We want the one hit kills.

@tooth-decay said in We want the one hit kills.:

Can this thread just die already?

It did once already lmao

just bumping this thread up again to counter the one that was started. I hope the devs realize which is the most requested playstyle. I still have hopes for this game

@tuliottr said in We want the one hit kills.:

just bumping this thread up again to counter the one that was started. I hope the devs realize which is the most requested playstyle. I still have hopes for this game

How about instead of reviving a dead, nine page long post where everything has already been said, you comment on the post countering this, the one you’re actually interested in. Your comment had absolutely nothing of value, it was just intended to revive this. That should say something about how idiotic someone has to be to make posts like yours.

@tuliottr said in We want the one hit kills.:

just bumping this thread up again to counter the one that was started. I hope the devs realize which is the most requested playstyle. I still have hopes for this game

The more this topic has been discussed on the forum and the more people have gained knowledge on this matter, the more apparent it has become, that OHK is not the most requested playstyle.

I feel like what divides the two side here is:

  • played and liked Insurgency2

  • Didn't play insurgency2 and just came here on the hype train.

as demonstrated beautifully by the kid that said "why do so many people want a OHK?"
If you are wondering this I recommend playing insurgency2, if you dislike this play style than just leave- the game isn't for you.
It isn't an argument for "low skill ceiling" or how "OHK means you can just spray wildly and kill people" because is as a vet I know you need a shit ton of skill to play insurgency well. It's more than just aim, it's understanding enemy movements throughout the map, understanding how to flank, understanding how to assault an objective by yourself because nobody ever bloody helped, understanding how to clear a room full of people and survive them also being able to OHK you. If you don't understand why Vets want OHK back, play old insurgency, it was free for two days and it goes on sale for $1 all the time and highlights everything that we the insurgency vets want- the essence of insurgency, the fast TTK.

@jensiii i think what is actually happening is the people that want the old playstyle are just moving on from Insurgency altogether, because apparentely the devs do want a higher TTK. I just see me and @Slazenger
engaging with discussions here from time to time, while the others that were pro low TTK (just look at all the upvotes from all the pro high TTK threads, which have way more upvotes then pro low TTK ones) are not here any more

last edited by Guest

@tuliottr they all left when new updates stopped changing TTK, the game is currently an epic shitshow
-optimization
-movement is terrible where the old insurgency had amazing movement
-hitreg
-and TTK is gone down the shitter

Benz constantly screaming the dev's want higher TTK and the fact he is actually starting to be correct made them all jump ship. I'm almost considering doing the same thing tbh. old insurgency is fun it just looks outdated. Was hoping this would be the same core game with new looks new features. turns out it's just bootyfield sandstorm ;-;

@zucchini said in We want the one hit kills.:

If you are wondering this I recommend playing insurgency2, if you dislike this play style than just leave- the game isn't for you.

Nice gatekeeping. Really constructive.

Also: maybe stop talking about "vets" as if it's every old ins2 player. As a matter of fact most true competitive ins2 vets don't mind the higher TTK at all. Apparently only the casual coop and pub players mind it. Then again: ins2 doesn't have a big casual playerbase...so seems like the gameplay isn't good in that regard either.

What's your mission? To hinder a possible evolution that might get Insurgency out of it's 2.5k daily peak playerbase? That's the spirit. 😂

No one will shed a single tear for people leaving. If they lose the 10 players from this forum that cry for a lower TTK, but instead gain people that like Sandstorm more than Ins2... nothing of value is lost. Literally.

Being entitled doesn't help the game. Nostalgia doesn't help the game. Gatekeeping doesn't help the game.

If your only argument for a lower TTK is "because it was in ins2 as well", you have already lost. A quick dissection of your of your "arguments":

it's understanding enemy movements throughout the map

Not affected by TTK

understanding how to flank

Not affected by TTK

understanding how to assault an objective by yourself because nobody ever bloody helped

I thought this is a team game? Play death match games if you want to play solo. Insurgency is a tactical, team-based shooter.

understanding how to clear a room full of people and survive them also being able to OHK you

Yes, everyone plays the same game and therefore has the same TTK. Where does a low TTK bring in any value here?

Like... none of your "arguments" actually bring in anything to the table in favor of a low TTK. You don't say what value a lower TTK would bring to the table, gameplay-wise. Nothing you write is related to a low TTK. Nothing. You'd write the same in a CS forum and it wouldn't make a difference.

That's the problem when people try to rationalize their own subjective opinions, if in reality they got nothing besides "i like it". They tumble into weird arguments that don't make sense but are so commited, no logic or actual facts will come through.

I love Pizza. Doesn't mean i try to make up bullshit arguments to why i love Pizza. "Uhm..because it helps me to not waste time actually cooking..and uhm.... its round...and uhm.... it has some vegetables on it sometimes, that's healthy." No. Like... the only valid argument there is: "Because i like Pizza". Done.

last edited by Benz

@zucchini said in We want the one hit kills.:

I feel like what divides the two side here is:

  • played and liked Insurgency2

  • Didn't play insurgency2 and just came here on the hype train.

You're assuming that everyone who played and liked INS2 want the same from Sandstorm. Which is false.

In my opinion the ttk is perfect. One hit kills is going to make the game frustrating, unbalanced and throw the loadout system out the window since the expensive guns wont be worth buying. You already die insanely fast so as long you have a decent aim the ttk won't be a problem

@benz you don't get. I and hopefully more than 30 other people enjoyed the fast TTK, IDK how to describe it, it was just fun. you can say that "you are shit hahaha - its just point and shoot" all you like but it wasn't, it was hard. The OHK meant literally a 2-year-old could kill you, so to be good and to succeed you had to be smart. I'd say that 20% or less of skill in the game was aim based, because as you say it was easy to get kills. The rest of the skill required was basically map knowledge. knowing how to avoid a camping enemy and how to counter a camping enemy (how to get behind him to free up the pass for your team). it added a tense feeling because you couldn't eat 2 bullets and then duck to cover, if somebody sees you, and was good enough to hit you, you died. no way could you cross a road like you can now. no way could you move in groups like you can now because in old insurgency you could die though people and all lot faster than you can now, less than a second of gun fire and 5 people huddled together died. It promoted a different type of "team play" because one rogue person that knew what they were doing could kill people holding up the rest of your team. it was more than just rush B. And when defending you had to know how to watch your own back, and because footsteps were quite in insurgecny2, it was bloody hard to do.

You see the skill in insurgency was different to most games, it wasn't aim based skill to shoot somebody in the head like you seem to want. It was all about tactics, and knowledge and weird spread out coordination of your team, thats why people hated it, it was because they were playing it like a normal game. Insurgency was different you never just walked to the objective the easy way, I remember district push where there was a way to get to A, where you had to flank way into the restricted area but it worked every time. maybe that's why I liked it because you had to be creative in order to win. idk, It was different to most games and it was fun, a breath of fresh air, and I don't want sandstorm to lose that. in case you argue that this isn't TTK related, It is what the fast TTK made the game into.

if anybody that can explain this better please do idk how to write down what my thoughts are.

@zucchini said in We want the one hit kills.:

The OHK meant literally a 2-year-old could kill you, so to be good and to succeed you had to be smart.

In case you argue that this isn't TTK related, It is what the fast TTK made the game into.

Youtube Video

This is ultimate OHK. Still no tactical, smart gameplay. Positioning is thrown to bin. Instead all about reactions. Why? If tactical gameplay was all about TTK, then gameplay in this game should at least in someway similar to INS2.

So TTK is not the mechanic that makes a tactical gameplay. What mechanics are the one's that make?

It promoted a different type of "team play" because one rogue person that knew what they were doing could kill people holding up the rest of your team.

Hmm.. so you just called soloing teamplay... đŸ€” It's just... different.

If team gets stuck and one person makes the move to solve the problem, that's not teamplay.

I can accept that you just personally liked fast TTK. Anysort of gameplay arguments for it just don't hold up.

@zucchini keep baiting them to upvote the thread, it's working xD

@jensiii
How fargone do you have to be to compare an arena shooter to Insurgency, an objective based game where the gameplay revolves around capturing these objective and pushing forward?

Not at all fargone @slazenger

This example isolates the mechanic (OHK) and demostrates that TTK does not have much, if at all, to do with how tactical a game is. It's other mechanics. You even said this yourself in your response:

an objective based game where the gameplay revolves around capturing these objective and pushing forward

1 hit kill means you won't just rush directly to the objective if it is well defended. What you would do is use tactics to attack the objective; flanking, smoke, coordination ect. 1 hit kill brings in more depth into the game than full auto spraying gameplay ever would.

This is because 1 hit kill along with objective based gameplay = tactical gameplay.
Again, you compare an arena shooter running deathmatch(?) to an objective based game.

@zucchini said in We want the one hit kills.:

The OHK meant literally a 2-year-old could kill you, so to be good and to succeed you had to be smart.

Sorry to hear you had to try-hard to not get out-smarted/positioned by a 2-year-old.

I'd say that 20% or less of skill in the game was aim based, because as you say it was easy to get kills.

Thanks for the confirmation.

The rest of the skill required was basically map knowledge. knowing how to avoid a camping enemy and how to counter a camping enemy (how to get behind him to free up the pass for your team). it added a tense feeling because you couldn't eat 2 bullets and then duck to cover, if somebody sees you, and was good enough to hit you, you died. It promoted a different type of "team play" because one rogue person that knew what they were doing could kill people holding up the rest of your team. it was more than just rush B. And when defending you had to know how to watch your own back.

Could as well describe CS.

no way could you move in groups like you can now because in old insurgency you could die though people and all lot faster than you can now, less than a second of gun fire and 5 people huddled together died.

Quick reality check: this isn't exclusive to Insurgency. It just takes more effort/teamplay in other games. CS for example. So once again... lowering the skill ceiling for this particular situation. Takes more effort to kill more people = higher skill ceiling.

(not to mention only bad players would move around like that in the first place.... lmao)

Once more... nothing of value for a low TTK, besides the fact you enjoy it. Which is fine.

last edited by Benz

@slazenger said in We want the one hit kills.:

1 hit kill means you won't just rush directly to the objective if it is well defended. What you would do is use tactics to attack the objective; flanking, smoke, coordination ect.

This happens regardless of TTK in an objective based game.

I used to play Wolfenstein: Enemy Territotory back in around 2005. It had high TTK, but very high emphasis on teamplay and team tactics. Way higher than INS2 or Sandstorm. All you mentioned happened in Enemy Territory AND far more, even though it was a high TTK game.

1 hit kill brings in more depth into the game than full auto spraying gameplay ever would.

This false, it has been proven false, and it will never be anything else that false.

If I use the example of Enemy Territory again, that game had way more depth regarding teamplay and tactics than INS2 or Sandstorm currently have. And it had high TTK.

This is because 1 hit kill along with objective based gameplay = tactical gameplay.

Wrong. If we implemented OHK in Sandstorm and doubled or tripled the running speed of players and double the jump height, then whe have something that will nit resembke tactical gameplay in anyway.

It's movement mechanics more than TTK that makes a tactical gameplay.

Objective based gameplay is also necessary to have anysort of incentive for teamplay.

Again, you compare an arena shooter running deathmatch(?) to an objective based game.

And the point is: TTK, regardless of how high or low, doesn't make a tactical game that emphasizes teamplay. It's everything else.

I used this to counter an argument that claimed "OHK makes game tactical".

@slazenger said in We want the one hit kills.:

1 hit kill means you won't just rush directly to the objective if it is well defended. What you would do is use tactics to attack the objective; flanking, smoke, coordination ect.

So...stuff you do in CS, Quake 3 CTF, NS2 etc. etc. pp. ....all games with a higher TTK.

1 hit kill brings in more depth into the game than full auto spraying gameplay ever would.

yawn .... what's that depth again? Right...the glorious examples that get smashed down again and again and again.

This is because 1 hit kill along with objective based gameplay = tactical gameplay.

No? Play NS2. A game with a way higher TTK. And way more tactical and esp. team-based gameplay.

I'm amazed how much bs people can come up with....

@benz said in We want the one hit kills.:

So...stuff you do in CS, Quake 3 CTF, NS2 etc. etc. pp. ....all games with a higher TTK.

You'd do it more with a low TTK

what's that depth again?

High TTK doesn't go beyond full auto spraying and recoil control dragging your mouse down.
Low TTK makes every other factor of a gunfight more important since there's little room for mistake.

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