Unarmored target should always be one shot kill on the chest by any calibers, 2 to the stomach from low caliber rounds (9x19, 9x18, 4.7x30)

@doghead Oh that was a mis type... it was meant to be 1-2 shot for 7.62x51

Before anything else , Bolt-Action needs to be one shot kill.

Bolt-Action = There is one second delay between each shot.

You fire a shot - - > Wait for the animation - - > You fire another shot

It takes about 2 seconds to kill a person.

Currently , Bolt-Action has a huge disadvantage.

Bolt-Action needs to be one shot kill.


On the other hand , Full-Auto needs more recoil.

You just press down left mouse button - - > You fire 3 bullets continuously - - > All 3 bullets hit the target accurately

It takes less than 0.5 seconds to kill a person.

Full-Auto is too powerful because the accuracy is too high and recoil is too low.

Currently , Full-Auto has a huge advantage.

Full-Auto needs more kickbacks and more horizontal recoil.

Recently, I have seen so many people who just want to spray bullets like water from a garden hose.

Many people are doing this because Full-Auto does not have enough kickbacks.

last edited by Nick Kim

@nick-kim Some guns have very little recoil like AKM, it's even more controllable than M4 and G36(the shittest gun in the game right now). Most battle rifles are also too easy to control on full auto especially G3, with foregrip and compensator it's the best gun in the game. However some guns like UZI has lots of recoils, same goes for G36.

Armor doesn't need to be more useful. I agree that unarmored targets should always be one shot, but armor also needs a nerf. This TTK is still significantly higher than that of Source, and that was the defining feature of the game to a lot of people.

@nick-kim said in Unarmored target should always be one shot kill on the chest:

Before anything else , Bolt-Action needs to be one shot kill.

Bolt-Action = There is one second delay between each shot.

You fire a shot - - > Wait for the animation - - > You fire another shot

It takes about 2 seconds to kill a person.

Currently , Bolt-Action has a huge disadvantage.

Bolt-Action needs to be one shot kill.


On the other hand , Full-Auto needs more recoil.

You just press down left mouse button - - > You fire 3 bullets continuously - - > All 3 bullets hit the target accurately

It takes less than 0.5 seconds to kill a person.

Full-Auto is too powerful because the accuracy is too high and recoil is too low.

Currently , Full-Auto has a huge advantage.

Full-Auto needs more kickbacks and more horizontal recoil.

Recently, I have seen so many people who just want to spray bullets like water from a garden hose.

Many people are doing this because Full-Auto does not have enough kickbacks.

I would disagree making the bolt action a 1 hit kill weapon, especially against a heavy armor target. The weaknesses of the bolt action is already 'balanced' by its cheaper costs.

For sure, making it one hit kill against unarmored or close range light armored targets are valid. But heavy armor needs to matter as a choice, to give a 2nd chance against high calibre rounds.

If the bolt action being a slow firing weapon is made a 1 hit kill weapon, then the costs should be increased because the weaknesses has been balanced out. There is no valid reason why it should be a cheaper option.

My suggestion is: instead of boosting the bolt action rifles to 1 hit kill weapons, I recommend it boosting the effective range of the weapon instead and make the rifle more centered during the bolt action animation. And semi auto weapons available to sniper class has it's effective ranges reduced.

This will make the bolt action rifle not needing to adjust for bullet drop at long ranges hence easier to make two shots on target, while the semi auto rifles needs not only to adjust for drop, also needs an additional round to kill targets because their effective range has reduced.

@skidd-chung I know I mock some posts by saying that Sandstorm isn't PUBG, but I honestly don't get who else would post this except for a PUBG or maybe an Escape From Tarkov player.

Bolt-actions have to one-shot kill center mass. They should be the most powerful weapons in the game. Some other weapons, like the SVD, should also one-hit but maybe nullify the ability to one-shot at longer ranges. This is an Insurgency game, for fuck's sake. Weapons are highly lethal.

@marksmanmax

That is your opinion of course. I prefer it as it is.

My thinking is that each weapon calibre has a counter. The small calibre weapons needs 2 shots to down a no armor target. The medium calibre needs 2 shots for light armor. And the large calibre needs 2 shots for heavy armor.

The bolt actions or semi auto high calibre weapons or any high calibre weapons SHOULD be able to 1 hit no armor or light armor targets in the chest. I SUPPPORT that.
However heavy armor should be able to tank high calibre weapons unless it is very short range where the penetration and damage did not fall off enough to warrant a second shot.

All high calibre weapons can be balance by scope availability and effective range. The longer the range, the more fall off damage and penetration penalty. So balance sniper weapons less falloff penalty and other high calibre weapons like G3, FAL and MK17 higher fall off penalty.

Note: I don't even play PUBG or Tarkov. Let's stick to discussing WHY something should be and present the reasons for it.

last edited by Skidd Chung

@skidd-chung Heavy Armor shouldn't tank everything in the game. This isn't Escape From Tarkov. It's Insurgency.

@skidd-chung As a more direct answer to your question:

Everything is balanced by supply costs. Typically, the general effectiveness warrants whether or not it costs more supply.

However, in some cases, i.e. bolt-action rifles and shotguns, the weapons are cheap in supply because while they are very powerful, they are very limited in firerate.

@marksmanmax

Heavy armor is a choice. Balanced by weight and costs. By using Heavy Armor, you give up either weapon upgrade or utility, and you become slower due to weight. In return, you have more survivability against gun fire. It's not that you don't take any damage, it's just you can survive a chest shot with 7.62x54r calibre round. However, your health remaining may not be enough to survive another pistol round if it connects. It's a second chance.

Please present your argument why a bolt action should down a heavy armor target in 1 shot at long range. I argued that the bolt action is already cheap in cost at 2 points to balance the weaknesses. While the semi auto sniper rifle is at 4 points to balance the higher ROF and Mag count.

Note: Please stop using the argument "This is not "insert game". It is not even valid.

last edited by Skidd Chung

For a bunch of people so fast to throw "those normie games" under the bus, it's strange to see them wanting to dumb the game down.

In a world where movement is fixed and heavy armour is a legitimate compromise. Snipers should not one hit heavy armour unless they have the long barrel. Its higher penetration being able to cut through the plates.

On the flip, if you have a long barrel and you face someone with no/light armour, the shot should over-penetrate and leave them very weak, but not dead, the shot could go through more targets and leave visible indicators of over-penetrating, similar to missing.

A head-shot, an actual act of skill, should one hit kill players no matter the armour.

Instead we (you) want to remove all forms of counterplay and depth and just have a 2 point meme weapon that anyone who played a sizeable amount of Red Orchestra will use on occasion to farm the plebs that fill public servers, OR, just something to camp with and have a very stale point and click adventure that even CS:GO players will find mundane.

@marksmanmax said in Unarmored target should always be one shot kill on the chest:

PUBG

PUBG has far more game sense required with regards to positioning and distances for snipers then insurgency does at the moment. It's also far more punishing. TABG has this too, which is a cartoon parody of the aforementioned.

@marksmanmax said in Unarmored target should always be one shot kill on the chest:

Escape From Tarkov player.

EFT has a legitimate counter meta of limb hitting, durability, and a number of ammo types and that is not even counting just straight outskilling the player. Source has a abhorrent version of that, Sandstorm if balanced might be a tiny bit better.

last edited by biass

@skidd-chung @biass

There's a reason I'm saying "Sandstorm isn't insert game here" because the style of Sandstorm follows in the footsteps of the style of Insurgency: Source, where many weapons were capable of one-shot kills with AP loaded, regardless of armor worn.

Now, I don't another AP meta, but this whole idea that Heavy Armor allows you survive anything completely spits in the face of what core Insurgency gameplay is. Insurgency has always been an interesting combination of realistic and arcade elements, and I just don't want to see Sandstorm go more towards one direction or the other.

@skidd-chung said in Unarmored target should always be one shot kill on the chest:

Please present your argument why a bolt action should down a heavy armor target in 1 shot at long range.

Maybe you didn't read this:

@marksmanmax said in Unarmored target should always be one shot kill on the chest:

Bolt-actions have to one-shot kill center mass. They should be the most powerful weapons in the game. Some other weapons, like the SVD, should also one-hit but maybe nullify the ability to one-shot at longer ranges. This is an Insurgency game, for fuck's sake. Weapons are highly lethal.

Or maybe this:

@marksmanmax said in Unarmored target should always be one shot kill on the chest:

Everything is balanced by supply costs.
However, in some cases, i.e. bolt-action rifles and shotguns, the weapons are cheap in supply because while they are very powerful, they are very limited in firerate.

@marksmanmax said in Unarmored target should always be one shot kill on the chest:

@skidd-chung @biass

There's a reason I'm saying "Sandstorm isn't insert game here" because the style of Sandstorm follows in the footsteps of the style of Insurgency: Source, where many weapons were capable of one-shot kills with AP loaded, regardless of armor worn.

Now, I don't another AP meta, but this whole idea that Heavy Armor allows you survive anything completely spits in the face of what core Insurgency gameplay is. Insurgency has always been an interesting combination of realistic and arcade elements, and I just don't want to see Sandstorm go more towards one direction or the other.

I quoted you because of the bolded part you mentioned. That is the AP meta.

The reason guns was powerful is because of the AP meta. Without the AP, most guns do not 1 shot heavy armor or even light armor. It became the de facto upgrade because the weakness of AP rounds was just the limbs. However, even with AP, heavy armor in Source enables the target to tank 2 AKM rounds, 3 AK74 rounds and 3 M4 rounds. The M16 was given higher damage and penetration per shot even though it uses the same round as the M4 because it directly competed against the AKM. Range also played a part in damage calculations although due to smaller maps, it was hardly an issue. AP rounds also gave rifles penetration bonus for wallbanging.

For sake of cost calculation, a bolt action in Source cost 1 point + 3 points for AP. Making the weapon a 4 point weapon. This means you have additional 8 points for various other upgrades like scopes and suppressor.

Semi auto like the EBR cost 3 + 3 for AP making it 6 point weapon. With a scope and suppressor, you would have used all supply points. This is while you only get 12 points to play with.

Compared with Sandstorm, the bolt action is 50% cheaper, and you even get more supply points in Sandstorm for other upgrades. Since there is no 'compulsory' upgrade (AP), points can be used for other weapon upgrade or side arm etc.

last edited by Skidd Chung

@skidd-chung There's a drastic problem with your statement. Namely, this part:

@skidd-chung said in Unarmored target should always be one shot kill on the chest:

The reason guns was powerful is because of the AP meta. Without the AP, most guns do not 1 shot heavy armor or even light armor. It became the de facto upgrade because the weakness of AP rounds was just the limbs. However, even with AP, heavy armor in Source enables the target to tank 2 AKM rounds, 3 AK74 rounds and 3 M4 rounds.

Without AP, no weapon in the game one-shots Heavy Armor in Ins2 except possibly a shotgun by hitting the enemy upper-chest with a slug, and even that's a maybe, so that sentence is like 80% correct.

However, the next sentence is 100% incorrect. With AP equipped:

-> The AKM and M4A1 one-shot to the upper chest and two-shot the stomach.
-> The AK-74 and AKS-74u two-shot to the torso.
-> The M16A4 always one-shots the torso at close range.

This pretty much invalidates your entire argument because that's not the damage model at all.

last edited by MarksmanMax

@skidd-chung Also keep in mind that Insurgents got AP for two supply. It's why I personally think the Insurgents have an advantage over Security.

last edited by MarksmanMax

@slazenger said in Unarmored target should always be one shot kill on the chest:

@quadsword He wants to play CS:GO in Insurgency

Because adding 1 or 2 more bullets to favor people who can aim and manage recoil over the 1 bullet for people who camp or get lucky 🎆magically🎆 makes this game CG:GO, where you're favored for aiming and not walking around places like a dummy.

OK...>_>

last edited by xDark

@xdark I'm not sure how to respond cause I don't really know who's side you're on here.

That being said, I'm not against adding an extra shot to kill for some guns. Imo, armor should go back to where it was before where it required 3 5.56 shots to kill a player, to balance out the 7.62x39s ability to two-shot Heavy Armor at a slower firerate, but making bolt-action rifles, the most powerful firearms in the game due to the AP ammo loaded, two-shot an armored player is absurd. Heavy Armor would become the new meta if it makes you that much of a juggernaut.

last edited by MarksmanMax

@xdark Also, some people who camp and "get lucky" can kill you. This happens in Ins2 all the time, and while it can be annoying sometimes it at least gives new players a chance against veterans. Adding more shots to kill really don't mitigate that without making good players even better while punishing newer players, and that's just not a good route to go IMO.

@marksmanmax Lmao I don't understand why people want to limit playstyles in this game just because "muh skill" , majority players play casual or coop, maybe devs should consider to sperate competitive from the game like Arma 3, they had a standalone competitive oriented game called "Project Argo" with the exact engine, assets.

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