We want the one hit kills.

Can we just let this die? Seriously, who here thinks the TTK is currently too high? Unless you can actually provide some solid facts about how a lower TTK is better than a higher one, you just shouldn't be continuing this thread.

@MarksmanMax, It's hard to show "solid facts" that TTK is better, but anybody that says that "TTK doesn't have an effect on gameplay" has no eye's XD. As Pacalis and myself talked about on the previous page it does change the gameplay and the tactics if you want to be effective at the game. it's hard to explain that's why I recommend putting some serious hours into INS2 so you understand, even then you might not. I only "got gud" because I listened to Slazenger talk about strats after calling him a hacker XD

I can't say it is better, just different from most other games. CS:GO was hugely about coordinating with your team- so is Rainbow6:Siege, also about gadget and character choice to help your team and both of them the focus was about aim eg hitting headshots. tactics and map knowledge were still important as hell but aim was also huge. Insurgency aim was as I said 20%, the rest map knowledge, tactical awareness, "game sense". It made being smart and creative important and I loved it. And dare I say it, but it made the solo player fight as a solo player for their team and help their team in a solo way, because grouping up made you easy to see and just as easy to kill as a single person, so a different type of teamwork, @Slazenger agrees with me.

as I said you have to try it to understand it so please be open-minded and not just think how stupid I'm being and try to nitpick, please try and understand what we are saying.

and if the thread keeps going how it has been going eg: somebody trys explain their view, somebody replies "its BS, you bad, get gud", it might as well die. everybody just gets angry at each other for some reason.

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

@MarksmanMax, It's hard to show "solid facts" that TTK is better, but anybody that says that "TTK doesn't have an effect on gameplay" has no eye's XD.

If anybody would think TTK has no effect on gameplay, there won't be a discussion in the first place. It's about whether this effect is good or not.

It made being smart and creative important and I loved it.

This one really bugs me. Like, that's not exclusive to Insurgency at all. What people fail to understand when saying this is: at a top level players are so close in their mechanical skills (movement, aiming...), that what decides about win or lose is exactly what you want: playing smart and creative. The skill-gap in aiming is so narrow, it barely has an impact! Unless you really miss your shots...and you should get punished for it in a competitive game.

Ofc flattening the gameplay makes other things more important. Like... no one is even fighting that. If you take shooting completely out of the equation... obv. tactics are more important, because it's the only aspect left. That doesn't automatically make it a better game. On the contrary: you just made your game flat. Congratz. You have a flat game. A game that tries to be competitive. Who wants to play a flat, competitive game? Apparently no one, as proven by the low player numbers of Ins2. Sorry if this is insulting to you, but numbers don't lie.

Also: the lower the skill, the less dominant this is. In low skilled games you can have good aim and carry based on that. You can also have good game sense and carry based on that. It allows different playstyles for lower skilled games. Quite logical. If there are more areas to improve on in a game, there are obv. more ways to play it effectively. That's good. That's not a bad thing. That's what makes people play games. Expressiveness in playstyles. Not being forced into a specific playstyles, just because the game doesn't allow for more. It's ridiculous to even think about it if you want to make a successful game. Just because you enjoy that playstyle, doesn't mean it's good to limit the game to it. Look at any successful multiplayer game ever. They all allow players to express themselves in their playstyle. Why would you wanna limit that?!

You can go berserk in csgo if you want, or you can play smart and tactical if you want. Both can lead to a win, as long as you play good. Limiting gameplay choices is a death sentence. Is that what you want?

And dare I say it, but it made the solo player fight as a solo player for their team and help their team in a solo way, because grouping up made you easy to see and just as easy to kill as a single person, so a different type of teamwork, @Slazenger agrees with me.

This is ridiculous. You can extrapolate this to every degree you want in every game and call it "teamplay". That's not an argument at all. Not to mention this is once again not exclusive to Insurgency. People play like that in CS all the time. You always have that one special lurker. It's not a "different type of teamwork".... it's a way to win a game if you can't rely on your team. That's it. Clear, simple and without trying to make it sound noble. (btw: that's how i play sandstorm... usually top fragging and leading the scoreboard...a 61% winrate doesn't come from teamplay with all the noobs playing this game atm, so apparently playing solo effectively is way more than possible already)

as I said you have to try it to understand it so please be open-minded and not just think how stupid I'm being and try to nitpick, please try and understand what we are saying.

This goes both ways..... just saying.

and if the thread keeps going how it has been going eg: somebody trys explain their view

People are free to explain their view. But their view is their view. If views get constantly disproven and certain people still argue with that "view" it's a big circle and leads nowhere. That's not being "open minded". That's being dense. (inb4 someone saying "whoaaaa...did you just call people dense?!" WOAAAAA. MODS")

I'd express my view saying "the world is flat" and people will disprove me. If I afterwards still say "the world is flat" I'm a retard... and if I decline proof and logic without valid reasons it makes me an even bigger retard.

The problem you clearly see in this thread and every other TTK thread is following:

  1. someone expresses his view
  2. he gets challanged on this view
  3. he tries to comeback
  4. gets challenged again
  5. everything becomes a shitshow, because either a) it starts going cycles or b) the person simply refutes everything without any real argument

(side note: you having an apparently personal relationship with slaz isn't helping this discussion either...like... "oh no...2 friends stand in for each other"...bummer)

And you know why? Because people are passionate about the game and their view. They can't let their feelings out of this. They like f.e. a low TTK and they have to defend it and make up stuff just so it sounds "logical" in their own brain in order to justify their beliefs. That's normal human behavior. The important stuff is to be able to identify this behavior and work around it yourself. People can't do that in here. This has become a discussion about feelings and personal impressions, rather than gameplay and what's important for a good, successful, competitive shooter.

Yeah, that's that.

last edited by Benz

@benz you're not wrong imo. But Insurgency2 was different, and I and other people liked the difference. Maybe I liked that I could be lazy and aim center mass rather than head, but then I was never lazy, I had good aim - its gone potato now because of the laggy mouse movement thanks to fake 70fps, but I have achieved some crazy BS in my time, sicc fliccs ect

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

btw: that's how i play sandstorm... usually top fragging and leading the scoreboard...a 61% winrate doesn't come from teamplay with all the noobs playing this game atm, so apparently playing solo effectively is way more than possible already

thank god you agree insurgency really isn't and wasn't a team game, you did things for the team, but you rarely work with them because the noobs are more likely to get you killed than help honestly. solo is far more lethal and effective than with 2 other nerds.

There are reasons for why millions of people own but don't play it.
*shitty 2002 visuals
*The $1 sale noobs that were literally useless
*steep learning curve
*and insurgency wasn't a lot of peoples cup of tea
idk

I just liked old insurgency and I don't want its core to die in the sequel, low TTK has its place, I and other people have been dealing with shitty source physics and visuals for years! please

last edited by Zucchini

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

@benz you're not wrong imo. But Insurgency2 was different, and I and other people liked the difference. Maybe I liked that I could be lazy and aim center mass rather than head, but then I was never lazy, I had good aim - its gone potato now because of the laggy mouse movement thanks to fake 70fps, but I have achieved some crazy BS in my time, sicc fliccs ect

Well... that's the thing though. Ins:s is a successor. Not Ins2. I like CS 1.6 WAY more than CS:GO... i have to live with the fact that CS:GO is inferior to me compared to 1.6, since apparently CS:GO is doing freaking good. I don't actively play CS:GO anymore. This might be sad for me, but I'm not the only person on the planet.. and no offense: but the 2.5k peak players Ins2 got aren't either. Sandstorm needs to be better than Ins2, if this wants to be a truly competitive game.

They want to have a matchmaking system... do you realize how many players Sandstorm actually needs so this matchmaking system would actually work?! Hint: more than 2.5k.

Do you realize what happens if Sandstorm doesn't get more players than Ins2? It'll be dead. Rather sooner than later. Competitive games should be able to survive for more than 3 years. You can't do that with low player numbers. Not in a team game. Where do you go then? Insurgency: IceFight? If you need to create a successor every few years...it's probably not a good game to begin with. It's good enough to live from it and make cash, but not good enough to make it actually relevant.

@benz said in We want the one hit kills.:
thank god you agree insurgency really isn't and wasn't a team game, you did things for the team, but you rarely work with them because the noobs are more likely to get you killed than help honestly. solo is far more lethal and effective than with 2 other nerds.

That might be good for public games, but not for a competitive shooter. On the hard opposite you have games like NS2, where you can't have an impact solo. That's not what i want either. CS...seems to be hitting the ground. Obviously. Doesn't mean I want SS to be a CS clone either. Simply means that you should look at what works and adopt it for Sandstorm.

There are reasons for why millions of people own but don't play it.
*shitty 2002 visuals

No. People play games with shit graphics all the time.

*The $1 sale noobs that were literally useless

But you just wrote above: "really isn't and wasn't a team game". Why do you care about the noobs now? That's contradicting. Also: you should ask yourself why, despite so many people owning Ins2 cuz of sales and the free weekend sutff .... the player numbers didn't even rise the slightest. Like..the game has literally 0% player retention. That's a bad sign.

*steep learning curve

No, people play games with way steeper learning curves. It's the "arena fps" excuse. "our genre is so hard, no one plays it". No...just no.

*and insurgency wasn't a lot of peoples cup of tea

That's with every game. True.

I just liked old insurgency and I don't want its core to die in the sequel, low TTK has its place, I and other people have been dealing with shitty source physics and visuals for years! please

Yeah... i understand that you want stuff you enjoy. But like...be real. If Sandstorm wants to be better than Ins2, it has to be better. Quite easy. If the result is something you don't enjoy...i'm sorry, but that's life. Go on. Find a different game. (that's what i'm doing atm btw..i've moved on from CSGO to find a game i can enjoy more...). I know that's hard to accept since i've been in that position as well, when CSGO was developed. But retrospectively... my gaming life didn't get worse, just because CS:GO wasn't 1.6 HD. On the opposite: i learned new things, different things, looked for other games and found some i enjoy as well... in short: my experience got a good boost.

If you constantly try to get what you are used to....and humans like to stay in their comfort zones... you won't evolve. You stagnate.

Sandstorm can't afford stagnation.

last edited by Benz

@benz, I know it has to "move forward" but the TTK was the life force of the game, it's what its slogan is and was "lethal", I know it still is but not as lethal as insurgency should be. It's like CS losing recoil patterns, or the guns getting scopes, it wouldn't be CS anymore. SS is moving forward in other ways - vehicles, the ability for better sound and visuals, new bigger maps, more guns, new models etc.... I don't oppose the matchmaking competitive, in fact I can't wait to try it when the game is slightly more playable, insurgency2 could have been competitve, it would have been fuck tons fun to actualy have a team to coordenate with TBH. and as much as I would love to move on, there isn't much alse out there that offers the same thing, I tried rainbow and it held back the desire but it wasn't the same... and as much fun as insurgency2 is, you get sick of playing casual with 31 other noobs, in fact it is extremly infurating. night bois

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

It's like CS losing recoil patterns, or the guns getting scopes, it wouldn't be CS anymore.

That's very extreme and while you might get the impression a low TTK is the same extreme..i don't think so. But that's something we won't agree on, ever. It's a matter of taste. For me a more equivalent comparison would be the removal of the extremes wallbangs 1.6 offers compared to CS:GO.

SS is moving forward in other ways - vehicles, the ability for better sound and visuals, new bigger maps, more guns, new models etc....

...tbh except for new models and better visuals i don't agree with any of those "improvements". What caught my interesting for ins2 years ago was the small scale maps in combination with the less arcady gameplay (compared to cs). I looked for a game like that after playing BF3 and getting tired of the large maps. The more i play sandstorm, the more i dislike this large clusterfuck maps. Vehicles are uninteresting for me as well.

and as much fun as insurgency2 is, you get sick of playing casual with 31 other noobs, in fact it is extremly infurating.

Yes, so is Sandstorm. That's the thing. It's such a boring and frustrating game at the same time, because of the vastly different skill levels playing the same match. It's borderline retarded. With a proper matchmaking system, where you get matched with people of similar skill, this would be a much much much better experience.... but there we go again: you need a ton of players for this to happen. If SS can pull it off with a low(er) TTK, I'm fine with being proven wrong. I don't see it. Recovering from that will be even harder so trying to "fix" it right from the start is a way more reasonable approach. You can't balance a game based on gameplay where the skill delta is wider than Juice' anus in the last season of sons of anarchy. That simply doesn't work.

as its been said thread over thread over thread, the reason why lovers of the previous game don't like the TTK of this game is genuinely the fact how this game feels bullet spongy than its predecessor making it a weird gimped version of BF4 Hardcore.

dont get me wrong the refinements in this game are fucking great but the higher TTK just lost the unique feeling insurgency once had with the previous game.

keep in mind faster TTK meant that everyone is affected by it, and you had to play smart and be creative with tactics in insurgency, not always relying on your aim to always get out of situations. if you're complaining about a noob killing you in a low TTK game insurgency 2, you had to play smarter.

well-placed flanks in insurgency 2 were known to be total game changers that affected the tides of each team, and I genuinely want the feel of smart game sense back in this game by making the mindset of players to value their lives more in sandstorm.

there is so much shit you can get away with in sandstorm with the higher TTK that you couldn't get away with the previous Insurgency.

you misposition yourself or go out crazy in insurgency 2, you'll die. if you hang too long and scared to face combat, you were considered a dead weight to your team.

out of all the fucking shooters ive played insurgency has a unique learning curve. when i first got it i thought my aim from CS:GO would transfer well and I would be perceived as a god. but essentially I was wrong when I faced some of the best/comp players as they played differently.

they were creative with their routes towards objectives and flanks considering the low TTK nature that made their health like a piece of small glass.

with the fast TTK in the previous game it enforced a mindset where smart team play was required more than just your aim.

sandstorm isn't even tense compared to the last game. i can just run headless in a objective in sandstorm or just clear it out easily with the fucked support system. in the last game you had to play smart, especially with playing with the best.

whats the point of saying low TTK can lower a game's skill ceiling when it enforces a player to change their mindset to value their life and move carefully?

whats the point of complaining about how low TTK can let noobs kill you easily when you can obviously outsmart them with baseline map knowledge and proper positioning?

TTK is already very low. It's not OHK like INS2, feels more like +1 shot to kill.

Funny thing is, people expect lowering TTK from the current TTK to magically create huge changes in the gameplay and somehow make the game more tactical.

My arguments have always been against OHK, not low TTK in general. Of course there's change in overall gameplay when TTK is changed for example from 8 to 2. But if it's changed from 2 to 1, it doesn't have that same effect anymore, because the TTK is already low. That's why lowering TTK to make the game more tactical doesn't work. No matter how hard you try to convince yourselves.

Of course if you just say you like OHK, you can have your preference 🙂

People are complaining about "running and gunning" and "you can just cross the road" and "sniper is useless". It's all movement mechanics. Add proper tagging and then you don't have to break weapon balance and the game becomes way more tactical. All those problems are solved.

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

as its been said thread over thread over thread, the reason why lovers of the previous game don't like the TTK of this game is genuinely the fact how this game feels bullet spongy than its predecessor making it a weird gimped version of BF4 Hardcore.

So guns typically kill in 2 shots now instead of one and you're already calling Sandstorm a downgraded Battlefield 4? Last time I checked that isn't BF4's TTK.

keep in mind faster TTK meant that everyone is affected by it, and you had to play smart and be creative with tactics in insurgency, not always relying on your aim to always get out of situations. if you're complaining about a noob killing you in a low TTK game insurgency 2, you had to play smarter.

My aim was pretty good in Ins2014. I just combined that with tactics so I could wipe entire squads, which is a little ridiculous IMO.

Dying to a noob camping a random fucking corner doesn't mean you have to play smarter. In fact, you died because the enemy was a complete dumbass. It's hard to account for stupid if you think you're up against experienced players.

well-placed flanks in insurgency 2 were known to be total game changers that affected the tides of each team, and I genuinely want the feel of smart game sense back in this game by making the mindset of players to value their lives more in sandstorm.

I'd personally argue that a good flank in Sandstorm is also a game changer, also considering the fact that SS maps are much bigger so pulling off a successful flank is much easier than before.

there is so much shit you can get away with in sandstorm with the higher TTK that you couldn't get away with the previous Insurgency.

Like what?

you misposition yourself or go out crazy in insurgency 2, you'll die. if you hang too long and scared to face combat, you were considered a dead weight to your team.

The second statement is 110% correct, and you can die if you just have a shit spot, but you can definitely go out crazy and be pretty successful, especially if the enemy expects you to play more tactical.

out of all the fucking shooters ive played insurgency has a unique learning curve. when i first got it i thought my aim from CS:GO would transfer well and I would be perceived as a god. but essentially I was wrong when I faced some of the best/comp players as they played differently.

I've seen some pretty good CSGO players absolutely shit on everything in Ins2014 so I'm not sure what your case is.

That being said, the appeal of Ins2014 to begin with is that there's zero learning curve. Seriously. CSGO has a big one with the movement mechanics, weapon patterns and spray mechanics, etc. With Ins2014 you aim at your target, you fire, and he dies. It's one of the easiest games on the planet to learn which is why it's hard to master.

they were creative with their routes towards objectives and flanks considering the low TTK nature that made their health like a piece of small glass.

I mean, shouldn't all players be doing this anyway? Besides, I don't give a shit what the TTK is; I'd rather shoot someone from the back than the front. PUBG, EFT, Ins2014, SS, etc. It's the same strategy for every FPS in existence.

with the fast TTK in the previous game it enforced a mindset where smart team play was required more than just your aim.

This actually completely contradicts itself and I fail to understand why you thought it didn't before typing this.

If the TTK is "One shot, one kill" teamplay isn't necessary. There's an artwork on the Ins2014 Steam page where a guy with an AKM wiped an entire team pushing a doorway with a single magazine.

Games like EFT and Squad really aren't my thing per se, but those games are the ones that heavily rely on teamwork; not Ins2014 where one guy can carry your entire team to victory without breaking a sweat.

sandstorm isn't even tense compared to the last game. i can just run headless in a objective in sandstorm or just clear it out easily with the fucked support system. in the last game you had to play smart, especially with playing with the best.

I agree with Sandstorm not feeling very tense, but the TTK has nothing to do with the problem or the solution.

-> First of all, if you can just run into an objective and clear it out you're up against bad players who don't know how to set up a defensive perimeter.

-> The support system is useful but it doesn't clear objectives by itself. Buildings make most support moot (but some explosive support options can partially go through walls). The easiest way to clear out objectives are just infantry weapons and explosives. That's not going to change.

-> The last game didn't really require much thinking at all unless you were playing Competitive. If you were up against really good players, you do gotta think about your approach and flank route, what the enemy will probably expect, etc, but at the end of the day aiming skill determines who wins.

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