Does anyone else think that time to kill is a little high compared to original Insurgency?

@pakislav said in Does anyone else think that time to kill is a little high compared to original Insurgency?:

Sure I liked tap-tap-taping bots with an M16 in Ins2 en masse. But even in that game it sometimes took 3 shots to take them out. What's this thread about. You people really want every weapon in the game to one-shot kill people when you hit them in knee?

I liked ins2 but I always had issues with its gunplay. The ttk and ap ammo meta led to some really awkward gameplay that wasn't at all realistic. Even though I completely agree with @Whitby's proposition and have called for something very similar myself, I don't see what needs to happen beyond implementing realistic damage models to armor...

If you don't wear armor then tough luck you're gonna get killed real fast, but if you wear armor (as most everyone does these days) it should afford protection to realistic zones on the body. This issue is different than TTK even though it affects it. The game could still instill a fear of getting shot without instagibs through suppression effect and perhaps some kind of knock-back mechanic when getting shot in armor.

Getting shot shouldn't be something you can just shrug off or ignore, but you also shouldn't get killed for taking a hit to the arm or the foot or through armor.

@pakislav said in Does anyone else think that time to kill is a little high compared to original Insurgency?:

@pacalis

Yeah, some iron-sights are just not meant to be without binocular vision. Some FPS should finally make the gun/scope semi-transparent when aiming to simulate you actually having two eyes and being able to see the damn thing you are aiming at.

Also this really needs to happen. Already seen and made a couple posts on this.

last edited by thehappybub

@pakislav said in Does anyone else think that time to kill is a little high compared to original Insurgency?:

You people really want every weapon in the game to one-shot kill people when you hit them in knee?

Why the hell do they keep doing this?
I am almost convinced that the ones wanting this battlefield damage model in Sandstorm haven't even played the original Insurgency2014.

When we say "1 shot 1 kill" we mean "1 shot 1 kill to the head, chest and stomach" (like insurgency2014).
We expect that people who actually have come to discuss this sequel are familiar with the prequel.
This is the 5th time I've seen people pull this
BRO YOU WANT THEM TO DIE FROM A SINGLE SHOT TO THE LEG WTFFFF.
Sure, they can die to 1 shot to the limb, that is if you pick HP ammo which then leads to a tradeoff of armor taking up to 5+ shots with medium caliber rifles to body armor
Same with AP. 1 shot the the chest and stomach while less damage is done against the limbs
This is a dymamic that HP/AP brings into the games

But even in that game it sometimes took 3 shots to take them out

Only if you shot them in the limb with AP ammo. Regular does more damage against the limbs and HP kills in 1 shot.

I'm fairly certain that the same people who want 1 hit KOs from almost every gun would be the first to complain that "I die from 1 hit WTF OMG HE HIT ME IN THE TOE! GAME SUX GIMME REFUND NOW!" after it is implemented.

Can we just lock this fucking thread already? It's the same old re-hashed, copy-pasted arguments from every other goddamn TTK thread. It's like these people are broken records. Can we just ban "TTK" threads already? No one ever changes their minds or actually discusses anything in them. They just state their (never changing) opinion over and over and call that "discussion".

last edited by AMURKA

@amurka

You're the only person here not engaging in the discussion.

I loved Ins2014 and DoI because of how the gameplay made me feel. I'm not alone. I'm confident I speak for the rest of us when I confidently proclaim we are not going to complain about dying in one hit when we can kill things in one hit too.

So @whitby, are you in the current ttk camp, the lower ttk camp (like @Slazenger) or the make armor realistic camp (like me) because I'm kind of confused, you're making arguments for a few sides.

Id rather not change the ttk but it be more punishable for you to receive shots, theres tagging, but some aimpunch and feeling of being scared, rs2's so to speak where your character shakes for some moment and the screen gets a bit yellow, would be even better.

Though the thing that really needs to be changed is that if you dont have any armor at all, you should really die in one shot, and it shouldnt be almost the same as light armor, which really fucks up balance.

Edit: Oh and the bolt action rifles do really need to be a 1 hit kill no matter what, that should be their advantage, and the disadvantage being how slow they are.

last edited by FreedN

"Current TTK, make armor realistic" over here! ๐Ÿค˜๐Ÿผ

@thehappybub said in Does anyone else think that time to kill is a little high compared to original Insurgency?:

So @whitby, are you in the current ttk camp, the lower ttk camp (like @Slazenger) or the make armor realistic camp (like me) because I'm kind of confused, you're making arguments for a few sides.

I'm a millennial, so I don't like labels.

I stated exactly where I think the damage should be at for each calibre which is a significant reduction in TTK. I also stated what I believe to be the right solution to armour. It's not a realistic solution, it's the solution I think offers the best gameplay. It makes armour more relevant and even included in what I propose still nets that all-important TTK reduction.

@whitby said in Does anyone else think that time to kill is a little high compared to original Insurgency?:

I'm a millennial, so I don't like labels.

Lol

The thing is that I don't think your damage model would significantly lower ttk. It would basically just be the same, except well-placed follow up shots would be rewarded more than limb tapping (double tap, for example, which kind of makes the gameplay more realsitic).

Current situation with M16/AK/SKS:
You fire two rounds into somebody's chest, person carries on running. (Heavy armour)

My solution with M16/AK/SKS:
First round breaks the plate, second round breaks the person.
OR: First round hits the upper torso not covered by the plate and breaks the person.

This brings a 2-3 hit kill down to 1-2 hit kill and rewards aiming around the plate.

Current situation with M40:
Your round into their chest cavity inconveniences them mildly as they stumble slightly while walking.

My solution with M40:
They die.

last edited by Whitby

@whitby thats true, though for most rifles which are currently 2 shot kills, which most people use, it doesnt change anything.

The m16 and ak are 2 shot unless you hit limbs. At least thats my experience, ive never had to do more than a double tap to the torso and I generally run the FAL or ak74 (fal usually one shots anyway).

I'm happy with the marksman class's weapons being more lethal, as they should be. Sks is kind of a marksman weapon in a way.

last edited by thehappybub

@amurka You sound like the broken record bud. From what I see people are just discussing the matter your the only sounding like you might be throwing a bit of a temper tantrum.. Maybe itโ€™s nap time?

@thehappybub

M16/AK/SKS are 2-3 hits in the torso depending on range/armour. My suggestion drops it by 1. That's 33%-50% statistical difference. In practice I'd estimate it'll amount to more like a 35% difference if the armour is changed accordingly.

FAL is always a oneshot in the torso, I'd extend that to the upper legs but increase the worth of armour by letting a plate absorb one FAL round. In this case I think the TTK would be fairly similiar but it'd differentiate the battle rifles more as it offers a much larger target to aim for. Of course I'd also have the G3 and SCAR fire the same bullet as the FAL, although I'd have the range at which a leg shot doesn't kill occur a little sooner for the SCAR to account for slightly nicer sights/handling.

last edited by Whitby

Nah let's drop it by 49%. So a 2 hit kill becomes a 1.02 hit kill. Much more balanced this way. You're getting 98% what you want so you can't really complain...

last edited by AMURKA

@AMURKA
I believe the majority of players would be content with the damage models in Sandstorm, especially if they haven't played the prequel, as it is a niche genre that may feel a bit unforgiving on new players who prefer more casual shooters. I also don't think the developers pay too much attention to our ttk talks, as they have heard it many times already and also notice that only a few players think the ttk is very high, so I don't think you need to worry that they get the feeling a majority wants them to push down on the damage models. Still I enjoy discussing ttk and the aspects that made me enjoy Ins2 so much - As it is cool to hear perspectives from other players on a game I have a lot of enthusiasm for. Though for me it is not of any importance that we all come to some agreement of what is best - Its more about trying to analyze great games with like minded people, as it is a nice break from discussing politics and other topics that I mostly engage in=)

We've made a lot of balance changes based on internal testing and community feedback during all phases of the Alpha/Beta which have effected TTK. Everything from tagging to armour to ammo to player speed and more has been adjusted. We'll continue to adjust based on player feedback, but there's certainly no clear community consensus judging by this thread and all the others we've seen.

The Insurgency series has always had a unique gameplay style and we'll continue adjusting to make sure everything feels right.

@alexblonski Fight the good fight itโ€™s impossible to please everyone! Keep up the good work! Game on!

no. not at all. no freaking way. I love the time to kill. Its so satisfying. I haven't experimented with the guns much, and haven't used any submachineguns. I stick to the AK/M4 and find the ak is always a 2 hit kill and the m4 is often a 2 hit kill and never more than 3. One hit headshots are good.
I've just been playing some late night 5 v 5 PvP on a bunch of maps and it was really good fun.
Whitby I think friendly fire does slightly less damage. Slightly. Which is a good thing.

Don't make this call of duty by making me pump 6 rounds into a guy before they go down. This is insurgency, and some of you fellas can't aim if you reckon you need 6 bullets to kill a guy. ๐Ÿ˜‰

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.

last edited by brumby92

@brumby92

@brumby92 said:

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.

last edited by Pacalis