I especially agree with your points on the helicopter support, I was thinking of posting the same thing myself. The helicopters are super OP offensively, but also too easy to shoot down. Making them fly an orbit pattern rather than straight and hovering would make them require skill to shoot down, while also reducing their opportunities to fire on players. Reducing their first-shot accuracy would also help, and give players a chance to take cover when targeted (as well as being more realistic for the minigun, since it's quite hard to aim).
MiniGun and Cannon helicopter support are very strong. Are you guys trying to make a competitive game? Nerf this suport option.
Insurgency was never necessarily meant to be competitive outside of the competitive mode.
The Minigun and autocannon support are still relatively easy to avoid anyway. And the insurgents more than make up with it considering they have about double the amount of fire support.
7.62 should be one hit against everything. 5.56 should be 1-2 hits against light and two against heavy. Then pistols/smgs should be 1 against no armor, 1-2 against light, and 2-3 against heavy.
I agree with you, but I do not think NWI's devs will change that. At the moment I am very dissatisfied with the decisions of the devs, I'm going to let the guys work and I only intend to play again in December
I feel the complaints of lethality are forgetting that insurgency source had everyone running AP ammo without fail, 100% of the time. If Sandstorm had AP ammo im sure most of everyone would have the same TTK as source. I feel the removal of buying AP ammo is the best thing we could have gotten.
THIS right here deserves a +1
They compare apples to oranges.
@jensiii if we assume for the sake of argument that literally everyone was running AP ammo (as people in these threads often suggest), it's actually not comparing apples to oranges. If AP ammo is ubiquitous, then AP ammo's damage model is standard damage model for Insurgency. When people ask for Sandstorm to keep Insurgency's damage model, they're not talking about whether you clicked "AP ammo" or not; they're talking about the average TTK for the game. The fact that that damage model was labeled "AP" is irrelevant to gameplay.
@jensiii if we assume for the sake of argument that literally everyone was running AP ammo (as people in these threads often suggest), it's actually not comparing apples to oranges. If AP ammo is ubiquitous, then AP ammo's damage model is standard damage model for Insurgency.
I agree with you saying that AP was the standard in the way that everyone or at least most of the people were using it. Still it was one of three damage models in that game (regular, AP, HP). AP became the standard, because the balance was off: there was no point in using anything else really.
Now we don't have different ammo types, most likely so that weapons are easier to balance for the sake of gameplay and the weapon balance cannot be broken by ammo types. So it's a different system. And I think it's smart.
Having three ammo types would just overcomplicate things and would be much harder to balance. Return on time investment (added value to gameplay vs. time invested to balance different ammo types) is not there, it's not worth the time.
But it's different system. Even if enough people claim that apples are oranges, the apples will not suddenly turn into oranges.
When people ask for Sandstorm to keep Insurgency's damage model, they're not talking about whether you clicked "AP ammo" or not; they're talking about the average TTK for the game. The fact that that damage model was labeled "AP" is irrelevant to gameplay.
Well, they are still actually saying: "Keep the AP damage model in the game, please have AP ammo in the game by default". You just stated that. If AP was the standard, then that's what they are saying. So it's very relevant to understand INS2 AP and how it worked to have that discussion.
Now the devs have the opportunity to balance the weapons better, when there are no ammo types. I would not consider INS2 AP as the standard by which the weapons in Sandstorm should be balanced with. I would forget that and start with a clean slate. Yes, there should be lethality, like we talked in another thread, but also balance.
On a site note. What is this new trend (not just here) to start a post with:
I HAVE PLAYED X FOR Y
Do people think that other people will stand there in awe of the lifetime somebody has spend playing something? Kind of feels like a dick measuring contest with the goal to make your own points appear more valid than the points of other people.
Somewhat hard to measure at the moment because of technical issues that could make the TTK appear higher than it actually is. Personally I would prefer a TTK close to INS2.
They need balancing across the board. Some areas should be accessible, while some areas should not. There are some areas in which you can slip through some gaps and get into very nasty positions. The good thing is that this is something that is relatively easy to balance during beta testing when collecting player feedback.
Volume Sound Control
Would be a good idea. I personally also feel that not all chatter should be global. Depending on the end of the stick it can be frustrating if your character shouts something without the player having control over it, giving your position away. RELOADING! Some sounds should be global like shouting out when taking damage or coughing when going into smoke without a gas mask etc.
I would guess that the points are higher right now in order for players to test gear and combinations more freely.
I disagree on this. To me it feels that the overall speed is faster than the mod or INS2. Players move very fast and right now you can get away with very fast run and gun. Changing the spawn distance would also not fix this, you would just increase the distance people would have to walk to get into the action. You would just add a boring uneventful walk that does nothing at all.
They feel like a Gimmick and not like a natural part of the game.
Damage Support needs to be massively nerfed in my book and I would not shed a tear if it would be taken out completely.
The damage output is insane and it just feels very cheap to use it. You can also still spawncamp with it. I think that these hard damage options should not be in the game. I am fine with smoke rounds and maybe gas rounds that would force players to use gas masks that should give them a smaller field of view.
Yes and it was a much needed call to delay the game further. Releasing this game in this state would have been a disaster, just from the technical issues alone
Naturally, people will choose the highest damaging weapon instead of others.
With this logic, everyone would pick either a shotgun or a sniper rifle. Is this what you're saying would happen? If not, why would this not happen?
With high lethality low TTK all the guns are viable and can be used effectively.
And everyone can be a sniper regardless of the gun or class. You could use pistol, smg, maybe even shotgun. You could use every weapon in every situation. Is that what you consider to be effective & viable? What kind of weapon would not be classified as "viable" by your standards?
If all the weapons don't kill with 1 shot, but some weapons would kill with 2 shots, then some weapons have +100% damage compared to others. Compare 2 shots-to-kill vs. 3 shots-to-kill = +50% damage and 3 shots-to-kill vs 4 shots-to-kill = +33% damage. This shows that there's more natural imbalance in the lower end if we consider weapon damage only. Obviously, that's not the only element in weapon balancing.
With this logic, everyone would pick either a shotgun or a sniper rifle.
Currently, they pick the 7.62 weapons which I see being used a lot more commonly, and you could say that's a sniper caliber. Shotguns do not get used because not all classes have them.
And everyone can be a sniper regardless of the gun or class. You could use pistol, smg, maybe even shotgun.
You cannot be a sniper with a pistol, smg or a shotgun.
Weapons should have just different characteristics that set them apart and make them more or less viable in different situation. Some examples.
- Lethal on very close ranges
- Easier to hit targets in close range because you don't fire a individual bullet
- Less effective on anything that is not very close range
- Low rate of fire compared to other weapons
To get the best out of this weapons you need to get in very close to the enemy. If you miss your first shot or dont take out the enemy with it you are at a disadvantage because everyone has a higher rate of fire than you.
You can apply similar things to different weapons and not just different categories. 7.62 Assault rifles could have a slower rate of fire and more recoil due to the bigger caliber. The advantages should be a better performance on medium ranges and more penetration power.
The major point of a sniper rifle is the ability that you have better optics and that the speed of the bullet is faster and so it is easier to hit targets on longer ranges (which you can find easier because of your optics).
@mefirst YES! This is exactly what I was after in my question! Weapons should be balanced to work better in different situations using many other properties besides weapon damage only.
So if the weapon balance is good, people won't pick the highest damage weapon, instead they would pick a weapon suited for the situation they are going to be in. @Slazenger
@slazenger this will also cut recoil out from the equation. Are you talking about only rifles killing in one shot or other weapons as well? I ask because now you mentioned rifles specifically. Which weapon properties are the one that stand out and how are they balanced to make different guns excel in different situations?
this will also cut recoil out from the equation.
If you miss your first shot then it won't.
And yes, I'm talking about the rifles killing in 1 shot (like Insurgency2014 and Day of Infamy) because in your other post you thought I meant for all weapons ("pistol, smg, maybe even shotgun").
Which weapon properties are the one that stand out and how are they balanced to make different guns excel in different situations?
The mains is recoil/accuracy, magazine size, select fire, ironsights, weapon penetration through walls, rate of fire, weight and you could say barrel length too.
In Insugency2014, we have the:
M16 excelling at range because of the lower recoil, balanced by it being single fire and poor ironsights
M4 excelling cqb combat by being full auto and lightweight with ammo carrier, balanced by being more expensive and slightly more recoil so it isn't as effective at range.
L1A1 excelling at wall penetration to clear objectives because of bigger caliber, balanced by 20 round mag with high recoil and weight
MP5 excels at cqb and rushing because of the fast rate of fire while being lightweight with short barrel length, balanced by not killing in 1 shot because of lower caliber.
AKM being a general good weapon not excelling at anything specific, balanced by lowish rate of fire and supply cost which means you can use grenades instead
Ak74 excelling at cqb with full auto and being lighter weight with good ironsights, balanced by not being able to penetrate walls
None of these weapons are overpowered and unbalanced, unless you we're to be playing coop with unlimited supply points.
In Sandstorm we can see the overpowered weapon being the g3a3 which has higher damage (higher damage weapons being the guns people naturally choose)
@slazenger thank you for making it clear that you meant rifles only, so I don't misunderstand you.
You have good points about balancing the guns! I think tweaking the damage falloffs for different weapons (even for different rifles) is also a good way to balance the weapons now, when we have bigger maps and possibility for longer ranges.