Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics

@musicnote said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:

Maybe some tweaks need to be done to the way LMGs work. I have a crazy idea.

LMGs should function completely differently from other weapons.
When not aiming down the sight...

They'll take time to get ready after you sprint (for 2 seconds you won't be able to shoot. Think of this like Red Orchestra Ostfront's MG mechanic but more forgiving)
There will be sway while you're hipfiring (which will make point shooting even harder)
There will be less recoil, but lots of sway, which is almost like recoil it itself because of how extreme it is.

When aiming down the sight while not using a bipod...

Instead of sway, there's sight misalignment, which is like sway with an antishake feature

When using the bipod...

Your mouse wheel is then used to fluidly adjust your stance like in Arma 3 or Escape from Tarkov.
(That way you won't feel like a sitting duck when you deploy that bipod)

The problem with a lot of these ideas is that you're doing arbitrary things to achieve arbitrary ideas of balance, when it's not necessary to do that.
Many problems with the LMG are caused by a lack of realism in the modeling that leads to problems.
The answer is not to tack on even more unrealistic behavior on the LMG with arbitrary restrictions, because then you've only compounded the problem by trying to solve one unrealistic aspect of LMG performance by creating a different aspect of unrealistic performance.

Ultimately the answer to weapons not performing realistically in game is to go back to the source and determine WHY weapons weren't used this way in reality and then think of way to model those reasons in the context of a game design.

It's far more interesting to the player, and more accurate, if you give them the ability to use an LMG in the full range of it's potential uses but with appropriate consequences for doing so. As opposed to just denying them the ability to experiment and use things in more varied ways because there's a preconceived idea about the "right" or "wrong" way to use an LMG.

Modeling how weight and balance impact weapons would already have some of the effects you want by:

  1. Slowing down their ability to transition between positions and slowing down their acceleration speed, and even slowing down overall movement and sprinting speed if the weapon is being held in the hands at the time.
  2. Heavier weapons take longer to bring up to sight.
  3. Heavier weapons take longer to swing around.
  4. Heavier weapons cause more fatigue when kept in the firing position, and have more aimsway as a result.
  5. Poorly balanced weapons and heavier weapons can be more difficult get and keep on target from a shoulder fired position, despite the fact that their increased weight reduces recoil. Being unbalanced can also effect the way the weapons recoil.
  6. Overall fatigue from actions will increase faster.

Maybe instead of using large magazines, you'll just use ammo belts and you'll have to manage heat. (and get additional ammo belts from teammates like in Darkest hour)

That means MG guys have low ammo by themselves but can be a constantly refilling machine if teammates go to them and press ACTION to give them ammo.

When they do that an animation of the soldier giving you an ammo belt plays. He presses F, then you press F to accept ammo. You have to wait 2 minutes before you can give ammo again. If the MG overheats, he gets 1 barrel change, after that it's a broken gun. Supressors can be equipped but they melt and on night maps they glow bright.

That's a viable idea. But you have to remember that it is possible to carry more than one belt into combat, and some soldiers have done it.

So the proper way to model this is not with arbitrary restrictions like saying "no more than one belt for you, SAW gunner".

Instead, the proper way to deal with this is to effectively model the impact that extra weight and bulk have on the performance of a soldier. Give that SAW gunner a reason to not want to have to carry all his own ammo if he doesn't have to. The same kinds of reasons they don't want to have to carry it all in reality. It impedes their performance and endurance.

last edited by GM29


Yeah, its a misunderstanding. Yeah I’m taking it out of context. Yeah you never said it was a milsim. Your “logic” is Swiss cheese mate. I hope you don’t work that logic in scenarios with real stakes, because you lie a lot and it is ridiculously easy to see through the cracks and call you out on it. You are the only one using all the tricks in your book to bend texts to something unrecognizable.

Would still be interesting to read about your weapon knowledge though, but I wouldn’t trust it if you did not provide legitimate sources I could read myself, so just the sources would actually suffice.

Man, I see you have plenty of ideas on how to make a great game. Why are you wasting time on forums, how about becoming game designer and developing your own fps.

I remember in the days of Ins Source, the devs said that the game isn't meant to be super ultra realistic, but rather a mix of fast paced arcade action with some milsim elements. A lot of these things you're asking for, barrel changes etc. are what other games like red orchestra 2 offer and would probably scare off more casual players, particularly if certain actions require lengthy key combos that would blur the difference between Sandstorm and Super Smash Bros. If Sandstorm were like other games there probably wouldn't be much point in buying this one.

last edited by edbods

@angus said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:

Sandstorm isn't a simulator. Many of the things you suggest would sacrifice gameplay and make the game annoying and frustrating. While trying to shoot someone and having a gun jam is realistic it has no place in a video game. Adding RNG removes skill and leads to players feeling cheated.
Many of the things your propose are realistic but would kill the game. My suggestion to you would be go play arma.

100% agree.
Even Arma or any other MilSim is not 100% realisitc 😃
For those guys wanting IS to become a military simulation over 9000:
You got be clear and accept what IS wants to be:
A kind of realistic game that puts in a lot of realistic immersion features, but in no way that should effect gameplay in a negative way.
If that's not want you want, maybe the game isn't for you entirely.

Think about it. If you want a game to be 100% realsitic: You play the game once, and after you died 1 single time you wouldn't be able to play the game never ever again.
Is that realisitc? Yes 100%! Fun? No, not at all.

So basically:
Gameplay first. Got to be balanced and fun for most people (and especially for those who's meant this game to be for) + long term motivation. Tweaks in balancing are always neccessary and appreciated.
Realisitc features. Only to a certain extend. If it could potentially effect gameplay in a nagative way, then it shouldn't be in the game.

last edited by Benny

@gm29 logical fallacy my ass, you wanna bet how likely it is that your suggested changes will ever make it into the game??
cuz logic (the real world logic that is) dictates that it will never happen

last edited by Zwenkwiel

@gm29 said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:

Do you think Delta Force has the option of telling a terrorist "hey wait wait wait guys, stop, this is bullshit, my gun just jammed. No, stop firing, stop you idiot! You aren't allowed to win this fight because my gun jammed it's not fair! Let me go unjam my gun then I'll come back in and we'll try this a second time"?

No, but that jam wasn't his fault. What happened to this hypothetical Delta Force man was unfair. Since this is a game that tries to be fair and balanced, unfair interactions should be minimized.
Do you think Delta Force has the option of coming back to life at the point he started the engagement after he dies? Do you think Delta Force has the option to stand on an arbitrary point for a few seconds, and cause all the terrorists to surrender after he captures it?

They do sacrifice handling performance compared with an M4 but they made a decision that they value reliability more than weapon handling - and that's a choice you can choose to make in-game too.

Increasing the number of choices is not necessarily positive.

or it fired your rounds in the wrong direction would be complete bullshit.

Random dispersion of bullets is already in the game. You're contradicting yourself by claiming that's a problem.

How exactly am I contradicting myself? I never said the game has no problems. Existing RNG mechanics are my primary complaint about the game right now.

if you want a realistic modeling of ballistics and weapons performance

I don't. I want a fun game. What makes the game fun is up for debate, which is what I'm doing.

Armor piercing ammo dealing less damage to unarmored people would make gunfights with those guns up to chance.

Your claim is nonsense. Gunfights still come down to tactics and skillful shot placement regardless of the round you use.
However, some rounds will indeed give you an edge over others. If you want to take a target down quicker you don't use an armor piercing round that will pinhole them without transfering most of it's energy to them. You use a round designed to stop once it enters them and transfer all it's energy into them or a round designed to fragment/expand to deal more damage.

But if the enemy player is wearing armor, which you have no way of knowing ahead of the fight, your damage is reduced. That's fine; armor can reduce damage. But if you make armor increase damage taken in certain situations, you are deciding the fight with factors out of the players' control. How do I know if the first player I come across is going to be using the MP7 or the G3A3? That distinction can make the difference between armor being a detriment or benefit to my survivability, and that portion of the fight is out of both sides' hands.

They are significantly different enough that it will impact how a firefight plays out - but it's nonsense to claim that now the ability to win a fight is out of your hands and it's all just up to chance rather than skill.

Logical fallacy, straw man. I didn't say every fight is completely up to chance; I said some fights would be (and are right now, to a lesser extent) decided by chance. When that happens, it's bullshit. When it doesn't happen, you don't notice the mechanic as it had no effect on gameplay. Either way, its inclusion does not benefit the game.

last edited by cyoce

Outstanding contribution, OP. I appreciate the effort of your research and analysis. Frankly, though, I think the game has managed an effective balance of realism and accessibility. While tweaks should be considered, they should never be game breaking or slow down the pace of an otherwise fast-paced urban brawl.