We want the one hit kills.

I still score 1 hit kills with pistols, not as often, but still do. I think this is less a 1 hit problem and more a hit reg problem.

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

1 hit kills are stupid except for bolts and headshots.

Putting emphasis on headshots is changing the game completely. I'm fine if NWI wants to go their separate ways and make a different game that doesn't feel like the old INS and caters to a new audience, but they should at least say that this is what they intend to do (and maybe don't call it Insurgency.)

@benz I've added stuff to my comment that reflects this, and yeah, indeed go for the head if you see the vest, especially if you have the advantage of surprise.

@oldkingcole225 unsure how this puts emphasis on headshots on the whole. It puts emphasis on headshots for "1 shot kills regardless of armor", but you can still one-shot in torso with a bunch of weapons. Even against light armor, although less so.

If anything I'm happy the heavy armor seems to be worth something this time around. In previous game there was not much incentive to use it because it felt as feeble as light. Now it feels like it offers something. It now just needs to not offer too much and/or offer proper drawbacks.

last edited by Coachon

@oldkingcole225 said in We want the one hit kills.:

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

1 hit kills are stupid except for bolts and headshots.

Putting emphasis on headshots is changing the game completely. I'm fine if NWI wants to go their separate ways and make a different game that doesn't feel like the old INS and caters to a new audience, but they should at least say that this is what they intend to do (and maybe don't call it Insurgency.)

Mikee just today said on stream they care about the lethality and want to keep it. And i feel the TTK rn is just fine. The hitreg is borked atm which gives the impression of a high TTK to many people apparently. It's not.

(whats bad about putting more emphasis on headshots? with low TTK or the infamous 1-shot-kill you'd literally remove headshots from the game all together. why even bother. headshots reward good aim. me like. )

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

@oldkingcole225 said in We want the one hit kills.:

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

1 hit kills are stupid except for bolts and headshots.

Putting emphasis on headshots is changing the game completely. I'm fine if NWI wants to go their separate ways and make a different game that doesn't feel like the old INS and caters to a new audience, but they should at least say that this is what they intend to do (and maybe don't call it Insurgency.)

Mikee just today said on stream they care about the lethality and want to keep it. And i feel the TTK rn is just fine. The hitreg is borked atm which gives the impression of a high TTK to many people apparently. It's not.

(whats bad about putting more emphasis on headshots? with low TTK or the infamous 1-shot-kill you'd literally remove headshots from the game all together. why even bother. headshots reward good aim. me like. )

From what I hear he said he wanted 3 shot body kills (can I get a link? Tried to find but can't.)
I'm bored of FPS games where everything comes down to aim. That's why I started playing INS and DOI in the first place: cause they were the first FPS games I ever played that were about positioning and just dgaf about aim. I didn't even know it was possible to do that, but it was incredible.

IMO headshots are an arcade-like mechanic. Always shoot center mass.

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

It baffles me that anyone would think that lower TTK = harder.

I've yet not heard a single example that suggest that a lower TTK indeed raises the skill ceiling. Not a single example that makes sense. The first person that shows me a good example of lower TTK raising skill ceiling, gets 10€ from me straight via PayPal. I'm serious.

Lower TTK doesn't raise the skill ceiling. Change my mind. - Insurgency Edition.

last edited by Benz

@oldkingcole225

I'm bored of FPS games where everything comes down to aim.

You don't want AIM to be difficult in a first-person-shooter. I respect your opinion, i dont share it though.
I'm bored by the fact there is no good, competitive alternative to CSGO.

This baffles me as well. Players wanting a game to be what it's not. I agree that there are like, more supportive classes/positions, which allows players to take a less agressive stance at the game, and that is fine. However to not expect requiring aim at all in a shooter? Kind of asking much, there.

Not sure how it is in sandstorm, but my understanding is that there isn't much options anymore for more supportive gameplay? Imo observer/commander sounds like prime support positions. Demolitions/rocket launcher doesn't require much aim but is super useful too. In any case I can't see how you could do well/help your team much without aiming much in the previous game. I always felt very pressed to aim well or else I'd die. Whether I was camping quietly, or right into the fray.

Otherwise I may be misunderstanding what exactly @oldkingcole225 was doing that didn't require aiming in the past. I mean if he feels the game isn't what it was anymore, pretty fair. I'm now just very curious to hear more precisely what they mean by that. How they played the previous game, and what they expect with this one.

Otherwise I can't say I aim for the head very often if at all. I always aim center-mass as well. We were just saying that the head was currently a good counter to the heavy armor.

Only posting to clarify the bolt-actions failing to one-shot heavy armor in the torso IS NOT a hit reg issue. The damage model makes heavy armor survive the first shot from a bolt-action. I have tested it extensively.

Yes, please. What made Insurgency fun and unique was the extremely low time to kill. For those who say it takes less aim: it takes different aim. Instead of rewarding whoever can land the most shots, it rewards whoever can land the first shot quicker. The better player is the one with faster aim and reflexes. It also increases the tactical aspect of the game. Dying in one shot really punishes people for being out of position. If they need to be hit 4 times, they have time to react and negate the advantage of using superior tactics.

Without most guns killing in 1-2 hits, this just feels like CoD with no hud to me (on top of the randomized horizontal recoil and air support).

"Insurgency" Sandstorm needs to embrace its roots instead of trying to appeal to a more casual audience.

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

Instead of rewarding whoever can land the most shots, it rewards whoever can land the first shot quicker. The better player is the one with faster aim and reflexes.

....and how does a higher TTK change that? 0. If both players are equally skilled, the one with faster aim and reflexes wins. A higher TTK doesn't change that. ON TOP of the 2 skills you mentioned you need to have better aim, yes. Raising the skill ceiling.

It also increases the tactical aspect of the game. Dying in one shot really punishes people for being out of position. If they need to be hit 4 times, they have time to react and negate the advantage of using superior tactics.

Again: a higher TTK doesn't change that. Players are playing the same game. Your enemy has the same TTK as you. You know what's the punishment for being out of position? Being out of position. That's why it's being called "out of position". It literally gives you a positional disadvantage.

If 2 players are equally skilled, the one with the better position wins! TTK literally doesn't change that.

What you are saying is: i want a free kill because of my position. That's all. You know how you'd still get your free kill? With a headshot. At least that mechanic is risk-reward based. 1-shot-kills are literally no-risk-reward. Nice game. Much competitive.

instead of trying to appeal to a more casual audience.

give me a break. how is a higher skill ceiling more appealing to casuals?! Isn't it funny how the most competitive FPS games have a higher TTK? CSGO ... Quake..... wondering why.

last edited by Benz

@cyoce You in discord:

"Benz: why is something you can't react to bad design?"
"Cyoce: because there's no counterplay. no effort went into the kill, and it has the potential to kill multiple people"

But somhow 1-shot kills are the best gamedesign ever. Ok.

Edit: since you accused me for quoting you "out of context" and "cherrypicking" this quote, i will provide the context.

0_1536108987544_context.png

Feel free to correct me.

last edited by Benz

@benz it doesn't change the skills required, it changes the balance of skills required. Think of it this way. The first shot of the engagement goes to the person with better positioning (and the aim to land the shot). As shots required to kill go up, the advantage positioning (i.e., the first shot) grants approaches 0%, while the significance of repeated aim approaches 100%. At a lower time to kill, the engagement is decided by game sense and tactical skill to a greater extent than it is by accuracy. That's fine for a tactical shooter.

So I'll reiterate: a higher TTK does not raise the skill ceiling. It raises the mechanical skill ceiling, while lowering the tactical skill ceiling. Since aim is a more universal skill present in all shooters, the average "casual" gamer (coming from Battlefield or Call of Duty, let's say) will come into the game with more mechanical skill than tactical skill.

As for landing more shots ostensibly requiring more skill, the skill ceiling is lowered by the presence of RNG recoil and extreme idle sway, as these deviations to aim are not in the player's control. Spraying then has a lower skill ceiling and floor, meaning an engagement with fewer shots (and thus, less recoil) is actually more dependant on mechanical skill and less dependant on luck than a longer engagement. Since I want the RNG recoil removed, however, I won't hold this against the argument for high TTK.

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

@benz it doesn't change the skills required

it literally removes skill needed to hit multiple shots. 1-shot-kill.

it changes the balance of skills required. Think of it this way. The first shot of the engagement goes to the person with better positioning (and the aim to land the shot). As shots required to kill go up, the advantage positioning (i.e., the first shot) grants approaches 0%, while the significance of repeated aim approaches 100%. At a lower time to kill, the engagement is decided by game sense and tactical skill to a greater extent than it is by accuracy. That's fine for a tactical shooter.

That's just... horrible reasoning. Look at top-level games from any highly competitive FPS game. The mechanical skill at that level is so close between that players. You know what that means? it means your "significance of repeated aim" gets LESS relevant, since they are on the same skill level mechanically anyways. You know what raises? Correct: importance on tactic and positioning.

A higher TTK literally means: the more equally skilled players are mechanically -> the more the winning is decided by tactics and positioning.

A low TTK REMOVES that factor. It means that the importance of tactics and positioning gets more relevant at lower levels. Simply because those players don't need have to that mechanical skill.

while lowering the tactical skill ceiling.

in low skilled games. It's literally the same in CSGO. I can run around in low levels just outaiming people and i win. I can't do that in high skilled games, guess Why? Same in Quake3. I can 50-0 someone who is worse than me simply by outaiming. I can't do that vs. someone equally skilled mechanically (or someone way more brained).

In high skilled games the aiming is literally LESS important, simply because of how close players are for mechanical skills.

It raises the mechanical skill ceiling, while lowering the tactical skill ceiling.

You yourself said

it changes the balance of skills required.

Which i HIGHLY agree with! The more skilled players get, the more this balance shifts. As players become more skilled mechanically, tactics/positioning gets more important.

last edited by Benz

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

As for landing more shots ostensibly requiring more skill, the skill ceiling is lowered by the presence of RNG recoil and extreme idle sway, as these deviations to aim are not in the player's control. Spraying then has a lower skill ceiling and floor, meaning an engagement with fewer shots (and thus, less recoil) is actually more dependant on mechanical skill and less dependant on luck than a longer engagement. Since I want the RNG recoil removed, however, I won't hold this against the argument for high TTK.

RNG for recoil works like this: the further away your target, the less reliable is spraying. It literally forces you to decide when to spray and when not to spray. Hint: spraying at long range shouldn't be reliable. Deciding how to shoot is a skill. You know what people do in CS on long range? Correct. They tap or burst at max.

Do you know why CSGO/CS1.6/CSS has that semi-random shape(s) for recoil? To literally make spraying harder, even for close ranges. In CSGO you actually have to work with the recoil, in INS:S i just have to pull down. Its ezpz.

Btw, do you know how to beat mechanically better players in both CS and Quake? You outsmart them. There's your importance your tactics/positioning.

last edited by Benz

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

@oldkingcole225

I'm bored of FPS games where everything comes down to aim.

You don't want AIM to be difficult in a first-person-shooter. I respect your opinion, i dont share it though.
I'm bored by the fact there is no good, competitive alternative to CSGO.

CSGO has a million clones. What're you talking about? Why would you want to play CSGO without playing CSGO? What's the fantasy here? That you'll find a game that's not called CSGO, but is exactly the same as CSGO?

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

This baffles me as well. Players wanting a game to be what it's not. I agree that there are like, more supportive classes/positions, which allows players to take a less agressive stance at the game, and that is fine. However to not expect requiring aim at all in a shooter? Kind of asking much, there.

Not sure how it is in sandstorm, but my understanding is that there isn't much options anymore for more supportive gameplay? Imo observer/commander sounds like prime support positions. Demolitions/rocket launcher doesn't require much aim but is super useful too. In any case I can't see how you could do well/help your team much without aiming much in the previous game. I always felt very pressed to aim well or else I'd die. Whether I was camping quietly, or right into the fray.

Otherwise I may be misunderstanding what exactly @oldkingcole225 was doing that didn't require aiming in the past. I mean if he feels the game isn't what it was anymore, pretty fair. I'm now just very curious to hear more precisely what they mean by that. How they played the previous game, and what they expect with this one.

Otherwise I can't say I aim for the head very often if at all. I always aim center-mass as well. We were just saying that the head was currently a good counter to the heavy armor.

I played (Push) often very conservatively, moving from cover to cover with smoke until I got close enough without the enemy seeing me for any length of time long enough for them to take a shot. Then, once I got close enough where I knew I wouldn't miss (and sometimes it would take me a minute or two; I fondly remember crawling on Sinjar for a solid minute while grenades and fire flying above me) I would finally peek and take a shot or two. If the enemy was camping, I'd nade it or just hold the angle to help a teammate push up and tell them to nade it. If I wanted to play MG or Sniper, I'd probably try to grab some sort of limited overwatch (you must find the perfect balance between seeing enough that you have an effect on the battlefield and not seeing too much so that you couldn't see to a counter sniper before they see you) that would hold down, say, a portion the right flank of a map and either make sure no one passed or very limited people passed. Once I had held the angle long enough for the riflemen to get a significant hold, I'd push up to a new spot and leapfrog it that way. I never relied on my aim. I always made sure my shot counted when I fired and would never fire unless I knew I would hit cause that would give my position away. If I didn't, then I probably wasn't playing very well (you have some bad days and some good ones.) I also spent a good amount of time just suppressing the enemy as MG and making sure it was dangerous to run through smoke: just spray into the smoke as a deterrent. This is a less useful tactic now because you need to hit 3 shots to the body.

These tactics just don't really exist in Sandstorm. The amount of time an enemy can have eyes on you and you'll just be totally fine has pretty much tripled if not quadrupled. Just rush the OBJ and rely on your aim. If you can get the headshot, you're a super l337 pro. If you can't "you're a nub lololololololololol." Aimbro culture is lame af. I don't want to be around these toxic CSGO pro wannabes. Bring back the anti-CS gameplay where those guys just got beaned halfway down the street and complained about camping in allchat. INS and DOI were shooters that put the least amount of emphasis on aim out of all shooters on the market (Red Orchestra also, but Red Orchestra just wasn't as good.) That was what made it special. IMO you're the ones wanting the game to be what it's not and never was.

@oldkingcole225 said in We want the one hit kills.:

CSGO has a million clones. What're you talking about? Why would you want to play CSGO without playing CSGO? What's the fantasy here? That you'll find a game that's not called CSGO, but is exactly the same as CSGO?

I literally haven't said that. Don't make up stuff please. I said i want a competitive alternative to CSGO. That doesn't equate to "i want csgo".

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

@oldkingcole225 said in We want the one hit kills.:

CSGO has a million clones. What're you talking about? Why would you want to play CSGO without playing CSGO? What's the fantasy here? That you'll find a game that's not called CSGO, but is exactly the same as CSGO?

I literally haven't said that. Don't make up stuff please. I said i want a competitive alternative to CSGO. That doesn't equate to "i want csgo".

But CSGO is competitive. What more could you possibly want?

@oldkingcole225 said in We want the one hit kills.:

But CSGO is competitive. What more could you possibly want?

Can't you read? Or are you a troll? I literally said "i want a competitively viable alternative to CSGO". What didn't you understand about that?

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

@oldkingcole225 said in We want the one hit kills.:

But CSGO is competitive. What more could you possibly want?

Can't you read? Or are you a troll? I literally said "i want a competitively viable alternative to CSGO". What didn't you understand about that?

Competitively ok that makes more sense, but it still begs the question, "why you want a competitively viable alternative to CSGO when you have CSGO?" I don't see why you'd want two games that are similar.

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