It's like CS losing recoil patterns, or the guns getting scopes, it wouldn't be CS anymore.
That's very extreme and while you might get the impression a low TTK is the same extreme..i don't think so. But that's something we won't agree on, ever. It's a matter of taste. For me a more equivalent comparison would be the removal of the extremes wallbangs 1.6 offers compared to CS:GO.
SS is moving forward in other ways - vehicles, the ability for better sound and visuals, new bigger maps, more guns, new models etc....
...tbh except for new models and better visuals i don't agree with any of those "improvements". What caught my interesting for ins2 years ago was the small scale maps in combination with the less arcady gameplay (compared to cs). I looked for a game like that after playing BF3 and getting tired of the large maps. The more i play sandstorm, the more i dislike this large clusterfuck maps. Vehicles are uninteresting for me as well.
and as much fun as insurgency2 is, you get sick of playing casual with 31 other noobs, in fact it is extremly infurating.
Yes, so is Sandstorm. That's the thing. It's such a boring and frustrating game at the same time, because of the vastly different skill levels playing the same match. It's borderline retarded. With a proper matchmaking system, where you get matched with people of similar skill, this would be a much much much better experience.... but there we go again: you need a ton of players for this to happen. If SS can pull it off with a low(er) TTK, I'm fine with being proven wrong. I don't see it. Recovering from that will be even harder so trying to "fix" it right from the start is a way more reasonable approach. You can't balance a game based on gameplay where the skill delta is wider than Juice' anus in the last season of sons of anarchy. That simply doesn't work.
@benz you're not wrong imo. But Insurgency2 was different, and I and other people liked the difference. Maybe I liked that I could be lazy and aim center mass rather than head, but then I was never lazy, I had good aim - its gone potato now because of the laggy mouse movement thanks to fake 70fps, but I have achieved some crazy BS in my time, sicc fliccs ect
Well... that's the thing though. Ins:s is a successor. Not Ins2. I like CS 1.6 WAY more than CS:GO... i have to live with the fact that CS:GO is inferior to me compared to 1.6, since apparently CS:GO is doing freaking good. I don't actively play CS:GO anymore. This might be sad for me, but I'm not the only person on the planet.. and no offense: but the 2.5k peak players Ins2 got aren't either. Sandstorm needs to be better than Ins2, if this wants to be a truly competitive game.
They want to have a matchmaking system... do you realize how many players Sandstorm actually needs so this matchmaking system would actually work?! Hint: more than 2.5k.
Do you realize what happens if Sandstorm doesn't get more players than Ins2? It'll be dead. Rather sooner than later. Competitive games should be able to survive for more than 3 years. You can't do that with low player numbers. Not in a team game. Where do you go then? Insurgency: IceFight? If you need to create a successor every few years...it's probably not a good game to begin with. It's good enough to live from it and make cash, but not good enough to make it actually relevant.
@benz said in We want the one hit kills.:
thank god you agree insurgency really isn't and wasn't a team game, you did things for the team, but you rarely work with them because the noobs are more likely to get you killed than help honestly. solo is far more lethal and effective than with 2 other nerds.
That might be good for public games, but not for a competitive shooter. On the hard opposite you have games like NS2, where you can't have an impact solo. That's not what i want either. CS...seems to be hitting the ground. Obviously. Doesn't mean I want SS to be a CS clone either. Simply means that you should look at what works and adopt it for Sandstorm.
There are reasons for why millions of people own but don't play it.
*shitty 2002 visuals
No. People play games with shit graphics all the time.
*The $1 sale noobs that were literally useless
But you just wrote above: "really isn't and wasn't a team game". Why do you care about the noobs now? That's contradicting. Also: you should ask yourself why, despite so many people owning Ins2 cuz of sales and the free weekend sutff .... the player numbers didn't even rise the slightest. Like..the game has literally 0% player retention. That's a bad sign.
*steep learning curve
No, people play games with way steeper learning curves. It's the "arena fps" excuse. "our genre is so hard, no one plays it". No...just no.
*and insurgency wasn't a lot of peoples cup of tea
That's with every game. True.
I just liked old insurgency and I don't want its core to die in the sequel, low TTK has its place, I and other people have been dealing with shitty source physics and visuals for years! please
Yeah... i understand that you want stuff you enjoy. But like...be real. If Sandstorm wants to be better than Ins2, it has to be better. Quite easy. If the result is something you don't enjoy...i'm sorry, but that's life. Go on. Find a different game. (that's what i'm doing atm btw..i've moved on from CSGO to find a game i can enjoy more...). I know that's hard to accept since i've been in that position as well, when CSGO was developed. But retrospectively... my gaming life didn't get worse, just because CS:GO wasn't 1.6 HD. On the opposite: i learned new things, different things, looked for other games and found some i enjoy as well... in short: my experience got a good boost.
If you constantly try to get what you are used to....and humans like to stay in their comfort zones... you won't evolve. You stagnate.
Sandstorm can't afford stagnation.
@MarksmanMax, It's hard to show "solid facts" that TTK is better, but anybody that says that "TTK doesn't have an effect on gameplay" has no eye's XD.
If anybody would think TTK has no effect on gameplay, there won't be a discussion in the first place. It's about whether this effect is good or not.
It made being smart and creative important and I loved it.
This one really bugs me. Like, that's not exclusive to Insurgency at all. What people fail to understand when saying this is: at a top level players are so close in their mechanical skills (movement, aiming...), that what decides about win or lose is exactly what you want: playing smart and creative. The skill-gap in aiming is so narrow, it barely has an impact! Unless you really miss your shots...and you should get punished for it in a competitive game.
Ofc flattening the gameplay makes other things more important. Like... no one is even fighting that. If you take shooting completely out of the equation... obv. tactics are more important, because it's the only aspect left. That doesn't automatically make it a better game. On the contrary: you just made your game flat. Congratz. You have a flat game. A game that tries to be competitive. Who wants to play a flat, competitive game? Apparently no one, as proven by the low player numbers of Ins2. Sorry if this is insulting to you, but numbers don't lie.
Also: the lower the skill, the less dominant this is. In low skilled games you can have good aim and carry based on that. You can also have good game sense and carry based on that. It allows different playstyles for lower skilled games. Quite logical. If there are more areas to improve on in a game, there are obv. more ways to play it effectively. That's good. That's not a bad thing. That's what makes people play games. Expressiveness in playstyles. Not being forced into a specific playstyles, just because the game doesn't allow for more. It's ridiculous to even think about it if you want to make a successful game. Just because you enjoy that playstyle, doesn't mean it's good to limit the game to it. Look at any successful multiplayer game ever. They all allow players to express themselves in their playstyle. Why would you wanna limit that?!
You can go berserk in csgo if you want, or you can play smart and tactical if you want. Both can lead to a win, as long as you play good. Limiting gameplay choices is a death sentence. Is that what you want?
And dare I say it, but it made the solo player fight as a solo player for their team and help their team in a solo way, because grouping up made you easy to see and just as easy to kill as a single person, so a different type of teamwork, @Slazenger agrees with me.
This is ridiculous. You can extrapolate this to every degree you want in every game and call it "teamplay". That's not an argument at all. Not to mention this is once again not exclusive to Insurgency. People play like that in CS all the time. You always have that one special lurker. It's not a "different type of teamwork".... it's a way to win a game if you can't rely on your team. That's it. Clear, simple and without trying to make it sound noble. (btw: that's how i play sandstorm... usually top fragging and leading the scoreboard...a 61% winrate doesn't come from teamplay with all the noobs playing this game atm, so apparently playing solo effectively is way more than possible already)
as I said you have to try it to understand it so please be open-minded and not just think how stupid I'm being and try to nitpick, please try and understand what we are saying.
This goes both ways..... just saying.
and if the thread keeps going how it has been going eg: somebody trys explain their view
People are free to explain their view. But their view is their view. If views get constantly disproven and certain people still argue with that "view" it's a big circle and leads nowhere. That's not being "open minded". That's being dense. (inb4 someone saying "whoaaaa...did you just call people dense?!" WOAAAAA. MODS")
I'd express my view saying "the world is flat" and people will disprove me. If I afterwards still say "the world is flat" I'm a retard... and if I decline proof and logic without valid reasons it makes me an even bigger retard.
The problem you clearly see in this thread and every other TTK thread is following:
- someone expresses his view
- he gets challanged on this view
- he tries to comeback
- gets challenged again
- everything becomes a shitshow, because either a) it starts going cycles or b) the person simply refutes everything without any real argument
(side note: you having an apparently personal relationship with slaz isn't helping this discussion either...like... "oh no...2 friends stand in for each other"...bummer)
And you know why? Because people are passionate about the game and their view. They can't let their feelings out of this. They like f.e. a low TTK and they have to defend it and make up stuff just so it sounds "logical" in their own brain in order to justify their beliefs. That's normal human behavior. The important stuff is to be able to identify this behavior and work around it yourself. People can't do that in here. This has become a discussion about feelings and personal impressions, rather than gameplay and what's important for a good, successful, competitive shooter.
Yeah, that's that.
When I first started playing ss I always used compensator and foregrip. Nowadays I don't and my stats didn't get worse. Actually the points spent on utility instead are way more worth it.
After reading the mp7 thread I started playing it... Never played it before. That weapon is nuts. Dunno why people bash it. Use it accordingly and it's a very good weapon. I only use it with a holo, that's it. No compensator, foregrip or whatever. It's short af and extremely deadly. Ofc trying to spray down people long range won't get you far. Although I have to say that the recoil is very low, even while standing.
@tooth-decay so calling someone's logic flawed is on the same level as calling someone idiotic? Nice.
By that logic we shouldn't ever argue on this forum, since that implies disagreement. Very insulting.
Both, telling someone they have two brain cells in an insult. It won't be discussed further.
because everyone with 2 braincells can see how flawed your logic is.
Dunno how you can spin this into "you only have 2 braincells". Yeah... if you don't want stuff to be discussed publicly, maybe don't write it in public then. Otherwise "censorship" might be the correct word to describe this....
@benz Take this as another warning to stop insulting players in these forums and on the Discord. It's not welcome here.
I haven't insulted anyone. If I write "I like white snow" and someone reads "omg he hates my race!".... yeah. I'm not responsible for people trying to find something they can feel offended about.
Also: i haven't been warned on the forum yet. So there's that.
still, compared to 2k at the start of the beta, thats still a huge drop
all the long time players leaving
No update for 3 weeks and people stop playing.... What a mystery... Must be the ttk. Kappa.
@burgrat wouldn't you be the correct person to ask for videos, since you are the one experiencing it?
Hitreg seems pretty fine to me since the update some time ago.
The lightning in this game is terrible. It's the only game i play where i actually have to use the black-equalizer on my monitor. Says a lot.
TTK does play a role in that, as I said in my post. I can full auto spray into someone who has a positional advantage over me and kill them solely because I can drag my mouse down better than them. This removes depth from the gunplay.
Again failing to realize you both have the same TTK.... but yeah, keep going. Why would you rather ask yourself why he didn't kill you and why you killed him, right? Like...he could have had better aim and just head-shotted you...but no, that's like...black magic.
A player fails to a) kill you by either chosing the correct fire-mode or just having better aim and b) doesn't reposition himself after failing .....but somehow this is an argument in favor of a low TTK. Solid logic.
I will take the shortest route often rather than taking the best, more tactical route. This is because I will not die from 1 shot if I get court and can tank shots, even fire back in full auto and probably take them out.
Cool story bro. Wondering why i always kill people that cross over like that... we seem to play different games.
The higher the DPS (as in 1 shot 1 kill), the more important positioning and aiming is in a fight. When bullets can kill in 1 shot you would want to be in cover because you won't survive a 2nd shot.
Next logic fail. Why would i bother about cover if i take out my enemy in 1 shot and he can't react to me anyways and therefore my position is irrelevant. Nice logic...
Correct. The one who has the positional advantage and better aim, IE the one who did not make a mistake will be the one to win. This is how it should be. Lethal and unforgiving.
So...like... irrelevant to TTK. Ok.
This is a fact based of me playing Sandstorm and surviving snipers shooting me in the chest. I don't need to avoid them for the most part, I can just sprint through them.
Seems like we play a different game then. I always 1 shot with sniper and long barrel, as long as i dont hit the feet.
Stating your opinion as a fact, doesn't make it a fact. A fact is a fact.
Fact, as explained by my last post.
The one i debunked already. So..irrelevant.
Lower skill ceiling = better at deciding who't the better gunman
The depth added to the game from 1 shot 1 kill lethal gameplay raises this skill ceiling; positioning, aiming, teamplay ect are a part of skill. In a high TTK full auto spraying game these are less important, and depth is lowered.
Seems like you didn't understand anything or are simply lying in order to make your point.
Indeed. Due to the lack of depth in the gunplay he was not rewarded for his positioning.
Him having bad aim = not rewarded for positioning. Nice logic.
He did not kill me. He was not rewarded for his positioning.
Him being unable to utilize on his superior position = not being rewarded. So...a bad player is not being rewarded for being a bad player...nice.
Seems once again that you just want an easy game with a low skill ceiling where noobs get rewarded for playing bad. Nice game.
Positioning: Since you can die in 1 shot you would need to take a well thought our route to make sure you survive wherever your're moving to on the map.
No.... high TTK, low TTK. You always need to take the best route. Player with positional advantage has positional advantage. TTK has no role in that. Everyone has the same TTK. The higher the DPS, the less important positioning is in a fight. Not hard to understand. More DPS = faster fights = less room for mistakes in a fight. Logic. debunked
If you don't you are much more likely to be punished due to the high lethality; a single bullet can take you out. This leads to more depth when traversing the map and tense gameplay (like Insurgency2014) instead of sprinting everywhere and tanking bullets (like Insurgency: Sandstorm)
That's your personal impression and not a fact. Just because something is more obv. doesn't mean it adds depth. Literally.
Aiming: Since you can kill (and die) in 1 shot gunfights are more lethal, riskier, more satisfying + rewarding.
Everything related to the gunplay is more important with low TTK 1 shot 1 kill.
Positioning so you have an advantage; being in cover/prone/crouched, flanking so you are in a better position. Doing this will mean when it comes to aiming you will have a better advantage over your enemy.
Like in...every other tactical game ever. Not related to TTK.
Since you kill in 1 shot and die in 1 shot it's much more important who is a better gunman and can hit their target. First to hit is the first to win rather than the 1 who can full auto spray and drag their mouse down so their bullets hit in the same spot repeatedly.
lmao. The logic is just mindblowing. Lower skill ceiling = better at deciding who't the better gunman. Funny. So apparently... whoever has faster reaction = better than whoever has faster reaction+recoil control. That logic. What did i expect from the guy that literally wants 1 shots to balance all the weapons, instead of... actually balancing all the weapons. Low effort logic.
With high TTK full auto spraying gameplay these do not apply as much. I experienced a perfect example of this on Farmhouse one time. An enemy peaked his head over the river defilade and next to the low wall. He shot at me in single fire, hit me twice (2 hitmarkers I confirmed in Recap). I jumped away into cover then immediately went back and full auto sprayed into him, killing him.
So..a bad player couldn't kill you. Bummer.
This enemy had every advantage but due to the lack of depth in the high TTK gunplay he was not rewarded for his positioning, his accurate single fire (hit 2 times), then peaking from good cover and taking me by surprise.
Ofc he was rewarded for his positioning, he literally shot you twice before you'd react. Are you trolling?! HE HAS THE SAME TTK AS YOU DO. Wow. Like... holy christ what is that logic?! "A bad player couldn't kill me, we need lower TTK so this bad player could have killed me". Wow.
I find it quite hilarious how your arguments literally contradict your own example. The logic..once again....is just mindblowing.
Not even gonna bother on the rest, cuz obviously you don't understand a single thing about teamplay.
Keep repeating that "arguments" over and over again. Always fun to debunk them. It's so easy.
You'd do it more with a low TTK
Yeah, no. Thanks for your opinion and showing your cluelessness in regards to highly competitive games.
High TTK doesn't go beyond full auto spraying and recoil control dragging your mouse down.
Low TTK makes every other factor of a gunfight more important since there's little room for mistake.
Glad to see (once again) that you don't have an understanding of gameplay mechanics at all. What factor does a low TTK make more important? Feel free to share them.
Positioning is less important.
Aiming is less important.
Teamplay is less important.
Problem with you is the same as with most others in favor of a low TTK: you don't play any high skill competitive FPS games to actually be able to understand it. You just like low TTK and make up BS in order to justify it. But BS is BS, no matter how often you repeat it. I play games with extremely high TTK (quake) and with low TTK (cs)... i don't need to make up stuff to justify my personal opinion, cuz i like both high TTK (quake) and low TTK (cs)... because i understand their gameplay implications and i understand that games consist of more than just TTK, which you obv. fail to understand.
Lost cause. It's the same over and over again. No matter how much logic and facts you get into your face, you will continue with the same bs "arguments" over and over again.
One can just hope the devs are smart enough to realize that as well. Which isn't hard tbh...since it's obvious.
1 hit kill means you won't just rush directly to the objective if it is well defended. What you would do is use tactics to attack the objective; flanking, smoke, coordination ect.
So...stuff you do in CS, Quake 3 CTF, NS2 etc. etc. pp. ....all games with a higher TTK.
1 hit kill brings in more depth into the game than full auto spraying gameplay ever would.
yawn .... what's that depth again? Right...the glorious examples that get smashed down again and again and again.
This is because 1 hit kill along with objective based gameplay = tactical gameplay.
No? Play NS2. A game with a way higher TTK. And way more tactical and esp. team-based gameplay.
I'm amazed how much bs people can come up with....
The OHK meant literally a 2-year-old could kill you, so to be good and to succeed you had to be smart.
Sorry to hear you had to try-hard to not get out-smarted/positioned by a 2-year-old.
I'd say that 20% or less of skill in the game was aim based, because as you say it was easy to get kills.
Thanks for the confirmation.
The rest of the skill required was basically map knowledge. knowing how to avoid a camping enemy and how to counter a camping enemy (how to get behind him to free up the pass for your team). it added a tense feeling because you couldn't eat 2 bullets and then duck to cover, if somebody sees you, and was good enough to hit you, you died. It promoted a different type of "team play" because one rogue person that knew what they were doing could kill people holding up the rest of your team. it was more than just rush B. And when defending you had to know how to watch your own back.
Could as well describe CS.
no way could you move in groups like you can now because in old insurgency you could die though people and all lot faster than you can now, less than a second of gun fire and 5 people huddled together died.
Quick reality check: this isn't exclusive to Insurgency. It just takes more effort/teamplay in other games. CS for example. So once again... lowering the skill ceiling for this particular situation. Takes more effort to kill more people = higher skill ceiling.
(not to mention only bad players would move around like that in the first place.... lmao)
Once more... nothing of value for a low TTK, besides the fact you enjoy it. Which is fine.
If you are wondering this I recommend playing insurgency2, if you dislike this play style than just leave- the game isn't for you.
Nice gatekeeping. Really constructive.
Also: maybe stop talking about "vets" as if it's every old ins2 player. As a matter of fact most true competitive ins2 vets don't mind the higher TTK at all. Apparently only the casual coop and pub players mind it. Then again: ins2 doesn't have a big casual playerbase...so seems like the gameplay isn't good in that regard either.
What's your mission? To hinder a possible evolution that might get Insurgency out of it's 2.5k daily peak playerbase? That's the spirit.
No one will shed a single tear for people leaving. If they lose the 10 players from this forum that cry for a lower TTK, but instead gain people that like Sandstorm more than Ins2... nothing of value is lost. Literally.
Being entitled doesn't help the game. Nostalgia doesn't help the game. Gatekeeping doesn't help the game.
If your only argument for a lower TTK is "because it was in ins2 as well", you have already lost. A quick dissection of your of your "arguments":
it's understanding enemy movements throughout the map
Not affected by TTK
understanding how to flank
Not affected by TTK
understanding how to assault an objective by yourself because nobody ever bloody helped
I thought this is a team game? Play death match games if you want to play solo. Insurgency is a tactical, team-based shooter.
understanding how to clear a room full of people and survive them also being able to OHK you
Yes, everyone plays the same game and therefore has the same TTK. Where does a low TTK bring in any value here?
Like... none of your "arguments" actually bring in anything to the table in favor of a low TTK. You don't say what value a lower TTK would bring to the table, gameplay-wise. Nothing you write is related to a low TTK. Nothing. You'd write the same in a CS forum and it wouldn't make a difference.
That's the problem when people try to rationalize their own subjective opinions, if in reality they got nothing besides "i like it". They tumble into weird arguments that don't make sense but are so commited, no logic or actual facts will come through.
I love Pizza. Doesn't mean i try to make up bullshit arguments to why i love Pizza. "Uhm..because it helps me to not waste time actually cooking..and uhm.... its round...and uhm.... it has some vegetables on it sometimes, that's healthy." No. Like... the only valid argument there is: "Because i like Pizza". Done.
Honestly? I was super hyped at first... but after playing this game for quite some time i dislike it more and more. At the moment I'm at a point where I'm close to losing faith for this game being a competitive shooter.
- balancing is all over the place
- maps are too large and random
- movement... ugh. clunky sums it up.
- shooting mechanics are... pretty much point and click...
- matchmaking is utter trash, whoever designed this system... should re-consider his position and do something else, but surely not design matchmaking systems. maybe it was super low priority...i can just hope so
Yeah, i think they have a ton of work to do, before this game can be taken seriously. December is still "far" away and they seem to work "fast" ...but working fast doesn't include working good.
Sorry this post isn't what you are looking for ... but after my initial hype has settled i gotta be realistic.
@dafez Thanks for your opinion. If you'd provide actual gameplay arguments it'd actually help the devs.
No. Realism is not a gameplay argument.
Forces people to be tactical
Also no.... it makes people either rambo alone or camp alone, as already stated and proved in multiple threads. It's literally what low-TTK people argue with: "So i can flank 10 people and kill them". That's not teamplay nor tactical.
and play with a focused intention, instead of running around like they're playing CoD.
Yeah, 3rd no. That's how i literally play Sandstorm right now. Because of the currently already low TTK. Just run around and kill stuff. Don't even need armor.