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

@thehappybub Why would there be a damage model for unarmored, light armor, and heavy armor if there was only one armor type? My point is that having one unified damage model could help the game find its sweet spot. If unarmored has a moderate TTK (1-2 shots), heavy armor will either be useless or it will break the TTK and take 3+ shots to kill.

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

@thehappybub Why would there be a damage model for unarmored, light armor, and heavy armor if there was only one armor type? My point is that having one unified damage model could help the game find its sweet spot. If unarmored has a moderate TTK (1-2 shots), heavy armor will either be useless or it will break the TTK and take 3+ shots to kill.

3 shots to kill isn't the worst fucking thing in the world. That was the old model where Heavy Armor required three shots of 5.56 to kill the player wearing it, which I think is fair IMO since 5.56 weapons have higher firerate than the 7.62 AKs. More controllability and more bullets downrange at the cost of less firepower.

@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?

Because then armor is pointless and it might as well not even exist.

@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."

I'm pretty sure I did go over this line of reasoning:

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

@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.

@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?

Oh, alright. So instead of realizing how retarded your previous statement was, you just divert off your previous post and drop the accusation entirely. Good job.

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

@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.

Actually, no, it would be easier with three models because there's some room to maneuver. This whole "one damage model" system really fucked over Day of Infamy for me because to balance out the fact that there was no armor, nearly every SMG and pistol couldn't hit shit past five metres.

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

@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.

That's because removing options doesn't make a game better unless the options are moot. Right now, the armor options are pretty moot, and instead of trying to fix the armor itself Cyoce just wants it out of the game entirely. Good luck selling that to NWI.

last edited by MarksmanMax

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

That's because removing options doesn't make a game better unless the options are moot. Right now, the armor options are pretty moot, and instead of trying to fix the armor itself Cyoce just wants it out of the game entirely. Good luck selling that to NWI.

Exactly. Why don't we just make every weapon fire the exact same bullets at the exact same velocities while we're at it? Why don't we just make all the weapons the same.

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

3 shots to kill isn't the worst fucking thing in the world. That was the old model where Heavy Armor required three shots of 5.56 to kill the player wearing it, which I think is fair IMO since 5.56 weapons have higher firerate than the 7.62 AKs. More controllability and more bullets downrange at the cost of less firepower.

Another way to balance this would be two make 5.56 rounds two-shot at range in the unified damage model whereas 7.62 guns one shot at any range. Just a thought. Three shots isn't the worst thing in the world, sure, but having a rifle take three shots to kill doesn't feel like Insurgency to me.

Because then armor is pointless and it might as well not even exist.

And what I'm saying is that that wouldn't necessarily be bad. Circular reasoning at its finest.

I'm pretty sure I did go over this line of reasoning:

I wasn't replying to you. Maybe read the posts you quote?

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

@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.

@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?

Oh, alright. So instead of realizing how retarded your previous statement was, you just divert off your previous post and drop the accusation entirely. Good job.

What was "retarded" about my previous statement? In what way did I drop "the accusation?" The only difference between useless armor options and no armor options is less clutter on the loadout screen.

Actually, no, it would be easier with three models because there's some room to maneuver. This whole "one damage model" system really fucked over Day of Infamy for me because to balance out the fact that there was no armor, nearly every SMG and pistol couldn't hit shit past five metres.

Insurgency is the same way. The inclusion of AP ammo made armor basically worthless (which isn't a bad thing imo) so it was really no different in Day of Infamy. They just cleared up the confusion by removing the useless mechanic and the mechanic that made it useless.

That's because removing options doesn't make a game better unless the options are moot. Right now, the armor options are pretty moot, and instead of trying to fix the armor itself Cyoce just wants it out of the game entirely. Good luck selling that to NWI.

The armor options are moot right now, so by your own logic the game is better without them. Again, what's the problem with not having this one option? You have yet to offer a real explanation other than that it is "retarded" or that NWI won't go for it. Why is that the case? You are starting your arguments with the premise that armor options are good for the game and then trying to argue for that without actually arguing the point.

last edited by cyoce

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

Another way to balance this would be two make 5.56 rounds two-shot at range in the unified damage model whereas 7.62 guns one shot at any range.

This statement reflects a complete lack of understanding as to how bullets work. A 5.56 round penetrates armor much better than a 7.62 (both the NATO x51 and the AK x39) and travels at significantly higher velocities.

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

The armor options are moot right now, so by your own logic the game is better without them.

I (and I think @MarksmanMax) am specifically saying that it does not make the game better.

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

You are starting your arguments with the premise that armor options are good for the game and then trying to argue for that without actually arguing the point.

The premise is that more options are better. How are armor options not good for the game? This is supposed to be a shooter that emulates modern infantry combat. Armor is absolutely an element of that. Removing it would make this game lose all sense of realism. I think @jensiii summed up this whole no armor, osk everything very well in his post here:

@jensiii said in TTK needs a kick up the @#$*:

This post is for everyone: One hit kills do not make a tactical game by itself. Still this is suggested as a solution for movement related problems.

@Benz, myself and other players have suggested that movement mechanics should be tweaked and tagging should be added. These balance the game and make it more tactical.

Here we have the ultimate OHK-game:

Youtube Video

Why are these guys not positioning themselves tactically even though it's OHK? Why is this not ultimate tactical simulator even though it's OHK and FORCED semiauto firemode? Why is the game so fast even though it's OHK?

This video should be the wet dream for some people right now. Is it? Why not?

How would you make the game in the video more tactical?

This video demostrates in an obviously exaggarated way what it means when OHK is a main feature: it puts huge emphasis on reflex and makes positioning matter less. There's also no tracking or recoil control, which mean less aiming skill needed. Just point-n-click and reflexes.

OHK was already made in UT 1999 so it's nothing unique by the way (to all those of you who say that OHK makes INS2 unique). Quake also has instagib mode.

Let's discuss!

last edited by thehappybub

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

This statement reflects a complete lack of understanding as to how bullets work. A 5.56 round penetrates armor much better than a 7.62 (both the NATO x51 and the AK x39) and travels at significantly higher velocities.

That may be how real bullets work (and honestly I have no idea), but that wouldn't be balanced. That was a balance suggestion, not a suggested improvement to realism.

I (and I think @MarksmanMax) am specifically saying that it does not make the game better.

He was saying that, but he never explained why. Although he has repeatedly stated that it doesn't make the game better, the point I was making there is that the arguments he presented could be interpreted either way.

The premise is that more options are better. How are armor options not good for the game? This is supposed to be a shooter that emulates modern infantry combat. Armor is absolutely an element of that. Removing it would make this game lose all sense of realism.

I'm not asking to remove armor. I'm saying remove armor options. How would removing the option to pick which armor you use (with the abstractions "light" and "heavy" instead of actual armor types) make it significantly less realistic? Do you lose your immersion in-game because you remember that you didn't click on light armor before spawning?

I think @jensiii summed up this whole no armor, osk everything very well in his post here:

As to Unreal Tournament, the OHK mode is not what makes gameplay that fast, reflex-based, or absent of positioning. People don't exactly take the game slowly when their weapons take more than one shot to kill.

The argument is that one hit kill mechanics would enhance the tactical element of a shooter that is already tactical. You can't just slap one hit kills on an arena shooter and expect it to turn into Counter-Strike.

For the uniqueness argument, again, it's about more than just the one mechanic. Insurgency isn't unique because it has one hit kills. It's unique because it's a (relatively) new tactical modern military shooter with the hipfire/ADS/crouch/prone/lean/sprint moveset and one hit kills.

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

That may be how real bullets work (and honestly I have no idea), but that wouldn't be balanced. That was a balance suggestion, not a suggested improvement to realism.

If we're not trying to make bullets real, why are we trying to make anything real? Why are we trying to have different weapons for different factions, why don't security and insurgents just get the same weapons? Then it'll be balanced... Why don't we ignore ballistics and just make everything hitscan?

The example video was clearly an overexaggeration, so nitpicking that game doesn't exactly diminish the point. Having played hundreds of hours of versus on doi and ins2, the OSK made it into a game of running and jumping and sliding all around (and in the case of ins2, getting rpged constantly). I honestly didn't like it and found myself playing coop most of the time. It would most definitely ruin the tactical gameplay. Now in Sandstorm, I need to constantly think about positioning, I need to acquire targets before shooting, I need to control my recoil... having instagib will just make me run around showing off my flick shots again. No thank you.

@thehappybub If we're trying to make things real, why stop there? Remove all HUD elements because real life soldiers don't have markers on their screen. Remove this silly "dead or alive" mechanic and instead you bleed out and can only crawl and hipfire. Respawning doesn't make any sense. All modes should be one life only. Real soldiers can't flick their guns around quickly; let's put a cap on turn speed. No soldier can be perfectly accurate, so let's add RNG to every shot. A real person wouldn't just sit there while they're being shot at. Suppression should force you to go prone whether you hit the button or not.

Realism isn't everything, either. This game is about finding a balance of realism and fun gameplay. As a general rule, Insurgency 2 favors realism unless it would make gameplay worse.

When the only example provided is an exaggeration, "nitpicking" the only example is all you can do. You'll find that everything I said can be scaled to different levels of realism as well as the argument jensii gave. And how exactly do one hit kills allow you to run around care-free? If you run into someone who's already aiming while you're sprinting, they have more of an advantage with a lower TTK, as the time it takes you to ADS and acquire the target is a larger portion of the engagement.

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

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

I'm pretty sure I did go over this line of reasoning:

I wasn't replying to you. Maybe read the posts you quote?

The real question is why you decided to reply to someone else when I answered your question like, four posts earlier. Yeah, you weren't talking to me since you were replying to someone else but I replied to that exact same quote in my own post. Guess you didn't see that.

@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?

Oh, alright. So instead of realizing how retarded your previous statement was, you just divert off your previous post and drop the accusation entirely. Good job.

What was "retarded" about my previous statement? In what way did I drop "the accusation?" The only difference between useless armor options and no armor options is less clutter on the loadout screen.

  1. Why keep an item in the game if it's useless? Buff it or remove it. You didn't suggest either in the post you made this claim, which doesn't make sense.

  2. The accusation is @thehappybub calling you out, saying, "Because if you waste points for chest protection then you should get what you spent points for...". You didn't reply to this question at all and changed your claim from "No one is forcing you to buy armor" to "remove armor from the game" within two posts.

Why not buff armor? What's wrong with a slight increase to TTK? Seriously, the one-shot days of Ins2014 are gone. It doesn't make for a balanced game and many weapons lose their purpose, like high-caliber battle rifles. Why use them if 5.56 is better?

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

Actually, no, it would be easier with three models because there's some room to maneuver. This whole "one damage model" system really fucked over Day of Infamy for me because to balance out the fact that there was no armor, nearly every SMG and pistol couldn't hit shit past five metres.

Insurgency is the same way. The inclusion of AP ammo made armor basically worthless (which isn't a bad thing imo) so it was really no different in Day of Infamy. They just cleared up the confusion by removing the useless mechanic and the mechanic that made it useless.

So, you're defending a mechanic (AP ammo) that makes another game mechanic (Armor) worthless... why again? What's the point here?

Day of Infamy's TTK was drastically lower than Ins2014 because a lot of weapons were complete peashooters. In fact, when the numbers get added up everyone in DoI is basically wearing Light / Heavy Armor depending on the weapon.

" They just cleared up the confusion by removing the useless mechanic and the mechanic that made it useless." So you're saying that they removed the useless mechanic (armor) and the mechanic that made armor worthless (AP ammo). Well... no, they didn't. Armor still exists in the game (AP does too; just for certain guns).

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

That's because removing options doesn't make a game better unless the options are moot. Right now, the armor options are pretty moot, and instead of trying to fix the armor itself Cyoce just wants it out of the game entirely. Good luck selling that to NWI.

The armor options are moot right now, so by your own logic the game is better without them. Again, what's the problem with not having this one option? You have yet to offer a real explanation other than that it is "retarded" or that NWI won't go for it. Why is that the case? You are starting your arguments with the premise that armor options are good for the game and then trying to argue for that without actually arguing the point.

Right now the armor is underpowered, so my logic is that they need a fucking buff. What crack are you smoking that made you forget all logic? Seriously, the fuck?

The problem with not having armor?

  1. It's a modern military shooter. Not having armor makes zero sense at all.
  2. Similar to other Insurgency games, armor has always existed and will continue to exist because it's undoubtedly a core mechanic.

" You have yet to offer a real explanation other than that it is "retarded" or that NWI won't go for it. Why is that the case"

I've literally tested the TTK at close range of every weapon in the entire game and compiled the stats to compare Heavy Armor to a target without armor, and that's how I arrived at my conclusion that armor needs to be buffed back. I cannot explain any better why Insurgency should have armor besides what I've stated in this post. It just bewilders me that someone else seriously thinks, in a modern infantry game, that armor shouldn't exist.

If you read like, literally any of my posts, I try to provide some reasons and evidence for every single decision and change I want to be made.

"You are starting your arguments with the premise that armor options are good for the game and then trying to argue for that without actually arguing the point."

This is the most hilarious thing I've read all day.

You've made so many claims the past couple days about this topic, yet you have few reasons to support these claims and you have zero evidence to back up anything you say. I honestly don't know what to tell you anymore except for this:

Get your facts from research and don't pull them out of your ass.

Just to clarify:

  1. Why do you think the current armor values are good? If you don't think they're good, tell me that too.

  2. If you want armor removed from the game, then why exactly do you want armor removed? What good does it do for the game? Why not buff armor so it actually helps against bullets like armor is made to do?

last edited by MarksmanMax

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

I'm not asking to remove armor. I'm saying remove armor options. How would removing the option to pick which armor you use

You've actually never clarified this. Ever. Even still, it's not like only one armor type ever exists. You've got Level II, IIA, III, IIIA, III+, etc. For a game with realism mixed in, simplifying that down to "armor" doesn't make much sense.

@cyoce In terms of "how armor is garbage at the moment" or other relevant information I've posted that all over the forum (and I'm pretty sure it's in this discussion too).

EDIT: Oh yeah, this is my thread about pistols, which legit tells you more than you'd ever need to know about the handguns in Sandstorm.

Also, this was the Heavy Armor = Garbage post earlier:
@marksmanmax said in Insurgent Pistols Are Trash (Post-Sept. 6th Patch):

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.

Sandstorm, according to NWI, has 40 guns and Heavy Armor can only guarentee that it saves you from one shot from six weapons.

last edited by MarksmanMax

The funny thing is that a bunch of the examples you gave have already actually been brought up in the forums as features people would like to see.

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

Remove all HUD elements because real life soldiers don't have markers on their screen.

There is already an option to completely disable the HUD. Also there are posts complaining about how the HUD currently shows mags and the bullets left in your mag. Overall, there is a push to keep the HUD more austere.

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

Real soldiers can't flick their guns around quickly; let's put a cap on turn speed.

This has also already been proposed, including a decreased turn radius while sliding and going prone.

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

No soldier can be perfectly accurate, so let's add RNG to every shot.

A little different than what you're saying, but it's been proposed that suppression add reload fumbling that would be affected by RNG.

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

A real person wouldn't just sit there while they're being shot at. Suppression should force you to go prone whether you hit the button or not.

Increased suppression effect, including mag fumbling and more intense visual effects are also wanted by many on these here forums.

Insurgency does indeed favor realism unless it would make gameplay worse. OSK makes gameplay worse. Personally and from what I'm seeing, realism comes first, balance second. Things only get tweaked to become balanced after at least a good attempt has been made to induce realism into the game. Instituting balance and in the mean time, sacrificing realism is simply not what NWI has done in the past, and it doesn't seem like a lot of people want it either.

Armor is literally a core of modern infantry combat, not including it would be like not including milk in yogurt.

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

Why do you think the current armor values are good? If you don't think they're good, tell me that too.

If you want armor removed from the game, then why exactly do you want armor removed? What good does it do for the game? Why not buff armor so it actually helps against bullets like armor is made to do?

I'm also seconding this.

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

Insurgency does indeed favor realism unless it would make gameplay worse. OSK makes gameplay worse.

FUCKING PREACH BROTHER YALLAH

This is literally the Insurgency series in one sentence.

I just don't know what we're arguing here. Cyoce says armor is worthless and currently I'd have to agree, but after that he just states that armor should be combined into one piece of armor (which he didn't make clear and I didn't understand for like, twenty posts; then again, in his earlier post he also said "...just remove armor entirely) so I don't know what he wants or what he's trying to argue here.

@marksmanmax Also isn't this thread about insurgent pistols? LOL. This whole convo belonged in the TTK kick up the ass or whatever thread. That might've been partially my fault by posting the armor thing.

last edited by thehappybub

@thehappybub Honestly at this point I'm pretty sure Cyoce is just trolling. I used to like the guy but at this point, he's just flaming forum posts with nonsensical babble. He's like Alex Jones except he's not funny, either.

As for what you posted, I'm pretty much in favor unless it's RNG. I hate RNG personally and while some types are better than others, I still want to see more consistency than anything else.

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

@marksmanmax Also isn't this thread about insurgent pistols? LOL. This whole convo belonged in the TTK kick up the ass or whatever thread. That might've been partially my fault by posting the armor thing.

Yeah it was, although my biggest gripe with the Sec pistols being OP kinda involves the armor nerf on Sept 6th, so this is still pretty on-topic.

Fucking hell, when I started these forum posts on the big changes I want to see in Sandstorm, I was hoping I'd end up in civil conversations, not some guy constantly changing his tune and trying to play the same song.

@marksmanmax Whatever, I hope the developers have a good amount of material here to judge what the community as a whole wants best. They might need some software to sort through this crapshoot though.

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

@marksmanmax Whatever, I hope the developers have a good amount of material here to judge what the community as a whole wants best. They might need some software to sort through this crapshoot though.

I've heard they read it all lmao

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

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

@marksmanmax Whatever, I hope the developers have a good amount of material here to judge what the community as a whole wants best. They might need some software to sort through this crapshoot though.

I've heard they read it all lmao

Oh no, rip whoever does that... Developer who reads this, I'm sorry. I'll have Alexa play Despacito in your honor.

@marksmanmax Of course, a modern military game doesn't make sense with everyone running around with no armor. That doesn't mean there must be three different levels of protection. You can remove the mechanic for different armor options and then say everyone has the same armor.

Right now the armor is underpowered, so my logic is that they need a fucking buff. What crack are you smoking that made you forget all logic? Seriously, the fuck?

"removing options doesn't make a game better unless the options are moot." If the option (different armor levels) is moot, removing them makes the game better. Your logic doesn't support the claim that buffing armor makes the game worse, but I'm pointing out how that can contradict your point.

You've made so many claims the past couple days about this topic, yet you have few reasons to support these claims and you have zero evidence to back up anything you say. I honestly don't know what to tell you anymore except for this:

Get your facts from research and don't pull them out of your ass.

Research? What are you talking about? This is a hypothetical change to the game. There would be no "data" on the subject until it is implemented. It's a fact that armor doesn't change damage right now, but that's irrelevant to the discussion of how the game should be. That's only relevant to how the game is now.

To clarify:
I am approaching this from a purely gameplay-oriented perspective. As such, the current model and the absence of armor are functionally identical.

I am suggesting to remove different armor levels because in order for them to be balanced, the TTK would have to be incredibly inconsistent (with armor potentially increasing shots to kill by upwards of 200%). In order to maintain balance and a low TTK, three levels of protection doesn't work. A less extreme approach would be to only consider two protection levels. Maybe remove one option and make it just Unarmored/Light armor or remove the option for combatants to run around in T-shirts. Or just cut the whole thing out and give everyone the same armor.

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