The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model

@slazenger hahaa I see what you did there 😉

I have to be more precise. While 1 shot 1 kill might feel good, it also might not feel good. Why is that?

It basically comes down to the feeling of competence by the player.

Player will always give bigger value to kills that required more of whatever skill (aim, movement, positioning etc.) to achieve the kill. Player will feel more competent and the kill feels more satisfying and rewarding. On the opposing end, easy effortless kills will not feel as satisfying compared to the kills, that make the player feel that he is a skilled player.

That is why headshot in CS feel satisfying and rewarding for @Benz. This is also why for me, while INS2 has satisfying moments, there is also a lot of unsatisfying point-n-click kills that don't give the feeling of competence.

You are right, that if COD had OHK headshots, it would most likely be more fun for a lot of people. Does this mean that making every gun in Sandstorm OHK chest makes the game more rewarding/satisfying? Not automatically. It could be argued that chest shots require less skill than headshots just because of the size of the hit area, thus they would be less rewarding/satisfying in general. So that's why OHK doesn't automatically enhance the gameplay experience. This is also a very subjective thing. So we can come into the conclusion that "1 shot 1 kills feel good and are satisfying" is not really a fact.

Something else to add here:

Higher skill ceiling in game allows for much greater feeling of competence. I'm pretty sure that's why CS for example is so popular. People are enjoying the game, because it can really make them feel competent and skilled.

Now, before someone rushes the thread yelling "MUH SKILL BR0 GO PLAY CS I WANT SANDSTORM TO BE FUN, NOT SKILLZ!!1!": Feeling competent and skilled when playing the game IS fun 🙂 And that's basically where the root of the argument for OHK TTK is, it makes some people feel more skilled in the game, thus makes the game more fun for them (at least for awhile), which I understand (but don't agree with!).

Skill and fun are not mutually exclusive, quite the opposite. And this is a fact and there's research about it.

last edited by jensiii

@slazenger said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

@thehappybub
Guns that can kill in 1 shot:

All bolt actions
All machine guns
all semi auto guns
FG42 and BAR
m1911, Weebly revolver, possibly the Welrod silenced pistol

Guns that cannot:
Thompson, grease gun, mp40, german sidearms, C96 carbine, the rest of the US and common wealth sidearms.

Here's a list of the weapons: http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Day_of_Infamy

The only pistol that one-shots is the Webley. TheWelrod doesn't one-shot but it does do enough torso damage to kill in one shot + a melee bash with the pistol, which is pretty funny to pull off.

FG42 and BAR are also LMGs (although the FG is more like a battle rifle; also, it's horribly inaccurate).

Here's where my numbers come from: http://jballou.com/insurgency/stats.php

@marksmanmax
Again with the numbers dude. You can test the m1911 yourself ingame, it kills in 1 shot to the chest area.
Also according to those stats the m1911 has 6 more damage than the Webly, and 4 less than the m1a1 carbine.

@slazenger said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

games that have 1 shot kill to the head,

When does Sandstorm not have 1 shot headshots in every situation?

@jensiii @MarksmanMax

While I agree with the majority of what you are saying, and what many people in this thread are saying, I can't agree with one thing. The whole number of bullets to kill people argument is getting a bit stale IMO, and I think its a completely moot point.

Coming from a former competitive player (I know its anecdotal evidence based on experience but I'm gonna bring that to the table) I wouldn't give a rats ass if the bullets to kill were completely randomized in the 1-3/4 range not depending on weapon. What I want is for the game is to have the positioning, communication, and movement skill ceiling be VERY high and have the gunplay be secondary to that. I think everyone talking about TTK are always dancing around the point that no matter how many bullets you take to kill them, if you were in superior positioning and were ready you should never lose.

This IS consistency, with some of that realism thrown in that insurgency loves. Breaching a room should be a butt-clenching experience requiring more than one person to reasonably succeed at. It shouldn't be down to "Oh I know I have amazing reflexes and a OHK gun", it should be down to having teammates that have your back and having a plan.

I favor a lower TTK, but I don't favor what has been discussed to death, having guaranteed TTK based on gun. The reason I bring Counter Strike into this argument is it was my first FPS, and the AWP was the absolute bane of my existence. I learned how to play against it, I got good eventually, but it still killed a lot of the gameplay for me. Having any weapon that consistently ( again, I'm not against it happening sometimes) one shots people to the chest incentivizes bad gameplay, fair and simple. It becomes a numbers game to a lot of people, and that is not what I want Sandstorm to turn into.

The jist of what I'm saying is that being competent and skilled at Sandstorm should be about teamwork, coordination, and positioning. What I'm getting from much of this thread is that many people think that the guns define the gameplay, and I tend to disagree. You can add many other incentives to proper movement and gameplay via stamina, suppression, recoil and sway based on the first two, and speed of movement. Squad is a good example of a game with a relatively high TTK for a realistic-ish game (2-4 shots, with the occasional one-offer) that forces the players into a certain playstyle to be successful. I think Sandstorm should take steps in that direction, rather than the e-sports route.

last edited by Marxman LMC

@marxman-lmc said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

@jensiii @MarksmanMax

While I agree with the majority of what you are saying, and what many people in this thread are saying, I can't agree with one thing. The whole number of bullets to kill people argument is getting a bit stale IMO, and I think its a completely moot point.

Coming from a former competitive player (I know its anecdotal evidence based on experience but I'm gonna bring that to the table) I wouldn't give a rats ass if the bullets to kill were completely randomized in the 1-3/4 range not depending on weapon. What I want is for the game is to have the positioning, communication, and movement skill ceiling be VERY high and have the gunplay be secondary to that. I think everyone talking about TTK are always dancing around the point that no matter how many bullets you take to kill them, if you were in superior positioning and were ready you should never lose.

This IS consistency, with some of that realism thrown in that insurgency loves. Breaching a room should be a butt-clenching experience requiring more than one person to reasonably succeed at. It shouldn't be down to "Oh I know I have amazing reflexes and a OHK gun", it should be down to having teammates that have your back and having a plan.

I favor a lower TTK, but I don't favor what has been discussed to death, having guaranteed TTK based on gun. The reason I bring Counter Strike into this argument is it was my first FPS, and the AWP was the absolute bane of my existence. I learned how to play against it, I got good eventually, but it still killed a lot of the gameplay for me. Having any weapon that consistently ( again, I'm not against it happening sometimes) one shots people to the chest incentivizes bad gameplay, fair and simple. It becomes a numbers game to a lot of people, and that is not what I want Sandstorm to turn into.

The jist of what I'm saying is that being competent and skilled at Sandstorm should be about teamwork, coordination, and positioning. What I'm getting from much of this thread is that many people think that the guns define the gameplay, and I tend to disagree. You can add many other incentives to proper movement and gameplay via stamina, suppression, recoil and sway based on the first two, and speed of movement. Squad is a good example of a game with a relatively high TTK for a realistic-ish game (2-4 shots, with the occasional one-offer) that forces the players into a certain playstyle to be successful. I think Sandstorm should take steps in that direction, rather than the e-sports route.

I agree with you a lot:

People think in my opinion too much about TTK and try to "fix" everything in the game with suggestions on TTK. Even though every piece of puzzle is important, TTK is only one piece and all the pieces together form the picture of the whole gameplay experience.

You also give a good points about OHK.

"Movement mechanics" is one important piece if the players want game to be more tactical and team oriented. I'm happy that movement mechanics have been talked about a bit more lately on the forum and there's an active thread about it. Hoping to see some tweaks here in the upcoming patches.

I will say that again, unarmored targets should always be one shot kill on torso, like INS2 has x3 damage on troso shot, otherwise light armor is useless. Heavy Armor is good though, need to be more resistant to explosive and buckshot.

@slazenger said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

@marksmanmax
Again with the numbers dude. You can test the m1911 yourself ingame, it kills in 1 shot to the chest area.
Also according to those stats the m1911 has 6 more damage than the Webly, and 4 less than the m1a1 carbine.

Nonono. The damage model for DoI and Ins2014 is more complex than just looking at the damage number.

Most of the damage from Ins2014 firearms come from damage multipliers. Sure, a Colt .45 does 76 damage while an M9 does 60, but the damage multipliers for AP favor 9mm over .45 ACP, making the M9 actually do more torso damage than the Colt .45 if both have AP loaded.

Day of Infamy is even more fucked up IMO, since there seems to be even more multipliers based on weapon type. While the Webley does less damage than the Colt .45, the multipliers works out so that the Webley one-shot bodyshots while the Colt can't. To see the actual damage done, look at the ammo attachment section and check the ammo the Colt. 45 runs off of (which is listed in the Weapons section) and compare that to the Webley ammo type.

My biggest damage model gripe with Day Of Infamy is how the model simply doesn't make any sense. For the game to be balanced, realism was chucked out the window.

->The MP40 does more damage than the Thompson even though the MP40 is a smaller caliber.

->The Colt .45 does more damage than the Thompson for some reason, making it debatably better at close-range room clearing.

->The Welrod is more accurate than every other pistol in the game, and has the highest base damage (although it still doesn't one-hit body due to the damage model multipliers).

->The FG42 is as inaccurate as the Thompson or C96 Carbine, while the Grease Gun is almost as accurate as a BAR.

-> The Hi-Power does 35 damage while the German pistols do 60 (and they fire the same caliber).

@marxman-lmc I get what you're saying, but Insurgency has always allowed the ability for one person to just go off an an entire team. I don't know if removing that is really a good idea or not. Sure, it would help reinforce teamwork, but if you're in games with randoms teamwork might not always happen, and it's already apparent when one team is coordinated and working together while the other isn't working together at all.

I'm not big on high TTK personally. I like low TTK since if you jump an entire squad you can kill them all before they even know you're there. It adds an extra level of play almost where flanking is absolutely deadly, and I don't want that to change.

It's just annoying to get the jump on a few guys and have the first guy take like ten bullets to die. Alex actually talked about that on stream a few weeks ago I think (maybe longer). Flanking should provide a strong advantage IMO.

@marksmanmax This. One of the effects of low TTK is it dramatically increases the effectiveness of good players versus less skilled opponents. While it may have a lower skill floor (i.e., it's easier to spray for one shot than it is to spray for five or whatever), it also has a higher skill ceiling for individual players.

last edited by cyoce

@cyoce said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

@marksmanmax This. One of the effects of low TTK is it dramatically increases the effectiveness of good players versus less skilled opponents. While it may have a lower skill floor (i.e., it's easier to spray for one shot than it is to spray for five or whatever), it also has a higher skill ceiling for individual players.

Yeah, exactly. Sure, you can spray and pray and probably get the guy, but against a player with more skill, that tactic isn't going to work.

It's like Ambush. The VIP dies from a shot to the back like 90% of the time. Flanking is the easiest way to score a VIP kill.

@cyoce said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

One of the effects of low TTK is it dramatically increases the effectiveness of good players versus less skilled opponents.

I can't quite grasp this now or then I just need more coffee. How good players actually become better or more effective, when TTK is lowered? Good players are always better than less skilled opponents. Or do you mean that an individual player can be more effective vs multiple opponents ie. flanking when TTK is low? Is that what you mean when you say this:

it also has a higher skill ceiling for individual players.

Then it makes sense.

@jensiii that's what I mean. In a low TTK game, a good player can take on 5 or 6 bad players. In a higher (admittedly moreso than Sandstorm could be) TTK game, literal aimbot wouldn't be enough to let someone take on 4 players.

last edited by cyoce

@cyoce said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

In a higher (admittedly moreso than Sandstorm could be) TTK game, literal aimbot wouldn't be enough to let someone take on 4 players.

Yet good players do that in csgo just fine and it's actually always a highlight seeing this in a competitive match.

I'd rather see someone taking down multiple players with clean headshot rather than low effort body hits.

I mean...that's literally lowering the skill ceiling. You make a situaion easier to handle. There's a fine balance ofc, with an extreme high TTK, like f.e. Quake 3, it does indeed become impossible. But a TTK as "high" as CSGOs seems to be fine. As proven by the game itself. In the end: headshots are 1 shots ;).

Like...if you have problems taking down multiple people in SS, no offense, but you prob. just have awful gameplay. Lowering the TTKso bad players can feel good about themselves isn't a solution to making a game actually good. CSGO has a higher skill ceiling and it's doing just fine, tons of casual players and a good, diverse competitive scene. The opposite would be a game like CPMA. Extremely high skill ceiling... no casual players at all. A handful of comp players. Then you have insurgency: barely a casual playerbase, comp scene is a joke (sorry....).

The question is: how to attract more players to sandstorm? I highly doubt making a carbon copy of ins2+better QoL features will do the trick to get at least 10k+ players. A big amount of players is highly important for a multiplayer game in order to be able to sustain for more than 3 years. I don't want to see Ins:Winterwars in 2020. I still wanna play Sandstorm in 2025+.

last edited by Benz

@benz said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

Yet good players do that in csgo just fine and it's actually always a highlight seeing this in a competitive match.

Hmmm yes. A headshot-mechanic is a way for lower TTK as a reward for skill. This is why skilled players can take down entire teams in CSGO.

I'd rather see someone taking down multiple players with clean headshot rather than low effort body hits.

It feels like the first 30 seconds of this video:

Youtube Video

@cyoce said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

@jensiii that's what I mean. In a low TTK game, a good player can take on 5 or 6 bad players. In a higher (admittedly moreso than Sandstorm could be) TTK game, literal aimbot wouldn't be enough to let someone take on 4 players.

This is correct if there's no way for lower TTK skillreward like headshot where aimbot would pwn.

I will get back to this later, I have some thoughts running around my head but I actually have to work(!) now 😃

@benz said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

I'd rather see someone taking down multiple players with clean headshot rather than low effort body hits.

Precisely. Lets even take a game like siege which has very high ttk with one shot headshots. Defending or attacking when you're the 1 of a 1v 5 is extremely difficult skillwise and positioning-wise, and very rewarding if you pull it off (assuming the team doesn't adopt a clutch AND kick policy lmao).

@benz said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

Yet good players do that in csgo just fine and it's actually always a highlight seeing this in a competitive match.

That's because in CSGO, headshots are reliable for people with good aim. Until Sandstorm removes the RNG sway debuff from sprinting and suppression, headshots won't always be a viable option, and thus even the best players won't have access to that TTK.

I mean...that's literally lowering the skill ceiling. You make a situaion [sic] easier to handle.

It's really not lowering the skill ceiling to let someone take advantage of superior positioning or reflexes. Sure, it's making the flank situation easier to handle, but it's also making the situation of being flanked harder to handle. Since the flanker, facing a 1vX scenario, is at a disadvantage, and everyone they're flanking gets hit with the "harder" task while the flanker has a slightly easier job than it would be with high TTK, it amounts to a net increase in the skill ceiling (with respect to that engagement).

last edited by cyoce