We want the one hit kills.

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

You'd do it more with a low TTK

Yeah, no. Thanks for your opinion and showing your cluelessness in regards to highly competitive games.

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.

Glad to see (once again) that you don't have an understanding of gameplay mechanics at all. What factor does a low TTK make more important? Feel free to share them.

Positioning is less important.
Aiming is less important.
Teamplay is less important.

Problem with you is the same as with most others in favor of a low TTK: you don't play any high skill competitive FPS games to actually be able to understand it. You just like low TTK and make up BS in order to justify it. But BS is BS, no matter how often you repeat it. I play games with extremely high TTK (quake) and with low TTK (cs)... i don't need to make up stuff to justify my personal opinion, cuz i like both high TTK (quake) and low TTK (cs)... because i understand their gameplay implications and i understand that games consist of more than just TTK, which you obv. fail to understand.

Lost cause. It's the same over and over again. No matter how much logic and facts you get into your face, you will continue with the same bs "arguments" over and over again.

One can just hope the devs are smart enough to realize that as well. Which isn't hard tbh...since it's obvious.

@benz
With a low TTK 1 shot 1 kill:
Positioning is more important
Aiming is more important
Teamplay is more important

1 shot 1 kill brings in more depth to the game, as I said, then full auto spraying high TTK gameplay does.

Positioning: Since you can die in 1 shot you would need to take a well thought our route to make sure you survive wherever your're moving to on the map.
If you don't you are much more likely to be punished due to the high lethality; a single bullet can take you out. This leads to more depth when traversing the map and tense gameplay (like Insurgency2014) instead of sprinting everywhere and tanking bullets (like Insurgency: Sandstorm)

Aiming: Since you can kill (and die) in 1 shot gunfights are more lethal, riskier, more satisfying + rewarding.
Everything related to the gunplay is more important with low TTK 1 shot 1 kill.
Positioning so you have an advantage; being in cover/prone/crouched, flanking so you are in a better position. Doing this will mean when it comes to aiming you will have a better advantage over your enemy.
Since you kill in 1 shot and die in 1 shot it's much more important who is a better gunman and can hit their target. First to hit is the first to win rather than the 1 who can full auto spray and drag their mouse down so their bullets hit in the same spot repeatedly.

With high TTK full auto spraying gameplay these do not apply as much. I experienced a perfect example of this on Farmhouse one time. An enemy peaked his head over the river defilade and next to the low wall. He shot at me in single fire, hit me twice (2 hitmarkers I confirmed in Recap). I jumped away into cover then immediately went back and full auto sprayed into him, killing him.
This enemy had every advantage but due to the lack of depth in the high TTK gunplay he was not rewarded for his positioning, his accurate single fire (hit 2 times), then peaking from good cover and taking me by surprise.

Teamplay: since you are so much more vulnerable from the 1 shot = dead gunplay, teamplay becomes more important and rewarding. Flanking and clearing an area so your team can move up safely; If the area wasn't clear, your teammates would be at a disadvantage from the defender who has already setup and is waiting for them. Since this defender can kill in 1 shot, has a better position and is ready for them, he is far FAR more likely to kill your teammates if they we're to move into the open or where ever. Your teammates maybe would not be willing to sprint out and make an attack because they know they won't be able to tank 2+ bullets from this defender (like you can currently do in Sandstorm). Again, this leads to tense gameplay.
This also increases the usefulness of smoke and firesupport to support your team.

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

Positioning: Since you can die in 1 shot you would need to take a well thought our route to make sure you survive wherever your're moving to on the map.

No.... high TTK, low TTK. You always need to take the best route. Player with positional advantage has positional advantage. TTK has no role in that. Everyone has the same TTK. The higher the DPS, the less important positioning is in a fight. Not hard to understand. More DPS = faster fights = less room for mistakes in a fight. Logic. debunked

If you don't you are much more likely to be punished due to the high lethality; a single bullet can take you out. This leads to more depth when traversing the map and tense gameplay (like Insurgency2014) instead of sprinting everywhere and tanking bullets (like Insurgency: Sandstorm)

That's your personal impression and not a fact. Just because something is more obv. doesn't mean it adds depth. Literally.

Aiming: Since you can kill (and die) in 1 shot gunfights are more lethal, riskier, more satisfying + rewarding.

Opinion.

Everything related to the gunplay is more important with low TTK 1 shot 1 kill.

Opinion.

Positioning so you have an advantage; being in cover/prone/crouched, flanking so you are in a better position. Doing this will mean when it comes to aiming you will have a better advantage over your enemy.

Like in...every other tactical game ever. Not related to TTK.

Since you kill in 1 shot and die in 1 shot it's much more important who is a better gunman and can hit their target. First to hit is the first to win rather than the 1 who can full auto spray and drag their mouse down so their bullets hit in the same spot repeatedly.

lmao. The logic is just mindblowing. Lower skill ceiling = better at deciding who't the better gunman. Funny. So apparently... whoever has faster reaction = better than whoever has faster reaction+recoil control. That logic. What did i expect from the guy that literally wants 1 shots to balance all the weapons, instead of... actually balancing all the weapons. Low effort logic.

With high TTK full auto spraying gameplay these do not apply as much. I experienced a perfect example of this on Farmhouse one time. An enemy peaked his head over the river defilade and next to the low wall. He shot at me in single fire, hit me twice (2 hitmarkers I confirmed in Recap). I jumped away into cover then immediately went back and full auto sprayed into him, killing him.

So..a bad player couldn't kill you. Bummer. 😂

This enemy had every advantage but due to the lack of depth in the high TTK gunplay he was not rewarded for his positioning, his accurate single fire (hit 2 times), then peaking from good cover and taking me by surprise.

Ofc he was rewarded for his positioning, he literally shot you twice before you'd react. Are you trolling?! HE HAS THE SAME TTK AS YOU DO. Wow. Like... holy christ what is that logic?! "A bad player couldn't kill me, we need lower TTK so this bad player could have killed me". Wow.

I find it quite hilarious how your arguments literally contradict your own example. The logic..once again....is just mindblowing.

Not even gonna bother on the rest, cuz obviously you don't understand a single thing about teamplay.

Keep repeating that "arguments" over and over again. Always fun to debunk them. It's so easy.

last edited by Benz

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

Player with positional advantage has positional advantage. TTK has no role in that.

TTK does play a role in that, as I said in my post. I can full auto spray into someone who has a positional advantage over me and kill them solely because I can drag my mouse down better than them. This removes depth from the gunplay.

You always need to take the best route.

I will take the shortest route often rather than taking the best, more tactical route. This is because I will not die from 1 shot if I get court and can tank shots, even fire back in full auto and probably take them out.

The higher the DPS, the less important positioning is in a fight.

The higher the DPS (as in 1 shot 1 kill), the more important positioning and aiming is in a fight. When bullets can kill in 1 shot you would want to be in cover because you won't survive a 2nd shot.

More DPS = faster fights = less room for mistakes in a fight.

Correct. The one who has the positional advantage and better aim, IE the one who did not make a mistake will be the one to win. This is how it should be. Lethal and unforgiving.

If you don't you are much more likely to be punished due to the high lethality; a single bullet can take you out. This leads to more depth when traversing the map and tense gameplay (like Insurgency2014) instead of sprinting everywhere and tanking bullets (like Insurgency: Sandstorm)

That's your personal impression and not a fact.

This is a fact based of me playing Sandstorm and surviving snipers shooting me in the chest. I don't need to avoid them for the most part, I can just sprint through them.

Aiming: Since you can kill (and die) in 1 shot gunfights are more lethal, riskier, more satisfying + rewarding.

Opinion.

Fact.

Everything related to the gunplay is more important with low TTK 1 shot 1 kill.

Opinion.

Fact, as explained by my last post. (Positioning is more important, Aiming is more important, Teamplay is more important)

Lower skill ceiling = better at deciding who't the better gunman

The depth added to the game from 1 shot 1 kill lethal gameplay raises this skill ceiling; positioning, aiming, teamplay ect are a part of skill. In a high TTK full auto spraying game these are less important, and depth is lowered.

So..a player couldn't kill you. Bummer. 😂

Indeed. Due to the lack of depth in the gunplay he was not rewarded for his positioning.

Ofc he was rewarded for his positioning, he literally shot you twice before you'd react.

He did not kill me. He was not rewarded for his positioning. What he could of done is full auto spray into me which in this high TTK game is more important that other things like positioning and teamplay ect.

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

TTK does play a role in that, as I said in my post. I can full auto spray into someone who has a positional advantage over me and kill them solely because I can drag my mouse down better than them. This removes depth from the gunplay.

Again failing to realize you both have the same TTK.... but yeah, keep going. Why would you rather ask yourself why he didn't kill you and why you killed him, right? Like...he could have had better aim and just head-shotted you...but no, that's like...black magic.

A player fails to a) kill you by either chosing the correct fire-mode or just having better aim and b) doesn't reposition himself after failing .....but somehow this is an argument in favor of a low TTK. Solid logic.

I will take the shortest route often rather than taking the best, more tactical route. This is because I will not die from 1 shot if I get court and can tank shots, even fire back in full auto and probably take them out.

Cool story bro. Wondering why i always kill people that cross over like that... we seem to play different games.

The higher the DPS (as in 1 shot 1 kill), the more important positioning and aiming is in a fight. When bullets can kill in 1 shot you would want to be in cover because you won't survive a 2nd shot.

Next logic fail. Why would i bother about cover if i take out my enemy in 1 shot and he can't react to me anyways and therefore my position is irrelevant. Nice logic... 😂

Correct. The one who has the positional advantage and better aim, IE the one who did not make a mistake will be the one to win. This is how it should be. Lethal and unforgiving.

So...like... irrelevant to TTK. Ok.

This is a fact based of me playing Sandstorm and surviving snipers shooting me in the chest. I don't need to avoid them for the most part, I can just sprint through them.

Seems like we play a different game then. I always 1 shot with sniper and long barrel, as long as i dont hit the feet.

Fact.

Stating your opinion as a fact, doesn't make it a fact. A fact is a fact.

Fact, as explained by my last post.

The one i debunked already. So..irrelevant.

Lower skill ceiling = better at deciding who't the better gunman

The depth added to the game from 1 shot 1 kill lethal gameplay raises this skill ceiling; positioning, aiming, teamplay ect are a part of skill. In a high TTK full auto spraying game these are less important, and depth is lowered.

Seems like you didn't understand anything or are simply lying in order to make your point.

Indeed. Due to the lack of depth in the gunplay he was not rewarded for his positioning.

Him having bad aim = not rewarded for positioning. Nice logic.

He did not kill me. He was not rewarded for his positioning.

Him being unable to utilize on his superior position = not being rewarded. So...a bad player is not being rewarded for being a bad player...nice.

Seems once again that you just want an easy game with a low skill ceiling where noobs get rewarded for playing bad. Nice game.

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

Him having bad aim = not rewarded for positioning. Nice logic.

He hit me twice before I even raised my gun.

So...a bad player is not being rewarded for being a bad player...nice.

He's a good player for being smart and making use of his surroundings to (try to) give him an advantage, better than me who was 1: out in the open. 2: not in cover 3: not ready for him. I won because these surroundings do not give him a large advantage due to the lack of depth in high TTK gameplay, and because I full auto sprayed back at him when I should of been dead.

Seems like you didn't understand anything or are simply lying in order to make your point.

Where is the lie? What I said isn't correct and I explained it 2 posts ago. Try reading it.

The one i debunked already.

You didn't.

Stating your opinion as a fact, doesn't make it a fact. A fact is a fact.

It's not an opinion, it is a fact.
Lethal - Yes (you can kill in 1 shot)
Risker - Yes (you can die in 1 shot)
Satisfying - Yes (just like hitting the head)
Rewarding - Yes (enjoyable gunplay instead of full auto spraying gunplay which has little depth)

So...like... irrelevant to TTK. Ok.

Read the reply chain.

Why would i bother about cover if i take out my enemy in 1 shot and he can't react to me anyways and therefore my position is irrelevant.

This is only if you are faster & have better aim then him. The enemy can react to you, and if he's in cover then is his position is relevant - It protects him.

Cool story bro. Wondering why i always kill people that cross over like that... we seem to play different games.

Wondering why I always survive when I cross over like that. It's because guns don't kill in 1 shot. Often not even the snipers.

A player fails to a) kill you by either chosing the correct fire-mode or just having better aim and b) doesn't reposition himself after failing .....but somehow this is an argument in favor of a low TTK. Solid logic.

I should be dead in all cases. He had the drop on me + the advantages I mentioned + hitting me twice. If these advantages (gameplay depth) don't make him kill me then this is bad gunplay. What he should of done in this high TTK game is full auto spray into me rather than focusing on his surroundings to give him and advantage (gameplay depth) because these do not matter matter as much in high TTK games as they do in 1 shot 1 kill games.

This post is deleted!

benz what are you doing here dude? happybub wants a realistic game, we want the same core game that we were promised- lethality....
but what do you want here? To me, it just looks like you are flame baiting. Your reply to anything Slazenger says is "nice logic, seems like you don't understand anything, irrelevant, stating your opinion as a fact doesn't make it a fact (when all you have been doing for the last 10 pages of this crap is state your opinion), cool story bro, solid logic, low effort logic, opinion, logic-debunked". Your not even helping the argument at this point you just yell "your dumb" like a 6 year old everytime somebody with different views to your own says something.

You don't bother thinking about what the person says related to game, you just enjoy saying something smart back, like when Slazenger made the point about the dude with the M16 hitting him twice and if the TTK would have been low he would have been rewarded for good positioning you relyed with this:

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

So..a bad player couldn't kill you. Bummer.

Another thing you seem to do all lot is just say "Debunked" to something you haven't "debunked".

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

The one i debunked already.

You didn't.

Then my favorite part

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

@slazenger i'm done with you. It's obv. you will say whatever it takes. I won't even bother replying in detail, because everyone with 2 braincells can see how flawed your logic is. Not worth it.

You call Slazenger an idiot with "two brain cells", a comment that would generally get your post removed on this forum.

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

I will leave it to NWI and the competitive players of ins, who clearly have no problem with a higher TTK unlike you casual pub players, to balance this game.

This really annoys me, me and Slazenger were and are competitive players of Insurgency2 and we have a problem with it, but no we aren't competitive players because we don't agree with your idea. Because somebody wants headshots to become a thing in a game makes you a competitive player, a game cant be competitive in a different way, that's just imposable.

Honestly, I'm thinking of calling it quits for this game, I'm glad to know that

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

nobody will shed a tear if you leave

I'd like to finish this line

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

Everything has been said. Everyone can read this posts and form his own opinion.

how have you not been kicked for team damage yet holy crap!
If somebody with an open mind comes into this and sees your "arguments", I think they'd prefer low TTK than to side with you and jensiii.

last edited by Zucchini

@slazenger
Hi. Nice post and straight to the point. I understand perfectly what you are trying to communicate and think most people do if they try=) It is off course plenty of games with a higher TTK with the same depth in tactics, but the tactics certainly change with a lower TTK, and if people deliberately wants to misunderstand you, they will always find a way=)

"Low TTK makes every other factor of a gunfight more important since there's little room for mistake."
Yes, this is so obvious, and it is weird to see this particular point being argued against no matter how it is explained. I guess some people are not interested in acknowledging that there is also tactical aspects bound to a low TTK.

I mean the evidence is all there. All people gotta do is look up some competitive matches in Insurgency 2014 and some other competitive matches in a game of their choice with a higher TTK, and doing that it would be hard to avoid noticing that the tactics and gameplay in such a comparison show that the tactics change with a lower TTK. Comparing Insurgency 2014 with all other games would be impossible, it is a forum focused on the particular game Sandstorm anyway, but solid games exists on both sides of the scale, no doubt.

I see a lot of posts claiming they have "proof" that there is no tactical aspect of low TTK whatsoever, but I am certain that all players who have played Insurgency 2014 with an offensive playstyle successfully, can confirm that a low TTK adds its own flavuor both regarding team tactics and types of approaches to a situation. The videos on youtube from player LTB (lick the butter) are among one of several with good game sense imho (that is some quick gameplay with a distinct flavour, he has also added some gamplay on Sandstorm by now, link below).

If you (not referring to Slazenger but people in general) want to try going all scientific on the subject but at the same time are unable to understand that there exist advantages and disadvantages with different timeframes on TTK, you simply have not discovered these aspects for yourself. Does anyone seriously believe that if they had an interview with any of the top players in Insurgency 2014 and asked about their opinion on TTK that the answer would be that a low TTK means absolutely nothing regarding tactics? Camping is one aspect that is easy to counter by prefire in many situations if you have high enough game sense, and if someone repeatedly kills you from the same camping spot in a firefight, you need to change up your playstyle and/or get more practice. Which in my case is fun, as I like games where there is plenty of room to improve and adapt, for others it may lead to frustration. I know some who would not even touch Insurgency while others can't get enough.

There is several points that argue both for a high TTK and a low TTK that are valid, repeatedly claiming it is not just shows a lack of experience or interest in taking another persons point of view. I believe most guests in the forum actually makes up their own mind and can find valid points on both ends of the scale when looking for it anyway. Still there is more answers than one, we are not solving simple math equations with only one correct answer, treating it as such and calling all other views false is just ignorant behaviour.

As previously stated, I am not saying one timeframe of TTK is superior to all else, but that it obviously and beyond doubt makes an impact in different aspects.

Again New world Interactive have probably spent quite some time analyzing how they can bring something interesting to the table with the new game as well, and it is too early to draw final conclusions about how the gameplay of the end product will turn out. I think they are well aware that a playerbase liked the low TTK in the previous game, and would guess they would try to keep some resemblance to the old one as several of them are gamers who appreciated the feel of the last one themselves - At the same time I find it cool that they mix things up a little with the new title, daring to challenge the established scene to some extent.

I hope they also add a few smaller maps some time in the future, as the Gamebanana & Razer Insurgency Mapping Contest winner: Station, added some innovative firefights. Also the multiple floors of CQB on the nicely architectured Ministry made for some very enjoyable PVP.

I also hope they will experiment with some of the less popular game modes in the new Sandstorm as well, because game modes like occupy could be really enjoyable on a balanced map. Occupy on Tell map with two somewhat equally skilled teams have been really fun and creates extended gameplay as the point repeatedly gets flipped by the waves of attackers.

Check out LTB (havent asked his permission for posting his link, but would assume he would like people to visit his page, same goes with Shroud on some other post I made)

Youtube Video

@tactixx you obviously new to this series.
"Imagine getting shot from 200 feet, tapped by a pistol and dying lol"
literally never happened, pistols were only good at close range cuz geuss what that's what pistols do, now they're virtually useless...

same kind of goes for all other weapons, one hit kills were possible but it was all about shot placement and range. again just like in real life. thought the whole goal here was realism.....

@benz Take this as another warning to stop insulting players in these forums and on the Discord. It's not welcome here.

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

@benz Take this as another warning to stop insulting players in these forums and on the Discord. It's not welcome here.

I haven't insulted anyone. If I write "I like white snow" and someone reads "omg he hates my race!".... yeah. I'm not responsible for people trying to find something they can feel offended about.

Also: i haven't been warned on the forum yet. So there's that.

last edited by Benz

@Benz @Iyagovos I haven't been following this thread at all pretty much, I've only posted once and that was to obtain a link for a new stream that was put out.

I just read through all of Benz's posts in this thread to be sure and he hasn't insulted anyone.

Not sure about on Discord because I don't use Discord and not sure about that deleted post just above but he definitely hasn't insulted anyone in this thread that I can see.

Both, telling someone they have two brain cells in an insult. It won't be discussed further.

@zucchini

Agree, someone saying player movement is not affected by low TTK have not much experience with games with a low TTK. When looking at a pro match in CS:GO it is normal to double and triple stack players together in certain situations as it makes you able to brute force through areas protected by a single enemy (which you in some situations know is the case because you count how many opponents your team have killed to predict remaining enemy positions)

In Insurgency 2014 everyone who have played the game for a while know that it is crucial to keep a good distance between teammates because you can easily all be killed by a single enemy flanking or hiding. And even if you are on a team with several more players alive than on the enemy team, you simply can't be all relaxed about it and just rush the remaining enemies from different angles - or at least you should not. As a single enemy player can wreak havoc and turn the odds. There is more examples of this happening in games like Insurgency 2014 than in CS:GO, and it is so obvious that it is connected to the TTK. I have played quite many hours in CS:GO as well, and the difference is so easy to see, and with games with even higher TTK it gets even more obvious. With a lower timeframe to react to a successful flank, the higher the chance is to pull of a successful flank, as you give your opponents less time to think. Human reaction time does not change with a lower TTK, it is off course the same whatever the TTK, so flanking enemies are easier to counter the higher the TTK - It is therefore so crucial to make quick decisions, react fast and be alert to the environment.

The same people I have heard saying a low TTK makes no tactical difference in this forum are actually the same people saying the low TTK games are "too unforgiving and does not give players room to improve" - Which is a paradox if low TTK makes no tactical difference..

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

Both, telling someone they have two brain cells in an insult. It won't be discussed further.

I wrote

because everyone with 2 braincells can see how flawed your logic is.

Dunno how you can spin this into "you only have 2 braincells". Yeah... if you don't want stuff to be discussed publicly, maybe don't write it in public then. Otherwise "censorship" might be the correct word to describe this....

last edited by Benz

@tooth-decay so calling someone's logic flawed is on the same level as calling someone idiotic? Nice.

By that logic we shouldn't ever argue on this forum, since that implies disagreement. Very insulting.

@benz No, your post was not just saying their logic is flawed. It was clearly ad hominem, that’s why you got a warning from a moderator.

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