Insurgent Pistols Are Trash (Post-Sept. 6th Patch)

Here's why:

(These stats were tested on frozen bots in Local Play)

-> Makarov: Pretty damn good considering the cost of the gun (aka nothing). The equivalent of the Security Tariq. It three-shots unarmored targets, which kinda sucks, but it also three-shots Light and Heavy Armor, putting it on-par with most 9mm pistols. I'd say it's balanced for the most part, but it used to four-shot Heavy Armor before the patch, which probably makes more sense.

-> Hi-Power: Honestly just kinda shit. The Hi-Power is the Insurgent's equivalent to the Security Glock 17, and for the same supply cost is much worse by comparison. The Glock 17 (M003 in-game), with an extended magazine, can get eleven kills per magazine in CQB on Heavy-Armor targets (3 shots per kill) while the Hi-Power can get only seven with an extended mag. Actually more balanced after the patch. Before the armor nerf it also required four shots to down a Heavy Armor player, making the Hi-Power a glorified Makarov. Still, the worse sights with a suppressor equipped, lower damage and lower mag capacity make this gun mediocre at best, especially considering the Glock 17 is better in every single regard.

-> M1911: Pretty good. The Insurgent equivalent of the Security M45, and post-patch is pretty much the same gun. That being said, it also has worse iron sights and a more expensive suppressor at three supply instead of two (the cost of a suppressor on a primary weapon). Still better post-patch as before it took three shots against Heavy Armor, making the weapon useless compared to the M9, but still pretty unbalanced now as the Security M45 is the same gun but better, for the same supply cost.

-> M9: The best Insurgent pistol, in my opinion. It's the Insurgent "equivalent" of the Security L106A1, although the M9 is a joke compared to the L106 (I'll explain later). The M9 has the best range of any pistol, and the second-best damage rivaled only by the M1911. The M9 has arguably the best sights of all the Insurgent pistols and the only pistol that has readable sights with a suppressor equipped. With limited attachments (no ext. mags) it's my go-to sidearm if I want to carry something without feeling like I have to buy a modification for it (except the QuickDraw, of course, because that mod is god-tier).

I'll get into more detail about the L106A1. After the Sept. 6th, patch, the L106A1 can two-shot Heavy Armor in CQB like the M45, effectively making the M45 completely useless. An M45 /w an Extended mag costs the same as an L106A1, and can only get five kills on players without reloading. The L106A1 can kill eight targets with torso shots without reloading (supposing an extra shot in the chamber; the Ext. Mag attachment allows for up to ten kills), and the Glock 17 can kill eleven as mentioned before; slightly more killing potential but two shots is faster to shoot off than three.

The M9 is debatably the best Insurgent pistol; it's the most useful all-around and can be used in almost any situation. That being said, it is slightly, and I mean slightly, better than the Glock 17, with an extra 2 meters of effective range. The M9 lacks an extended mag attachment, so you can only get five kills per mag in CQB against players with Heavy Armor. Meanwhile, the Glock 17 and L106A1 has double the killing potential per magazine.

-> The M45 suppressor costs less than the M1911 and the pistol has better sights, not really a huge deal, though.

-> The Glock 17 is better than both the Hi-Power in damage, range, sights, and mag capacity, and when fully-kitted out is basically an Uzi on semi-auto fire (with debatably better ironsights), with more ammunition per mag than an Uzi /w Extended Mags and more manageable recoil (since the Uzi now has fucktons of horiz. kick iirc).

-> The L106A1 at this point is a joke; in CQB it hits with the power of a SCAR-H. The M45 is completely useless and in Coop is just the best pistol to grab along with the G17.

Some possible fixes to all of this, assuming two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Armor stays where it is in terms of protection (which hopefully won't happen, since I think armor is currently garbage):

-> Nerf the ever-living fuck out of the L106A1 and put it on-par with the M9. Remove extended mags or make them Coop-only. Make the pistol cost two supply.

-> Buff the M9 a bit so it's at least noticeably better than the Glock 17. Maybe clean the sight picture, too, since it's a bit strange IMO (I made another post about the M9 sights here: https://forums.focus-home.com/topic/30197/m9-model-sights). Maybe add a 20-round Ext Mag for the M9 (if one actually exists) for Coop-only.

-> Just make the M1911 suppressor two supply and don't limit the suppressor to certain classes, even though most classes normally allow for pistol suppressors.

-> The Hi-Power (in this model) is fine as-is.

-> Make the Makarov four-shot Heavy Armor.

-> Remove the 33-round Extended Mag for the Glock or make it Coop-only. If the Ext Mag is kept in-game, possibly make it cost three supply as it gives a +16 boost to mag capacity. +20 and above is three supply while +10 is two, but +16 is closer to 20; it is a pistol at the end of the day and if it's coop-only two supply is fine, though. Maybe even add an ability (only for Coop) to put a Doctor Sight on the Glock 17 (Glocks can be modded to have a red dot sight; Gen 5 Glocks also come with the ability to attach a pistol RDS by default).

-> Maybe remove the risen-up sights on the M45 to balance the M1911 but I'm not really sure if that makes sense or is even possible.

Scenario 2: Armor gets buffed back to the model before the Sept. 6th Patch (NWI PLZ I BEG YOU)

-> Either buff the Hi-Power so it can three-shot Heavy Armor or lower the supply cost to one supply point.

-> Buff the M9 so it's noticeably better than the Glock 17. Again the thing about the sight picture lol, as well as a possible 20-round mag for Coop.

-> Make the L106A1 cost two supply. Coop-only extended mags.

-> Make the Glock 17's extended mags Coop-only. Possibly allow a Red Dot Sight on the G17 for Coop only.

-> Makarov is fine as-is as it now four-shots heavy Armor.

-> Make the M1911's suppressor two supply instead of three and don't further restrict the suppressor between classes that normally get suppressors. Also, make this goddamn pistol two-shot Heavy Armor plz.

-> Nerf the M45 sights again, if possible. Sights aren't the biggest deal with pistols, anyway (and if you're sniping with a pistol firing .45 ACP you're not doing something right).

Just some suggestions from an avid pistol user. Good job with the updates NWI!

last edited by MarksmanMax

@marksmanmax Scenario 2 isn't likely to happen given the amount of people demanding to have INS:Source's time to kill back.

In time, armor will probably get nerfed so much that it essentially becomes INS:Source, just without AP.

I really hope armor isn't buffed. The ttk right now is fine. Why does it matter if selecting armor isn't viable? Nobody is forcing you to do it. If you want to argue realism and say soldiers should be wearing armor, just make light armor the default (which would have the same damage model as unarmored currently does) and then you can pay 2 supply for "heavy" armor (which would function as light armor does now).

It would be pretty much impossible to balance three levels of protection while keeping Insurgency's low low low ttk.

last edited by cyoce

@cyoce said in Insurgent Pistols Are Trash (Post-Sept. 6th Patch):

I really hope armor isn't buffed. The ttk right now is fine. Why does it matter if selecting armor isn't viable? Nobody is forcing you to do it. If you want to argue realism and say soldiers should be wearing armor, just make light armor the default (which would have the same damage model as unarmored currently does) and then you can pay 2 supply for "heavy" armor (which would function as light armor does now).

It would be pretty much impossible to balance three levels of protection while keeping Insurgency's low low low ttk.

The problem is that armor pre-6th patch was perfectly balanced. 7.62x39 weapons two-shot Heavy Armor while 5.56 required three shots, but 5.56 weapons typically fire faster than 7.62 weapons so right now they're just better in general. Why have a "more powerful" AK round when .22 cal bullets that have better range and less recoil do the same thing?

To balance out armor (for most weapons):

-> Light Armor = Can save the user from an extra shot from pistol calibers.
-> Heavy Armor = Can save the user from an extra shot of a rifle caliber.

Since armor does literally nothing at the moment, shotguns are blatantly overpowered.

@quadsword I really hope not. I know some Ins vets like LordQuode said that they want TTK to actually be higher (a bit) for armored targets so armor actually does something.

Just to clarify why armor is garbage, the difference between Heavy Armor and no armor is only ever seen (in CQB) against nine guns. Three can actually one-shot you anyway in some cases.

Heavy armor will, in CQB, always stop an extra shot of an M9, Tariq, Glock 17, Hi-Power, Uzi, and MP7 (I think the M24 got fixed so it one-shots; at least, it does in Coop now). It'll also tank an extra shot of a G3A3, FAL, and Mk 14 EBR, but only if they do not have a Long Barrel equipped. If they do, then GG. Against any other weapon in the game, Heavy Armor makes no difference.

I have to run some tests with the SVD later. It might actually also need a Long Barrel to one-shot consistently.

EDIT: In fact, I think armor was nerfed so badly that Heavy Armor is now equivalent to the old Light Armor, and the new Light Armor just does absolutely nothing.

last edited by MarksmanMax

Who misses the good old days were you could snipe people with the good old m1911 in insurg2. One shot to everything was the stuff, now with crappyer hit reg and slow af TTK your lucky if you can kill in half a mag. Rip

@cyoce said in Insurgent Pistols Are Trash (Post-Sept. 6th Patch):

I really hope armor isn't buffed. The ttk right now is fine. Why does it matter if selecting armor isn't viable? Nobody is forcing you to do it. If you want to argue realism and say soldiers should be wearing armor, just make light armor the default (which would have the same damage model as unarmored currently does) and then you can pay 2 supply for "heavy" armor (which would function as light armor does now).

It would be pretty much impossible to balance three levels of protection while keeping Insurgency's low low low ttk.

Wow thats dumb, okay.
To say “it doesnt matter if ____ is uselss, you arent required to pick it” implies you have no idea what youre talking about when it comes to making a game or balancing one, if this game was finished id have a different reaction but its not finished and its our job to provide feedback. You being able to sit here and say something so absolutely braindead is beyond me and you should really sit down and think about how you approach these threads on this forum because that had my jaw dropped for at least a few seconds.

As for my opinion of armor, it should be buffed so its worth the points but at the same time, theres no reason not to take it in coop when thats the case. Maybe supply points in coop can be shuffled around a bit?

last edited by Ziggylata

@cyoce said in Insurgent Pistols Are Trash (Post-Sept. 6th Patch):

Why does it matter if selecting armor isn't viable? Nobody is forcing you to do it.

Do I even need to go over what's wrong with this line of reasoning?

@quadsword said in Insurgent Pistols Are Trash (Post-Sept. 6th Patch):

@cyoce said in Insurgent Pistols Are Trash (Post-Sept. 6th Patch):

Why does it matter if selecting armor isn't viable? Nobody is forcing you to do it.

Do I even need to go over what's wrong with this line of reasoning?

I read this and joked about this guy on a Discord server of mine but I didn't realize I hadn't actually responded to this lmao

That being said, this doesn't need a response. I'm not even sure if you could make a logical response to this.

SO let's learn ya'll something about armor and calibers...

Here's how armor works these days:
Type I (.22 and knife stabs)
Type II and IIA (9mm, .357, .40, .45 ACP and below)
Type III and IIIA (.357, .44 Magnum, 7.62 and below)
Type IV (.30-06 APM2 (Springfield AP round), most AP rounds, 5.56 and below)

Now before you jump on me and say, but thehappybub you dumbo, a 7.62 is a bigger bullet, yeah but its worse than 5.56 at penetrating armor. A 7.62 will go through a tree real easy or penetrate materials like walls and plywood much better. However, a 5.56 will go through thinner, higher density materials much better (i.e. armor), meanwhile a tree will stop it.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume that the armors in the game are Light (Type II) and Heavy (Type III). Type 4 is like ceramic plates and some weird stuff so lets not go there.

As such, you should be able to shoot a guy with a Type II (Light Armor) vest multiple times with basically all the sidearms, or say, an UZI with little effect. AP rounds would go through though and all the rifle rounds should breeze right through. This means light armor should have no impact on the damage received by most of the game's rifles, while repeatedly shooting it with a pistol should have a much lesser effect.

Shooting a guy with a Type III (Heavy Armor) with 7.62 rounds should have little effect (beyond staggering … which should be a more pronounced effect in game btw). AP rounds and 5.56 should go right through, maybe with some reduced damage. Furthermore, heavy armor should cover more area (shoulders and crotch). This means a dude with heavy armor should be pretty hard to kill, especially with a lot of the insurgent weapons. For balance's sake, I would understand if we all pretended that 5.56 and 7.62 were equal in penetration capacity (I'd be a little salty but balance is balance).

Also, the location of the hit should be more important. Hits to the neck, arms, and legs (especially the inner thighs -> femoral artery -> number one fatal bullet wound location) should be much more viable kill locations than the chest on armored targets. Obviously the head too, duh. That is why heavy armor should cover some more of these areas than light armor (shoulder pads, crotch guard, thigh guard, neck colar) and thus reduce mobility by a lot.

TL;DR body shots with pistols should do very little to light/heavy armored targets, rifle body shots to light armored targets should have full effect, rifle shots to heavy armored targets should have little effect.

Armor in general should be buffed against pistols, light armor should be nerfed against rifles (have no effect).

@marksmanmax Well, considering the number of people cheering about the armor nerf, my guess is we'll end up right back at INS:Source's "everything instagibs" play style...

Sadly, it's what the majority is voting for.

@thehappybub I hate to be that guy but... while I appreciate the insight and explanation, at the end of the day this is a video game. NWI has, in the past, sacrificed authenticity for game balance.

@quadsword Yeah, in the old Ins2014 damage model armor could soak up like 24 9mm pistol rounds, which was just too OP.

@quadsword said in Insurgent Pistols Are Trash (Post-Sept. 6th Patch):

@marksmanmax Well, considering the number of people cheering about the armor nerf, my guess is we'll end up right back at INS:Source's "everything instagibs" play style...

Sadly, it's what the majority is voting for.

Honestly, I see more people complaining about the uselessness of armor IMO. Hopefully it'll get buffed back.

While NWI listens to the community, I really hope they listen to the players that actually give arguments as to what needs changing rather than going with the majority. I have faith in NWI that it's #1 just based off of their earlier choices.

@quadsword said in Insurgent Pistols Are Trash (Post-Sept. 6th Patch):

Do I even need to go over what's wrong with this line of reasoning?

Please do. I'm talking about this from a balance/gameplay perspective, not for "realism."

@cyoce said in Insurgent Pistols Are Trash (Post-Sept. 6th Patch):

@quadsword said in Insurgent Pistols Are Trash (Post-Sept. 6th Patch):

Do I even need to go over what's wrong with this line of reasoning?

Please do. I'm talking about this from a balance/gameplay perspective, not for "realism."

Because if you waste points for chest protection then you should get what you spent points for...

@thehappybub then remove it. Day of Infamy is fine without an armor option. Why not just say everyone is wearing the same armor and be done with it?

@cyoce said in Insurgent Pistols Are Trash (Post-Sept. 6th Patch):

@thehappybub then remove it. Day of Infamy is fine without an armor option. Why not just say everyone is wearing the same armor and be done with it?

Well it's great that's what you think. I disagree wholeheartedly. Having no armor would turn the game into a point and shoot instagib game, which neither makes anything more tactical, nor does it make it realistic. I hope that your suggestion doesn't come to fruition.

last edited by thehappybub

@thehappybub You're conflating two separate issues. Enforcing one armor type wouldn't lower or raise the TTK; it would just make it more consistent. It would be much easier to calibrate the TTK with one damage model instead of three.

@cyoce why would there not be a torso damage model for unarmored, light armor, and heavy armor? It adds depth as you have to consider your playstyle and what role you want to play. It gives you options. I don't see how removing options will make anything better.

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