The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model

This is more-or-less just gonna be a few links to some of my forum posts that I think would improve Sandstorm's overall gunplay the most. Obviously, this is my personal opinion, and I'm not trying to claim that "I've got the best suggestion and everyone else is wrong". I've seen enough of those posts (AKA more than zero) and that's now what I'm trying to accomplish here. I just Sandstorm's gunplay to be balanced and overall just "feel good", with every weapon in the game having a distinct purpose.

Personally, I think NWI should do four things.

  1. Buff armor back to the original values before the Sept. 6th patch. (The M24 isn't as bad now as when I made this post)
  1. Give both bolt-action rifles a Long Barrel by default and remove it from every other weapon in the game.
  1. Make the M24 a viable weapon and remove Compensators from bolt-action rifles.
  1. Tweak pistols so the Insurgent handguns are more balanced with the Security pistols.
last edited by MarksmanMax

I've read some of these, and I'll sum up what I think about them.

(Also, why make a post plugging your own posts? You've posted them, they've been read, replied to, and discussed. this just seems like shamelessly bumping 4 of your own threads because you think they didn't get enough traffic. Anyone who is interested in an index of points you've made only has to go to your profile and check out your posts.)

@marksmanmax said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

Personally, I think NWI should do four things.

  1. Buff armor back to the original values before the Sept. 6th patch. (The M24 isn't as bad now as when I made this post)

I really don't have an opinion on this. I haven't noticed much difference TBH. Armor is always a situational upgrade anyway, as headshots still happen.

  1. Give both bolt-action rifles a Long Barrel by default and remove it from every other weapon in the game.

Um, excuse me? In this post you were saying that rifles have an effective range of 120, and that its the marksmans job past that. This isn't true in game or IRL. In reality marksman rifles are used starting at about 300ish meters. The M16 can shoot accurately up to around 600m, more like 850 with a long barrel. AKs have a much shorter effective range because of the larger round and less efficient gas system, up to around 400m, which is still much farther than you were saying.

Im not saying that INS has to accurately reflect these IRL values, but rifles still seem to be effective at realistic ranges (aka farther than 120m) in game, as they should be. The marksmans job is intel first, shooting second. They have access to much more high power scopes, and they do have an easier time engaging in long range combat than rifles right now. They can see farther and shoot more accurately than rifles, but that doesn't mean the rifle shouldn't be able to do the same job at reduced efficiency. Most marksman rifles are just modded ARs anyway, like the MK12 which I wish was in game.

The long barrel allows any rifleman to operate as a marksman at a reduced level of efficiency, but not by much. This is how it should be, and if a team has too many of them they'll lose anyway.

And if it doesn't increase your weapons length in game it should, would be less of a burden for marksmen and more of a burden for everyone who wants to be moving around more.

  1. Make the M24 a viable weapon and remove Compensators from bolt-action rifles.

Again, not too much opinion on this. Not sure why compensators are an upgrade for bolts in the first place. I rather like the M24, but I'm not trying to find the meta so it doesn't bother me. I use it often and effectively, and its fun. I dont think its a bad weapon atm. I could see why people would think it is, but I have a very similar experience with the mosin.

  1. Tweak pistols so the Insurgent handguns are more balanced with the Security pistols.

Have you ever shot the makarov? or the M1911? or the M9? The insurgent pistols aren't as good, as they shouldn't be in this situation. It makes sense that security has a wider selection with more toys. Sure they have a pistol that can 2 shot heavy armor. Oh well. I know for a fact they don't have the recoil control I have with a makarov. It seems like all of your comparisons are only taking damage and not ease of use into account. Back in the mod days the insurgents only had the makarov and the security had a fucking M9! One side had 21 rounds of doom vs the makarovs like 12 bullet mag or something. The M9 had a a high ROF with lotsa bullets + better dmg, and the makarov had better accuracy and recoil control. It was a preference thing, and I never felt that it was unfair. It was simply different. Just like how Insurgents always have an advantage in CQC if they have an AK and the other guy has an M16 because of the sights (at least iron sights). Insurgency works best when its asymmetrical (I wish they would bring security's semi-auto shotgun back) and I wouldn't have it any other way.

last edited by Marxman LMC

I agree with every one of your points, actually.

Balance in general seems a bit all over the place right now tbh. Your points would be a good step into the right direction.

@marxman-lmc said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

(Also, why make a post plugging your own posts? You've posted them, they've been read, replied to, and discussed. this just seems like shamelessly bumping 4 of your own threads because you think they didn't get enough traffic. Anyone who is interested in an index of points you've made only has to go to your profile and check out your posts.)

The biggest reason I made a combined post of my other posts is because I'm honestly terrified that NWI's gonna make the wrong decision. A lot of players say the current TTK is good and I just don't think that's the case at all. The armor nerf was bad. 5.56x45 weapons are now stronger than 7.62x39 weapons in every regard.

@marxman-lmc said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

@marksmanmax said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model: 1) Buff armor back to the original values before the Sept. 6th patch. (The M24 isn't as bad now as when I made this post)

I really don't have an opinion on this. I haven't noticed much difference TBH. Armor is always a situational upgrade anyway, as headshots still happen.

You probably haven't noticed much of a difference because armor barely makes a difference lmao.

@marxman-lmc said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

@marksmanmax said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

  1. Give both bolt-action rifles a Long Barrel by default and remove it from every other weapon in the game.

Um, excuse me? In this post you were saying that rifles have an effective range of 120, and that its the marksmans job past that. This isn't true in game or IRL. In reality marksman rifles are used starting at about 300ish meters. The M16 can shoot accurately up to around 600m, more like 850 with a long barrel. AKs have a much shorter effective range because of the larger round and less efficient gas system, up to around 400m, which is still much farther than you were saying.

Im not saying that INS has to accurately reflect these IRL values, but rifles still seem to be effective at realistic ranges (aka farther than 120m) in game, as they should be. The marksmans job is intel first, shooting second. They have access to much more high power scopes, and they do have an easier time engaging in long range combat than rifles right now. They can see farther and shoot more accurately than rifles, but that doesn't mean the rifle shouldn't be able to do the same job at reduced efficiency. Most marksman rifles are just modded ARs anyway, like the MK12 which I wish was in game.

The long barrel allows any rifleman to operate as a marksman at a reduced level of efficiency, but not by much. This is how it should be, and if a team has too many of them they'll lose anyway.

Rifles do have an effective range of about 120-150 meters.

By effective range I'm specifically talking about the range at which your weapon's projectiles are instant (hitscan). Once you're engaging past that distance, your bullets follow a ballistic model instead.

The "realism" argument in general isn't very solid because Sandstorm isn't a milsim, nor do I ever want it to be.

The Marksman can't really provide much intel since he has no binocs or anything. Sure, he can use his scope to spot enemies but the scope is attached to what you should be using to eliminate that enemy. Reconnosaince isn't his job; otherwise, he would be called a Recon and not Designated Marksman / Sniper.

Most rifles can already snipe at long distances (especially 5.56 weapons; they can get a farther effective range than most weapons).

If you read my tagged post, you'd see that my biggest issue with the Long Barrel attachment is that it actually increases damage. It happens to be enough of a boost to make the G3A3, FAL, and M14 EBR one-shot Heavy Armor in CQB, and the EBR /w a Long Barrel is more powerful than an M24 /w a Long Barrel, even downrange. It's balanced-ish on the SVD compared to the Mosin but tbh it just needs to go for game balance purposes (although I suggested keeping the Long Barrel on the M24 and Mosin by default, and then allowing other muzzle attachments on the bolt-action rifles).

@marxman-lmc said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

  1. Make the M24 a viable weapon and remove Compensators from bolt-action rifles.

Again, not too much opinion on this. Not sure why compensators are an upgrade for bolts in the first place. I rather like the M24, but I'm not trying to find the meta so it doesn't bother me. I use it often and effectively, and its fun. I dont think its a bad weapon atm. I could see why people would think it is, but I have a very similar experience with the mosin.

That's not the issue. At range, the M24 simply fails to take down targets. Even at maybe a hundred meters I can't get a consistent one-shot on body shots with that thing. It's terrible. The M14 EBR actually has better range for some reason. Currently, the meta is "Stay away from the shitty Security bolt-rifle".

On the other hand, the Mosin-Nagant is an absolute slayer. The only issue is that the Greased Bolt attachment doesn't work with a few scopes (specifically, the scopes that prevent the usage of stripper clips).

@marxman-lmc said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

  1. Tweak pistols so the Insurgent handguns are more balanced with the Security pistols.

Have you ever shot the makarov? or the M1911? or the M9? The insurgent pistols aren't as good, as they shouldn't be in this situation. It makes sense that security has a wider selection with more toys. Sure they have a pistol that can 2 shot heavy armor. Oh well. I know for a fact they don't have the recoil control I have with a makarov. It seems like all of your comparisons are only taking damage and not ease of use into account. Back in the mod days the insurgents only had the makarov and the security had a fucking M9! One side had 21 rounds of doom vs the makarovs like 12 bullet mag or something. The M9 had a a high ROF with lotsa bullets + better dmg, and the makarov had better accuracy and recoil control. It was a preference thing, and I never felt that it was unfair. It was simply different. Just like how Insurgents always have an advantage in CQC if they have an AK and the other guy has an M16 because of the sights (at least iron sights). Insurgency works best when its asymmetrical (I wish they would bring security's semi-auto shotgun back) and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Again with the realism argument here.

Considering you typically get more pistol options than primary weapon options, I want pistols to be balanced across the board. Fuck, ideally I want everything to be balanced so every weapon has a purpose.

Both factions have a Colt .45 that two-shots Heavy Armor. The problem is that the Security L106A1, a 9mm pistol, also two-shots Heavy Armor, making the M45 redundant and also making it one of the best pistols in the game, tied with the Glock 17 that can get more rounds per mag than an Uzi with Ext Mags. Insurgent handguns just can't compete by comparison, with the Hi-Power that only holds up to 20 rounds with lower damage than the Glock 17 , an M9 that's slightly better than the Glock 17 and worse than the L106A1 in every regard, and the M1911 which is a shittier version of the M45 that also has a more expensive suppressor (why?).

Recoil control is one thing, but if you're up against a guy who already has good recoil control then the damage is the predominant factor. You're probably gonna lose in a Makarov vs M45 fight with two players of equal skill. Mind you, the L106A1 didn't use to two-shot Heavy Armor; that's only because of the armor nerf on Sept. 6th.

The "ease of use" of most weapons isn't a big factor because most weapons (like 75%) are fairly easy to use anyway. In fact, I just recently realized how shit the M1911 recoil is when compared to the M45, which doesn't seem fair at all.

Currently, Sandstorm isn't very asymmetrical. Both 7.62x39 and 5.56x45 kill in two shots in CQB, and most 5.56 weapons have a higher fire rate than Insurgent AKs, giving Security a noticeable advantage in TTK.

last edited by MarksmanMax

Only if they keep the current weight of armor and make unarmored target one shot kill, then I'm fine with it. Oh, also revert ads speed to the first beta! And yes, there's no reason to wear light armor right now or use any 5.56 weapons since they are all outperformed by battle rifles.

last edited by ctbear1996

@marksmanmax None of the guns will "feel good" when you have to hit the enemy with more than 1 shot.

@slazenger op is not arguing that an unarmored target shouldn't be one shot...

@slazenger said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

@marksmanmax None of the guns will "feel good" when you have to hit the enemy with more than 1 shot.

thats your opinion and not a fact.

@slazenger said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

@marksmanmax None of the guns will "feel good" when you have to hit the enemy with more than 1 shot.

Well thats absolutely ridiculous. Even in Red Orchestra it can take more than 1 round to kill, and I think ROs guns feel very fucking good.

I support a low TTK, but I don't think anything should be guaranteed.

@MarksmanMax I think the main reason I disagree with you is because we see the game very differently. I've brought it up before, but I dont think TTK should be reliant on the number of shots. It seems cheesy as fuck when you can count rounds to know when someone will die. I'd much rather take Rising Storm 2's approach to this and have a number of zones that are an insta kill. Like heart, spine, and groin. Body shots shouldn't always be a one hit kill. You should have to hit something vital. Again with rising storm 2, a game I consider to be very balanced and has very good gunplay, you can hit someone in the body and they dont go down 100 percent of them time. It makes the TTK varied based on the range and shooter skill. I don't think Sandstorms guns are really in a bad place, and I can't think that having every gun be formulaic would be a good thing. Would be incredibly boring IMO.

I'm just not feeling any of these things that you are. I agree that every weapon needs a purpose, and that things need to be changed, I don't think this is the right way though. I think we need MORE variation, not less. All this talk about this gun takes this many shots just reminds me of other games that shall not be mentioned.

@marxman-lmc Thank you. Vital zones that would be 1 shot kills. Armor that protects them... these are natural concepts that seem to go over everyone's head in search of a more ins2 arcade experience or something. Still, I agree with @MarksmanMax's points in general, as I don't see how they contradict what you've outlined.

last edited by thehappybub

@marxman-lmc Ehhhh. I dunno. Personally, while Rising Storm 2's damage model (as well as the previous game) is interesting and all, I'm not big on the "vital hit areas" thing.

All in all, the changes I've suggested balance out certain weapons here and there, but the thing I want to see the absolute most is consistency. I'd actually play Escape From Tarkov if the game had any sort of consistency whatsoever. Sometimes, someone dies in one pistol shot, and another guy takes a full clip of 7.62x54r ammo from a Mosin to die.

I don't want enemies to take more shots simply dependent on exact vital organ hit locations. I feel like the gunplay would become a mix of "Lol that guy got domed" and "WTF HOW DID THIS FUCKER NOT DIE?" and for a game marketing itself as a competitive shooter I just don't think going down that route is a good idea.

Yeah, it's not very realistic to have enemies always die in two 7.62x39 shots. The thing is, though, there's other factors like distance and objects between the bullet and the target that can reduce the TTK consistency already. Adding in more specific damage model elements would almost make the guns feel like RNG IMO.

@marksmanmax you can still incorporate @Marxman-LMC's dmg model, though. Instead of having to exactly hit the heart or certain organs, the vital zones could simply be represented as squares or whatever in the general location, therefore there wouldn't be too many awkward situations. Like a general lethal hitbox encompassing the entire upper torso, for example or whatever.

last edited by thehappybub

Just wanna put out there that a too complex hit-area system can quickly end up being random. While that might be cool for a casual game like RS2, i kinda got the impression SS wanted to lean more towards a more competitive setting. Because if it wasn't.... it's doing a terrible job. It's way too arcady to have such a realistic dmg model.

last edited by Benz

@benz That's true, but what I'm saying is that the "vital organs" hitbox could just be, say, the whole torso or something overexaggerated like that.

@benz said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

Just wanna put out there that a too complex hit-area system can quickly end up being random. While that might be cool for a casual game like RS2, i kinda got the impression SS wanted to lean more towards a more competitive setting. Because if it wasn't.... it's doing a terrible job. It's way too arcady to have such a realistic dmg model.

Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. For me, consistency is the most important factor in a damage model. I don't care if every player takes six torso shots to die from 5.56 (granted, I obviously don't want model that in Sandstorm lmao). I'd rather have that than have the problem EFT has where one guy could die in two pistol shots and another can tank like six 7.62x39 rounds before dying.

A little rant about EFT: The reason I hate the game (and uninstalled it again) is the inconsistency. I obviously already mentioned the damage model, but that's not the only issue. Scavs are sometimes complete garbage and miss like twenty rounds back to back or are absolute god-tier players that do shit players can't even do, like break my leg with one 12 gauge buckshot round from a Saiga 12k from thirty meters while the leg that was broken couldn't even be shot, or break my other leg with two Makarov shots from fifteen meters without missing. Reminds me of the CTA or Beta1 AI; I can't remember which one it was, exactly, where most bots were shit but about 5% of those bots were fucking Terminators.

last edited by MarksmanMax

@thehappybub said in The Steps I Think NWI Should Take Regarding The Current Damage Model:

@benz That's true, but what I'm saying is that the "vital organs" hitbox could just be, say, the whole torso or something overexaggerated like that.

Then... why bother including it lmao. Sounds like the TTK would go back to Ins2014 with that model.

@marksmanmax How would it go back to ins2? If an unarmored torso is 1 hit, then armoring it would make it not 1 hit...
There can be a torso box, a groin box, inner thigh boxes... but whatever, the point is that the general location of the shot should matter more than it currently does.

last edited by thehappybub

@benz
No it's 100% true fact and confirmed to me because I played Call of Duty: BO on consoles for a few years, then I brought it on PC and played the game on HARDCORE CAPTURE THE FLAG, where (almost) every gun killed on 1 shot. It was a phenomenal change from CORE to HARDCORE and played like a completely new game. The gunplay was much more enjoyable and instead of using the 3 shot to kill assault rifles I could have fun using all the other weapons and submachine guns in the game that I could never use in CORE.

Further confirmed to me again by playing Day of Infamy and Insurgency2014 with it's lethality then Sandstorm with it's lack of lethality.

Fact: 1 shot 1 kills feel good and are satisfying.

@slazenger Heaven forbid someone have a differing opinion from you...

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