recoil, etc. But the core go-to weapons are low-TTK lethal rifles. That makes for great gameplay.

You can have your preference and I can't tell you what you can like and can not 🙂 Like I said, I like lethality (1-4 shots to kill depending on gear/hit location/range etc.), but for me instagib is not enjoyable.

So this is also a pure matter of taste.

There is a contradiction. You're assuming I'm making an assumption about how many shots you think is "correct". The contradiction is: Why do you want a game of recoil management like the other 5,000 shooters instead of a high lethality, punishing, rewarding game like Ins2014 or DoI?

I explained in my previous post to you, that I'm not after a game of recoil management, but after a game of balanced lethality. Instagib is not balanced lethality for me. I'm not looking for a COD or Battlefield, because if I did, I would be playing those games instead and would not spend time here on the forum.

Then explain to me why you're here, on this forum, playing the successor to those titles. You haven't addressed the contradiction. If the gunplay in Ins2014 and DoI was so abhorrently terrible... why are you here?

There's no contradiction.

I liked INS2 a lot. I can see a lot of potential in Sandstorm. I wan't Sandstorm to be better than INS2. Being better than INS2 is not the same as INS2. I believe this game can be a better game than INS2 to me. I think gunplay can be improved from INS2. If Sandstorm grows to it's full potential, this will be one best games I've played for a long time. That's why I'm here. Where is the contradiction?

I don't think I have to accept INS2 gunplay as a holy grail of gunplay even if liked the game.

Of course I want my voice to be heard on how I would like the game to play out. That's why I write on these forums.

As for the "tactical" thing, I assume that was aimed at somebody else. Though, higher lethality definitely slows down the pace of progression. I'd lean-peek a corner in Ins2014. In Sandstorm I just charge around it and play super soakers. I don't feel the same fear of being molested by flying lead. This sort've makes the game more tactical in that I'd be more inclined to be more communicative, especially in coop. Simply, because it becomes necessary.

Yes, this was aimed at everybody in general.

See my post with the instagib-video. It's the highest lethality possible, but it's still superfast running and gunning. This tell that there are some other elements instead of numer-of-shots-to-kill-a-player that makes the game more tactical. And I don't think it's any single feature but instead a certain balance of features that make the gameplay more tactical.

last edited by jensiii

Well if you're advocating 1-4 shots to kill instead of 1-2 I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on the grounds that you're advocating for a Call of Duty / Battlefield damage model. Ins2014 can be improved with graphics and content. Ins2014 in my opinion is the holy grail of video game gunplay and I sincerely hope that it's our voices heard advocating for lower TTK instead of yours.

Misrepresenting my argument as "instagib" isn't exactly productive.

@whitby said in TTK needs a kick up the @#$*:

Ins2014 in my opinion is the holy grail of video game gunplay and I sincerely hope that it's our voices heard advocating for lower TTK instead of yours.

A game with not even 4k average peak players online isn't the "holy grail" of anything. Maybe SS can try to achieve more than ins2.

last edited by Benz

@whitby said in TTK needs a kick up the @#$*:

Well if you're advocating 1-4 shots to kill instead of 1-2 I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on the grounds that you're advocating for a Call of Duty / Battlefield damage model.

@thehappybub had a good post on the previous page about hits-to-kill and how armor should affect it. I agree with him. If that is the BF/COD ttk, then it's seems like I'm advocating BF/COD ttk without knowing it myself.

Is it?

Ins2014 can be improved with graphics and content. Ins2014 in my opinion is the holy grail of video game gunplay and I sincerely hope that it's our voices heard advocating for lower TTK instead of yours.

Like I said, you can have your preference 🙂

I just want to point out how OHK affects gameplay so people can then make their own judgements based on proper knowledge. If they still think OHK is fun for them, they can have their preference of course.

Misrepresenting my argument as "instagib" isn't exactly productive.

What else is OHK? it' the exact same mechanic.

I told you that i don't like OHK in all situations, thus, don't like instagib. But I think there are situations that SHOULD BE OHK in Sandstorm.

last edited by jensiii

Upper torso shots being OHK from rifle rounds is not instagib.

Ins2014 absolutely was the holy grail of gunplay and had incredible player retention - absolutely unheard of for a small indie studio's first paid title. Not like they had Call of Duty's advertising budget, is it?

I stand by what I said. I hope NWI use their newfound publisher money to deliver the gunplay perfection that was Ins2014 to a mass audience to critical acclaim, ignoring the CoD-TTK advocates posting from multiple accounts.

Please NWI, stay true to your roots and don't make another samey shooter.

@whitby said in TTK needs a kick up the @#$*:

Upper torso shots being OHK from rifle rounds is not instagib.

Yep, I agree. OHK as a main feature is instagib.

@jensiii said in TTK needs a kick up the @#$*:
I think there are situations that SHOULD BE OHK in Sandstorm.

@thehappybub had a good post on the previous page about hits-to-kill and how armor should affect it. I agree with him.

If you read this post it says:

Unarmored:
5.56/7.62 to chest, groin, thigh - 1 shot
5.56/7.62 to arms or lower legs - 2 shot

What does it say about "how many hits to chest to kill"?
Is this COD/BF?

I don't know, tell me.

Ins2014 absolutely was the holy grail of gunplay and had incredible player retention - absolutely unheard of for a small indie studio's first paid title. Not like they had Call of Duty's advertising budget, is it?

I stand by what I said.

You can have your preference.

I hope NWI use their newfound publisher money to deliver the gunplay perfection that was Ins2014 to a mass audience to critical acclaim, ignoring the CoD-TTK advocates posting from multiple accounts.

Please NWI, stay true to your roots and don't make another samey shooter.

You can have your preference.

Well since everyone is going to wear armour and be a bullet sponge, the unarmoured TTK isn't worth discussing, is it? One shot to kill with a rifle round, upper torso, even with heavy armour. Good gameplay. Sorted.

@whitby said in TTK needs a kick up the @#$*:

... and had incredible player retention

Are you talking about the game that went on ridiculous sales multiple times + was given away for free ....and yet still doesn't get a bumb in its avg. peak player count? That's awful retention. What incredible player retention are you talking about?! Show me the data. In case you need data: https://steamdb.info/app/222880/graphs/

Hint: that's not incredible player retention. Going from 122k players because it was free to basically the same avg. before is awful player retention. That's like 0% of the players who got the game for free actually kept playing. That's awful.

That's based on data and not feelings.