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

@cyoce You're wrong. One shot kills not only were a problem in Ins2 because t made things too easy. It also was a problem because that made weapons unbalanced. You could litterally get the cheapest weapon and give it AP ammo to one shot almost anyone. That's a huge problem. How do you make weapons with different calibers and cost stand from each other, if they all manage to one-shot everyone ? That makes people prioritize inexpensive weapons with little recoil. Just like what happened in Ins2.

Plus, the "damage model" in Ins2 was the same as in Sandstorm. Sandstorm might even have a lower TTK than Ins2 when you don't get AP rounds, so... Yeah...

@grumf You guys all kill me 😂. Insurgency Source wasn’t really one shot kill. Sure for the most part but I had many many instances using the mp5 with AP rounds against someone with heavy armour and it sure as hell would take more than one bullet to kill them unless to head. Sometimes taking 3-4 (close range all bullets landing)and that’s using the infamous “AP Rounds” albeit with an smg..

@grumf

As I already explained, the advantage of the M14 over the M16 is a thigh shot would be a oneshot. Your effective target was larger. The disadvantage being heavier recoil making follow-up shots harder. The AKM penetrated walls better than the M16, was cheaper, shorter and had full auto capability. However, the M16 fired slightly faster.

All the guns fit beautifully into this meta. Anything got the job done, but some guns like the MP5 had excellent suppressive potential, others like the AK74 cost more supply but functioned like a full auto version of the M16, etc.

@grumf Really? "You're wrong?" Are you struggling with the distinction of facts vs. opinions?

Cheaper guns would only one shot at close range, and lower calibers would two shot to the stomach a lot of the time. What the standard damage model is named is irrelevant. When the vast majority of Insurgency players used AP ammo, that becomes the standard experience. Removing purchasable AP ammo because everyone used it is fine; just make it the default because everyone used it.

Since every gun killed quickly, almost any gun (looking at you, shotguns) was viable. For example:

The MP5k is lighter and has a faster rate of fire, making it well-suited to aggressive play in close quarters. The M16/M4 fire slower and are heavier, but they are accurate in medium range, which the MP5k struggles at due to its higher recoil and poor precision. They also one shot more often in close to medium range.

The FAL is always a one shot kill, and is effective at any range. However, it starts with high recoil, lower capacity and poor handling if you don't pimp it out. It's not possible to buy every necessary attachment for the FAL even if you drop all armor, nades, and chest rigs. You have to play a few rounds before you have enough points to get the FAL to maximum effectiveness.

You can even make the Sterling and Makarov work in Insurgency if you want to rush and surprise people by engaging them before they're used to being engaged.

last edited by cyoce

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

Already near-exclusively using the FAL as nearly everything else is worthless. Thanks for your insight into the subject, though.

Multiple enemies in coop, you can reasonably be dealing with 15+ at once pouring through a doorway.

Real weird choice. An AKM with a drum mag on single-shot lets me solo COOP games. A pistol lets me double or triple tap up to 5 bots if my PKK runs out of ammo. Never even touched FAL because it's a bad weapon. Hell a shotgun or mosin is more fun and effective.

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?

@cyoce @Grumf

Seems you both agree, both of you are stating both facts and personal preferences.
Personally, even if I consider that AP ammo was a meta in Ins2, I really enjoy that game, though I can see that the amount of differences in guns had areas where they were more similar than in Sandstorm - Still I didn't care too much.

In Sandstorm, with a slightly higher ttk, I will probably stick to guns with a high damage output and reasonably low weight - That will be my new go-to personally, but again I don't worry as long as I find a few loadouts in both games that are viable for me in the situations I like to jump into.

I do believe anyway, that players can find a personal loadout that will suit them well for their preferred playstyle in both games, or is it currently your experience that there is certain playstyles that is not viable in either game - or that the variety within preferred playstyle is too limited?

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

Real weird choice. An AKM with a drum mag on single-shot lets me solo COOP games. A pistol lets me double or triple tap up to 5 bots if my PKK runs out of ammo. Never even touched FAL because it's a bad weapon. Hell a shotgun or mosin is more fun and effective.

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?

You can solo with an AKM. Congratulations. It still takes 2-3 torso shots to kill a person as we are discussing. Not sure how your capability to solo a lobby which has proportionally reduced bots as only you are in it, is relevant to this discussion.

The FAL onetaps in the torso regardless of armour - this is a fact. Not sure why you think it's bad but you're entitled to your opinion.

I agree in Ins2014 it sometimes took 3 shots to take somebody out with an M16. But you had to shoot them in the hands for it to take 3 shots. Again, not totally following your point.

"You people". In my case at least, I proposed exactly what I want: (Please note, it is not a one hit kill in the knee in the way you are attempting to misrepresent my argument.)

What I propose isn't exactly the Ins2014 system. AP was OP, etc etc. I get it. How about this:

7.62x51 + 7.62x54
One hit kill to torso and upper legs at medium / close range.
One hit kill to torso at long range.
Punches through cover exceptionally.

7.62x39
One hit kill to torso at medium / close range.
One hit kill to upper torso at long range.
Punches through cover fairly well.

5.56 + 5.45
One hit kill to torso at medium / close range.
One hit kill to upper torso at long range.
Punches through cover better than pistol rounds but not brilliantly.

Give body armour SAPI sized hitboxes. Each plate absorbs 1 bullet of anything smaller than a battle rifle then "breaks". Light armour being a front and back SAPI, heavy including side plates and a femoral plate.

Boom, sorted. 1-2 hit kills, every calibre has its own niche keeping weapons relevant and gunfights appropriately scary.

@Pakislav

I found the FAL in Ins2 to be quite good in pvp - Though I would never choose it if I was not thrown into a game where the other class slots were already occupied, mainly because I most often use iron sights, and with the FAL, I found myself often attaching a cobra sight which I feel is so cheap as the aiming gets so easy=)

EDIT: The iron sight on FAL was not to my liking.

last edited by Pacalis

The current ttk is pretty good rn, if it were a 1 hit kill people would just spray all over the map hoping for a lucky kill, instead atleast headshots are 1 hit, so you can become skilled enough to hit headshots, add some skill to the gunplay, i hated how ins2014 you just went AP and fucking anhilated everyone, dont want that shit back, also i think all guns are 3 hits max for a kill, atleast for the chest, unless its a pistol against heavy armor, so you probably missed 1 or 2 shots, it has happened to me but its just bad connection of the shots, atleast tagging is back in the game which doesnt let you run from someone who just hit you.

@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.

@freedn

But mate... guns hurt people...

If somebody is spraying your neighbourhood down with a PKM, you shouldn't feel the level of comfort your armchair is affording you while taking a good look out of the window. You should be fucking scared. Scared he'll see movement in the window and tear the wall you're hiding behind apart. You should be motionless or kittycrawling across the room to get out the back door and flank.

Sandstorm should be a proper immersion shooter. This is the market Ins2014 and DoI excelled in because nobody else is doing it. It is awesome.

Having to watergun people down with multiple rounds removes this.

last edited by Whitby

@pacalis That's... not what agree means. And yeah, I'm also sticking to high damage guns. I feel like I have to use them because the others put me at a disadvantage. Funny how that works. So much for improved balance with the removal of AP ammo. Playstyle variety has also taken a hit. A bunch of factors---too many to reasonably list in one sentence---have coalesced to make faster flanking playstyles less effective. This game is definitely headed for slower, more campy playstyles. Said factors are listed below:

  • Higher TTK, RNG recoil, and sway devalue the advantage of flanking by giving people more time to return fire
  • Weapons integral to fast/flanking playstyles (SMGs and carbines) deal less damage than battle rifles, reducing their effectiveness
  • Heavily increased sway (and inability to hold breath) after sprinting punishes substantial movement
  • Lowered run speed and greater reliance on heavy equipment makes movement take longer
  • Larger maps make traversing the map and flanking take longer
  • More open maps reward sniping and bipoding with LMGs, increasing your risk of getting sniped if you play aggressively
  • Larger restricted areas make flanking less feasible

I'd like to make some alterations to what I proposed earlier in this thread actually:

7.62x51 + 7.62x54
One hit kill to torso and upper legs at medium / close range.
One hit kill to torso at long range.
Punches through cover exceptionally.

7.62x39
One hit kill to torso at medium / close range.
One hit kill to upper torso at long range.
Punches through cover fairly well.

5.56 + 5.45
One hit kill to torso at medium / close range.
One hit kill to upper torso at long range.
Punches through cover better than pistol rounds but not brilliantly.

4.6 (Ignores SAPI plates entirely.)
Two hits to upper torso.
Three hits to lower torso.
Negligible penetration.

9mm
Two hits to upper torso.
Three hits to lower torso.
Negligible penetration.

.45
Two hits to torso.
Negligible penetration.

I don't really hold an opinion on shotguns.

Give body armour SAPI sized hitboxes. Each plate absorbs 1 bullet then "breaks". Light armour being a front and back SAPI, heavy including side plates and a femoral plate. AP rounds should be included on the guns which already have it ingame. These weapons should not "break" SAPI plates but should ignore them. This would ensure torso shots from bolt rifles are one hit kills which they really, REALLY, REALLY need to be. Looking at you M40. Would also ensure a stray 4.6mm round wouldn't remove your expensive SAPI plate from a quarter of a mile away making you more vulnerable.

last edited by Whitby

@cyoce

Hey, thats a pretty sweet summary!

I guess I meant none of you are actually contradicting each other to a high extent on the facts you both say, though you have both clearly opposite preferences=)

@whitby I think the damage models you propose seems to look alright - Though as I mentioned (being a fan of pvp), I rarely count bullets I shot towards any given enemy, as shooting 1 or 3 bullets hardly matter to my playstyle in pvp.

I do think heavy armour should stop at least one 7.62 - 51/54 though, more because it being a computer game and good for a players motivation to choose body armour. But it seems real armour could stop at least 1 7.62 in reality as well from my limited knowledge.

0_1543345157485_armour.PNG

SOURCE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_armor

@pacalis

The majority of folks you see with plates in the middle east are running plates which are rated to stop 7.62 NATO and smaller rounds. The reality is these plates will usually stop a fair few - I have two friends who can attest to this personally, both of whom were kicking in doors at the time of confirming this interesting fact.

Tarkov made the mistake of making body armour absorb realistic amounts of ammo. What isn't accounted for when a round hits a plate, is that the person wearing that plate sits down, usually for a little while. Their team step over them to clear the room - exceptional circumstances aside, people tend not to continue fighting.

Additionally, Tarkov made the whole torso bulletproof, not just the area covered by the plate. Again, this was terrible for gameplay.

What I want to see is a system where choosing armour grants a key and definitive edge. However, I want a game with extreme lethality. This is why I suggest plates are their real size and that they simply become expended after one hit. I think this takes inspiration from the real world but serves up a solution which will be conducive to balance and gameplay.

@Whitby
Thanks for clarifying. I also would optimally want a game with extreme lethality - That is after all why I got addicted to Ins2 in the first place.

@planetcanada Yeah, with a small number of weapons such as the MP5 or AC-556, one shot kills were not guaranteed. Those are exceptions. Devs did not remove that AP ammo for nothing, you know... It's a meta, end of the story. If most guns do kill in one shot "like original Insurgency" as the people arguing for a lower TTK put it (and you're perfectly right to say Ins2 was indeed NOT a one-shot fest - especially without AP rounds if I may add), it would just break the game. One or two weapons that wouldn't abide by the "rule" of one shot kills wouldn't change much of the problem.

Now am I of those who want higher TTK ? No. Fuck that. I don't want more than 3 bullets, 4 tops even though I'd consider it pretty annoying unless it's with a low recoil smg, to kill my targets. I think TTK is good right now. Tweaking battle rifles needs to be done, though, as they don't offer much of an advantage compared to basic assault rifles atm.

last edited by Grumf

@grumf

I would imagine battle rifle have a slight advantage on higher range with scopes as in last game imo - But I am currently reinstalling Sandstorm to test if I can run the game on my . still potato rig (MSI GE70)

last edited by Pacalis

Uhm... What.

FAL/M14 are the best long, medium and arguably vs the MP7 short range guns ingame right now. It's down 33% of the ammo compared to a M16 but kills in 66%-33% less shots. Unlike the other guns, these two only need slight buffs.