What I think Insurgency Sandstorm gets RIGHT.

@gm29 That's enough man, you're putting things in quotes that i didn't say. Using ridiculous examples of things i didn't say or state i agreed with. Disagreeing with things you previously said you wanted yourself for example more realistic weapon damage.

I don't know how you managed to write 2 pages about the fact that i think weps should do more damage and how i was concerned about how realistic armor would affect gameplay.

Anyways have fun with that.. I have better things to do than fight for every sentence i type and even the ones i didn't.

Thanks for your input on this topic πŸ˜ƒ gm29

@gm29 @gm29 said in Why the hell does the M249 have so much recoil even on single shot?:

Unfortunately I am unable to test what the guns perform like in Sandstorm as I had to refund it due to it being unplayable on my PC.

I appreciate the fact that you care enough about a game? To post such detailed responses with lots of accurate info.

It doesn't seem beneficial to pick apart peoples opinions on how certain aspects effect gameplay when you can't play the game. πŸ˜•

@turyl said in What I think Insurgency Sandstorm gets RIGHT.:

@gm29 That's enough man, you're putting things in quotes that i didn't say. Using ridiculous examples of things i didn't say or state i agreed with. Disagreeing with things you previously said you wanted yourself for example more realistic weapon damage.

I quoted you directly in all my responses - and nothing I said in response to them is inaccurate.

Merely claiming I made things up doesn't make it true.
You need to post specific statements I made and explain why you think they were inaccurate - otherwise everything I said remains standing, unchallenged by you.

I don't know how you managed to write 2 pages about the fact that i think weps should do more damage and how i was concerned about how realistic armor would affect gameplay.

Your concerns were invalid and I went into detail already explaining why.
You now have no counter argument to respond with because the position you took was wrong and it won't hold up to logical scrutiny.

@gm29 @gm29 said in Why the hell does the M249 have so much recoil even on single shot?:

Unfortunately I am unable to test what the guns perform like in Sandstorm as I had to refund it due to it being beneficial to pick apart peoples opinions on how certain aspects effect gameplay when you can't play the game. πŸ˜•

Nothing I have said about how the M249 could be accurately modeled in the game is effected by my technical issues with sandstorm. I use Insurgency as the baseline for talking about how it performs there and then you can extrapolate that into how it would run in Sandstorm, which is basically the same game.
I never claimed to be make any arguments that would depend on having extensive experience playing Sandstorm specifically vs playing the original Insurgency.
How you model an M249 to be realistic in a game is a discussion that transcends any particular game because it is focused on the weapon itself and generalities about what any game would need to do in order to accurately model that.

last edited by GM29

@Turyl
I think you are spot on, would enjoy an option to turn off all call outs that is not heard by the enemy, as sounds are crucial to me to give cues about enemy locations in pvp, and the rare occasion where ppl sparingly use call outs with useful intel. All other voices are just getting in the way of playing tactical - Though I really like ambiance sounds to create immersion.

And a teammate that screams reloading while the enemy is close by is immersion breaking for me as you would rarely do such a thoughtless thing in an actual fight. There is a reason soldiers use hand signs and keep their voice down.

last edited by Pacalis

@turyl ..Definitely, why not have some maps focus on "hostage rescue" or some other form of slow-play, VIP or escorting something would be great....

@gm29 Lets just agree to disagree buddy πŸ™‚

@pacalis It would be kind of nice to have the option

last edited by Turyl

@turyl said in What I think Insurgency Sandstorm gets RIGHT.:

@gm29 Lets just agree to disagree buddy πŸ™‚

Your statement implies that this is an issue where the truth cannot be determined and therefore we have no choice but to agree the issue can't be settled, as though we were dealing merely with two differing opinions.
But that is not the case, so the underlying pretext of your statement is not true.

What you said was demonstrateably, factually, wrong, and I went into detail explaining already why that is. You never really attempted to logically or factually defend your claims or demonstrate why my counter-arguments were flawed.
This is not merely a case of different opinions, but a case of you making factual claims that were proven to be untrue - and then because you have no effective response you choose to bow out but you want to pretend you can do so without having to admit you were wrong.

last edited by GM29

@gm29 My statement implies I'm done talking to you and refuse to defend my opinions on a video game bud.

@turyl said in What I think Insurgency Sandstorm gets RIGHT.:

@gm29 My statement implies I'm done talking to you and refuse to defend my opinions on a video game bud.

Yes, it was quite clear your statement was bowing out in defeat, unable to defend your position.
That's why I said let's not pretend this was an issue of simply two differing opinions that couldn't be resolved.
I disproved what you said, you weren't able to defend your claims, and you gave up. Don't try to bow out claiming what I said is just an opinion as valid as your opinion, when I gave factual reasons why what you said was true and you were unable to defend your claims.

last edited by GM29

@turyl

Don’t worry β€˜bout that guy, he has a vivid fantasy.

@gm29 said in What I think Insurgency Sandstorm gets RIGHT.:

The fundamental flaw of your entire premise is that when you use words like "pacing" or "balance" you are talking about words that only have a relevant place in fantasy game models where you make decisions about what you want combat to be like that have no reflection on what combat would be in reality. Those words don't exist in a realistically modeled weapon system because real life already has it's own balance, as long as you make an effort to properly simulate both the real upsides and downsides of a weapon as it exists in reality.

His (and my point) is that the use of those words isn't flawed. They're essential for making a fun experience. Your only real argument for modeling everything perfect on reality is that it works that way in real life. You don't provide any reasons as to why simulation of reality should be preferred to pacing and balance. And yes, what makes for the best pacing or balance is inherently subjective. That's why nobody has succeeded in making the perfect game that everyone prefers to anything else. Not everyone here is interested in real, 100% authentic warfare but with a keyboard and mouse instead of your physical body. Some of us just want to have fun in a semi-realistic tactical shooter. And that means making compromises to realism for the sake of actually enjoying the game we paid for.