Can I just add that I quite like how it is without the ammo selection. I get that it works with the points system and the armour system. But in original insurgency it was AP ammo or nothing. It was dull; why have a selection when im always going to select AP and im always going to have to allocate those points.
maybe it could work, especially with the current amount of given points, i'd have to sacrifice a nade, or compensator to get AP, and I don't know if its worth it.
Yeah agree, I think purposely making players experience an uncertainty whether a specific loadout/gadget would be the most useful, is one of the keys when introducing those type of features, especially those that affect damage output, because that would mean there is no such thing as a nobrainer choice, or in other words, no choice that is clearly advantageous above other choices which would create a meta loadout.
When players consistently experience that there is no supreme loadout, we get a variation of loadouts across the scene, creating an interesting variety - Expecting devs in most games to have this balanced perfectly before any game release would be very unrealistic, as it in many cases is impossible to be certain what strategies will be used by players after some time and what playstyle will cement as a meta.
An example could be Starcraft Brood War, a game many in this community might be unfamiliar with as it is such a different game, but the developers (Blizzard) of that game had to implement different tools to balance out the three races zerg, protoss and terrans using quite different available tools for each race to make them unique - The players found out new strategies even 10 years after release (!) that changed the balance of which race was the easiest to win with - That type of game would of course be more complicated in regards to balancing, but the point is that a developer simultaneously have to develop a game with all the challenges included in such an effort, and also have playtesters give relevant feedback during the development without being certain that players have found all optimal strategies - And predicting optimal strategies before release would in many cases take too much playtesting and is limited to the creativity of the playtesters.
So a reintroduction of AP ammo might work (but may also be unnecessary, who knows), dependent on fine tuning supply points available, and which other gadgets such a choice would make unavailable because the supply points would not be enough for having all gadgets at once. I think the current balancing strategy NWI is using from how I understand it, trying to make a game where we have choices between armour/no armour, weapon, weight/speed, scopes, recoil- foregrip/heavy barrel/compensator, explosives and whatnot, creates a large diversity on its own, and that there is currently a loadout available for all possible playstyle a player might prefer - unless wanting to excel in all playstyles at once, which is another topic on its own.
Do I want fast speed and easier flanking capabilities on the cost of less protection and lighter guns?
Do I prefer high damage protection and easier aim on the cost of slower movement?
Do I want several explosives to support my team on the cost of a lighter gun, less gadgets for my gun?
Do I want a good sniper weapon on cost of being inferior in CQB?
Do I want the highest damage output on cost of having less explosives and unsteadier aim?
All these options seems to be available, and probably a bunch more that I did not mention/think of here. Adding AP might work - but how it will affect the viability of armours, supply points, current weapon damage outputs etc might be a headache to solve and maybe unnecessary to spend time on analyzing - Because the reason you would want AP ammo in the first place is to lower TTK, bypass armour and penetrate walls - All possible within current system as far as I understand.