Ryzen 1700x @3.8ghz
Vega 64 Nitro+
INS: Sandstorm is a sequel to INS 2. It is developed for INS 2 players. When CS has a sequel, I'm not gonna walk in and start demanding that it change to be the way I want it to be.
Name me a sequel that plays like it's predecessor. Spoiler: there is none.
You were the one who started saying that you wanted a CSGO-like game
EDIT: My God I just saw you post in another thread that you "aren't and INS 2 player" and then make assumptions about the gameplay from a video you watched on youtube. You don't even play the game. Why are you acting this way to fans of the original? Please stop trying to take over this game.
Nice argument. Not.
Why does this community get all these people from?!
I thought Sandstorm would be an updated version of Insurgency... not an alternative to CSGO.
Why not play ins2 then? (using your argument btw). According to you i just want (an updated) CSGO and i should just play CSGO. You want an updated ins2, why not just play ins2 then?
The logic is just mind blowing. Not to mention if you actually think INS and CSGO aren't "fundamentally different from one another" i doubt you know much about either game.
but it still begs the question, "why you want a competitively viable alternative to CSGO when you have CSGO?" I don't see why you'd want two games that are similar.
They aren't similar? How are they similar?!
- simple maps
- no ads
- very different movement
- completely different game-mode
- completely different weapon mechanics
- and and and and
What kinda stupid question is that even? How are INS and CSGO similar?! Oh right. They are both FPS. Holy hell. People in this forum...i swear.
CSGO has a million clones. What're you talking about? Why would you want to play CSGO without playing CSGO? What's the fantasy here? That you'll find a game that's not called CSGO, but is exactly the same as CSGO?
I literally haven't said that. Don't make up stuff please. I said i want a competitive alternative to CSGO. That doesn't equate to "i want csgo".
As for landing more shots ostensibly requiring more skill, the skill ceiling is lowered by the presence of RNG recoil and extreme idle sway, as these deviations to aim are not in the player's control. Spraying then has a lower skill ceiling and floor, meaning an engagement with fewer shots (and thus, less recoil) is actually more dependant on mechanical skill and less dependant on luck than a longer engagement. Since I want the RNG recoil removed, however, I won't hold this against the argument for high TTK.
RNG for recoil works like this: the further away your target, the less reliable is spraying. It literally forces you to decide when to spray and when not to spray. Hint: spraying at long range shouldn't be reliable. Deciding how to shoot is a skill. You know what people do in CS on long range? Correct. They tap or burst at max.
Do you know why CSGO/CS1.6/CSS has that semi-random shape(s) for recoil? To literally make spraying harder, even for close ranges. In CSGO you actually have to work with the recoil, in INS:S i just have to pull down. Its ezpz.
Btw, do you know how to beat mechanically better players in both CS and Quake? You outsmart them. There's your importance your tactics/positioning.
@benz it doesn't change the skills required
it literally removes skill needed to hit multiple shots. 1-shot-kill.
it changes the balance of skills required. Think of it this way. The first shot of the engagement goes to the person with better positioning (and the aim to land the shot). As shots required to kill go up, the advantage positioning (i.e., the first shot) grants approaches 0%, while the significance of repeated aim approaches 100%. At a lower time to kill, the engagement is decided by game sense and tactical skill to a greater extent than it is by accuracy. That's fine for a tactical shooter.
That's just... horrible reasoning. Look at top-level games from any highly competitive FPS game. The mechanical skill at that level is so close between that players. You know what that means? it means your "significance of repeated aim" gets LESS relevant, since they are on the same skill level mechanically anyways. You know what raises? Correct: importance on tactic and positioning.
A higher TTK literally means: the more equally skilled players are mechanically -> the more the winning is decided by tactics and positioning.
A low TTK REMOVES that factor. It means that the importance of tactics and positioning gets more relevant at lower levels. Simply because those players don't need have to that mechanical skill.
while lowering the tactical skill ceiling.
in low skilled games. It's literally the same in CSGO. I can run around in low levels just outaiming people and i win. I can't do that in high skilled games, guess Why? Same in Quake3. I can 50-0 someone who is worse than me simply by outaiming. I can't do that vs. someone equally skilled mechanically (or someone way more brained).
In high skilled games the aiming is literally LESS important, simply because of how close players are for mechanical skills.
It raises the mechanical skill ceiling, while lowering the tactical skill ceiling.
You yourself said
it changes the balance of skills required.
Which i HIGHLY agree with! The more skilled players get, the more this balance shifts. As players become more skilled mechanically, tactics/positioning gets more important.
@cyoce You in discord:
"Benz: why is something you can't react to bad design?"
"Cyoce: because there's no counterplay. no effort went into the kill, and it has the potential to kill multiple people"
But somhow 1-shot kills are the best gamedesign ever. Ok.
Edit: since you accused me for quoting you "out of context" and "cherrypicking" this quote, i will provide the context.
Feel free to correct me.
Instead of rewarding whoever can land the most shots, it rewards whoever can land the first shot quicker. The better player is the one with faster aim and reflexes.
....and how does a higher TTK change that? 0. If both players are equally skilled, the one with faster aim and reflexes wins. A higher TTK doesn't change that. ON TOP of the 2 skills you mentioned you need to have better aim, yes. Raising the skill ceiling.
It also increases the tactical aspect of the game. Dying in one shot really punishes people for being out of position. If they need to be hit 4 times, they have time to react and negate the advantage of using superior tactics.
Again: a higher TTK doesn't change that. Players are playing the same game. Your enemy has the same TTK as you. You know what's the punishment for being out of position? Being out of position. That's why it's being called "out of position". It literally gives you a positional disadvantage.
If 2 players are equally skilled, the one with the better position wins! TTK literally doesn't change that.
What you are saying is: i want a free kill because of my position. That's all. You know how you'd still get your free kill? With a headshot. At least that mechanic is risk-reward based. 1-shot-kills are literally no-risk-reward. Nice game. Much competitive.
instead of trying to appeal to a more casual audience.
give me a break. how is a higher skill ceiling more appealing to casuals?! Isn't it funny how the most competitive FPS games have a higher TTK? CSGO ... Quake..... wondering why.