Doesn't feel like the same old Insurgency

I have to be completely honest, the game is completely different from the first Insurgency. It feels more like a Battlefield game right now. I believe the main focus in Insurgency is realism, teamwork and tension, all of which are lacking in Sandstorm right now.

Everyone in the game uses automatic fire as there is barely any recoil in the weapons compared to the first Insurgency. To top it of, bullets barely do any damage. It even takes two shots to kill someone with a sniper rifle!

The game right now is way too chaotic and fast paced. It moved away from what made the first Insurgency different from other shooters.

In my opinion I would look at what made the first game successful and focus on that;
-Drastically increase weapon recoil to minimize the 'spray and prey' tactic and make players focus on single fire and aiming. Take reference from the first Insurgency.
-Drastically increase weapon damage. 1-2 shots with an automatic rifle should be enough to down someone. Reward players that way. Take reference from the first Insurgency.
-Reduce the radio support call outs. Although they're quite nice and a good addition to the game, they're also making the game way too chaotic in my opinion. Reducing the amount of call outs should fix this problem.
-Slow down the overall pacing of the game to increase realism and tension.
-I like the more open maps, but I would still add in more smaller maps in similar style to the first Insurgency as well.
-(Just a suggestion but totally optional and not that important but, to increase teamwork, maybe add in a 'bleeding' mechanic in the future and a 'medic' class. I believe this would increase communication slightly more as well.

Overall I'm quite disappointed right now as I feel I've been mislead. Although I do appreciate the visuals and audio, it still lacks the major core elements on what made Insurgency different. I wanted an Insurgency game, not another generic Battlefield game.)

last edited by Zyres

@zyres I totally agree with everything you said. Except the medic part lol. But yeah, it is far off from the original insurgency, and just feels like a battlefield clone right now

@zyres said in Doesn't feel like the same old Insurgency:

-Drastically increase weapon recoil to minimize the 'spray and prey' tactic and make players focus on single fire and aiming. Take reference from the first Insurgency.
-Drastically increase weapon damage. 1-2 shots with an automatic rifle should be enough to down someone. Reward players that way. Take reference from the first Insurgency.

I couldn't agree with you more. This is what I've been meaning to say here, I just couldn't point out in words, but this is totally how I would like INS:S to be.

Unlike source Insurgency, INS:S feels like you're shooting flies and you can't really control your aim properly as your chrosshair seems to be bigger than the characters at any distance. There's currently some softness to it, I just couldn't describe it with words.

And yes, I agree with you with the map size, source Insurgency allows everyone to concentrate and build up team work on certain areas but still be able to make it tactical, but this one, it's all over the place!

There's no realism and tension at all.

I agree with the fact that most player are going for volume rather than skill(full auto fire vs. presiced aimed shots) but the recoil is on par with the real guns in my opinion. No, i havent shot every gun in real life but i competed in sharpshooting for 12 years so i know what im talking about.

About the damage model, it could use a buff for most of the guns, the 7.62 Nato is weak compared to the first game and real life. I do like that armour really does protect you in this game, so multiple hits and minimal damage im all for.

I couldn't agree more also. This game doesn't feel like Insurgency at all. I have always been a semi auto rifle player, and it paid off hugely in Insurgency Source... but semi auto puts the player in a huge disadvantage. And everyone running around with full auto weapons is so immersion breaking.
I'm really worried with the future of Sandstorm

I think it's a bit more than that.

  • Aiming down sight is significantly faster. It should be slowed down slightly. (as it was back in 2016 insurgency)

  • The animations need some work.

The way the animations and momentum are handled can affect gunplay.
Youtube Video

This is exactly the problem with INS2. I am very disappointed at the moment and I will not play this game if it stays this way.

In INS1 it mattered if you take a Kobra sight or a long-range engagement sight. Your time to aim down sight was simply longer with for instance a 2X RED DOT sight. It took your character more time to have a stable view because of the type of that attachment.
With that in mind. Running around a corner with a 2X RED DOT sight in INS1 gets you killed against an enemy with a Kobra sight.
In INS2 there is no disadvantage to run around with a 2X RED DOT around a corner because equal aiming time (Time until your sight is still and clear). -> AKA Battlefield.
italicised text
For instance, the bipod shows it in a good effect. In INS1 the deployed bipod gave you a huge advantage when it comes to the time you need to have a clear vision. In INS2 there is LITERALLY no difference what so ever if you deploy your bipod or not.
See video ->
Youtube Video

This is a mature point, it shapes the game how it feels. It declares the pace of the game overall.

I made the tactical decision that I want to use the bipod. In INS1 I get an advantage from that, in INS2 I gain NOTHING from it (except recoil control).

The next point shows again the NEW pace of the game.
In the following video, I shot as fast as I can while leaning around a pole. In INS1 it feels slow and sluggish. In INS2 it feels extremely arcady because you can shot during the leaning animation.
Youtube Video

And please take note developers. We don't like that.
As Insurgency Veteran (Fan) since the Source mod release, it is very disappointing. I hope a developer sees that.

@börmt-die-buse said in Doesn't feel like the same old Insurgency:

This is exactly the problem with INS2. I am very disappointed at the moment and I will not play this game if it stays this way.

In INS1 it mattered if you take a Kobra sight or a long-range engagement sight. Your time to aim down sight was simply longer with for instance a 2X RED DOT sight. It took your character more time to have a stable view because of the type of that attachment.
With that in mind. Running around a corner with a 2X RED DOT sight in INS1 gets you killed against an enemy with a Kobra sight.
In INS2 there is no disadvantage to run around with a 2X RED DOT around a corner because equal aiming time (Time until your sight is still and clear). -> AKA Battlefield.
italicised text
For instance, the bipod shows it in a good effect. In INS1 the deployed bipod gave you a huge advantage when it comes to the time you need to have a clear vision. In INS2 there is LITERALLY no difference what so ever if you deploy your bipod or not.
See video ->
Youtube Video

This is a mature point, it shapes the game how it feels. It declares the pace of the game overall.

I made the tactical decision that I want to use the bipod. In INS1 I get an advantage from that, in INS2 I gain NOTHING from it (except recoil control).

The next point shows again the NEW pace of the game.
In the following video, I shot as fast as I can while leaning around a pole. In INS1 it feels slow and sluggish. In INS2 it feels extremely arcady because you can shot during the leaning animation.
Youtube Video

And please take note developers. We don't like that.
As Insurgency Veteran (Fan) since the Source mod release, it is very disappointing. I hope a developer sees that.

Actually magnified optics were trash in Insurgency and still rather bad in Sandstorm. However using scope quality = Low makes them significantly better to use due to little to no penalty in peripheral vision. 2X Kobra in low scope quality is one of the clearest sights of the entire game.

As of the ADS time, I think it should be slower if you choose to wear armor. This solves the TTK problem by deterring players from wearing armor and makes sure that no armor players have a fair fighting chance (even though your enemy takes more shots to kill, you can aim faster and put more rounds on target).

Also INS2 refers to the original Insurgency, not Sandstorm. "INS1" refers to the 2006 Insurgency half life mod.

I'm inclined to agree on most of this, also see the rather small time to get up to full running speed, illustrated below:

https://streamable.com/k8owh

Everyone having full auto fire isn't too far fetched if, in this game, you play as security forces 'of the Middle East' rather than just the US military, but the lack of recoil, whether ADS or from the hip, does make for a spray and pray experience.

I'd just like to add that the line of "the maps are bigger, so recoil must be decreased to counter" is BS- play the Panama Canal map from BF3 in Insurgency2 coop and see if you struggle as I think you won't.

last edited by argo

@börmt-die-buse said in Doesn't feel like the same old Insurgency:

This is exactly the problem with INS2. I am very disappointed at the moment and I will not play this game if it stays this way.

In INS1 it mattered if you take a Kobra sight or a long-range engagement sight. Your time to aim down sight was simply longer with for instance a 2X RED DOT sight. It took your character more time to have a stable view because of the type of that attachment.
With that in mind. Running around a corner with a 2X RED DOT sight in INS1 gets you killed against an enemy with a Kobra sight.
In INS2 there is no disadvantage to run around with a 2X RED DOT around a corner because equal aiming time (Time until your sight is still and clear). -> AKA Battlefield.
italicised text
For instance, the bipod shows it in a good effect. In INS1 the deployed bipod gave you a huge advantage when it comes to the time you need to have a clear vision. In INS2 there is LITERALLY no difference what so ever if you deploy your bipod or not.
See video ->
Youtube Video

This is a mature point, it shapes the game how it feels. It declares the pace of the game overall.

I made the tactical decision that I want to use the bipod. In INS1 I get an advantage from that, in INS2 I gain NOTHING from it (except recoil control).

The next point shows again the NEW pace of the game.
In the following video, I shot as fast as I can while leaning around a pole. In INS1 it feels slow and sluggish. In INS2 it feels extremely arcady because you can shot during the leaning animation.
Youtube Video

And please take note developers. We don't like that.
As Insurgency Veteran (Fan) since the Source mod release, it is very disappointing. I hope a developer sees that.

Be careful, the INS that you are talking about (as 1) is the second INS, Sandstorm is 3. INS1 was the half life mod. Your post was confusing until I figured out you had them mixed up and forgot one. True fans know this...

"-Drastically increase weapon recoil to minimize the 'spray and prey' tactic and make players focus on single fire and aiming. Take reference from the first Insurgency.
-Drastically increase weapon damage. 1-2 shots with an automatic rifle should be enough to down someone. Reward players that way. Take reference from the first Insurgency."

So here's the problem, as the lag, net code, optimization issues, and TTK slow down and jank up the gameplay, you NEED an automatic gun. Otherwise you most likely will not get the kill. This was the same meta with the last game. More bullets less problems.

Recoil shouldn't be increased either, it's on you and your character to control the recoil. A hardened coalition fighter or terrorist shouldn't have their gun go to the moon when they shoot it. There's a happy medium and a high increase or decrease to recoil would break the balance.

The maps are WAY too big and complicated especially in competitive. Smaller and simpler maps with LANES are easier to balance. Shouldn't take real world locations and plop objectives just anywhere. The maps look good but they simply just aren't balanced.

You cannot force your way of playing to others just to make them worse. If they want to run around and be MLG with 20+ kills a round, power to them. It's on you to deal with the situation and git gud.

@Börmt-die-Buse

"For instance, the bipod shows it in a good effect. In INS1 the deployed bipod gave you a huge advantage when it comes to the time you need to have a clear vision. In INS2 there is LITERALLY no difference what so ever if you deploy your bipod or not.

I made the tactical decision that I want to use the bipod. In INS1 I get an advantage from that, in INS2 I gain NOTHING from it (except recoil control)."

That is the entire point of the bipod, recoil control. THAT'S IT. It turns your gun into a laser beam. I'm sorry it doesn't do any other magic.

The Leaning. Yes you actually shoot a gun while going into a lean. Try it outside video games, you'd be surprised.

Edit: wrong person replied to my b

last edited by HTHC Galthor

@hthc-galthor No. The game is different from the previous Insurgency. If the game is marketed to be an Insurgency game, then it should have the core elements of the previous. Since it doesn't then there's a problem.

This isn't the issue to 'get gud'. I bought the game because I thought the game would still be similar to Insurgency (duh).

Right now the game is just another Battlefield for me. I'm not basing my opinion to ruin others' expieriance. I think it's people like you that are ruining others' expieriance since the game is marketed as a slow paced, realistic shooter, and you want it to be another fast paced, chaotic shooter.

If Insurgency wants to be realistic, then it simply failed to do so in Sandstorm. Simple as that. We have numerous generic shooters that focus on fast paced combat. It's sad for insurgency to fall under that category as well.

If people want a fast paced war game, wait for Battlefield or the World War 3 game. But don't turn Insurgency like that as well.

@hthc-galthor 100% this bro. Recoil is fine, they just need to fix the net code and hit reg and shit

The core element of Insurgency has always been its sophisticated and accurate representation of firearms, and that's still here. The guns all handle exceptionally well compared to real guns as other people with guns on this forum have commented.

We need a hitreg fix first of all, not sweeping changes to mechanics like recoil, damage, and armor. Look at @Slazenger 's post if you're not convinced:
https://forums.focus-home.com/topic/28525/horrific-hit-registration-if-you-are-not-already-aware-which-you-should-of-been-during-the-alpha-months-ago

last edited by Doghead

completely agree with your post sniper rifles that take two shots? i made an account just to post about this the old game is so much better the maps in this game seem amazing and it feels good but the gun play is about as garbage as it gets

why would someone who likes insurgency wanna play an arcade shooter im just getting my refund and going back to insurgency 1 unless bullet damage and recoil get updated i aint bothering with this game

@zyres I'm sorry, Insurgency wan't already fast paced? Oh my mistake on thinking a game I've been playing since mod and competitive since the DGL started was something totally different. My b.

The game is and always was fast paced. It's your imagination of it being otherwise. Go replay Ins2.

Ins2 was never realistic as you're putting it up to be. It's just another hardcore shooter that people want to play competitively.

Sandstorm IS Insurgency. There's no disputing that.

Now does it live up to the previous game? We'll just have to wait and see.

@argo said in Doesn't feel like the same old Insurgency:

https://streamable.com/k8owh

That sprint speed is insane. Needs to be reduced along with the size of the maps to compensate.

@hthc-galthor Dunno, but since alot of people are complaining about this, I don't think it's just my imagination.

Yes, we all we need is a faster time to kill

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.