With many combinations of all of the weapons, equipment, ammo, and armor, it's convenient to create loadouts, but for people who want to organize their loadouts with detailed titles, it's annoying to get stuck with loadouts with misspelled names.
I wish there was a way to easily delete or edit loadouts than before. Aside from being stuck with accidently misspelled loadout titles, there is no easy option to edit current loadouts, and the only way that I know of to update current loadout is to save a new loadout with the same name (and if you accidently misspell the name of the loadout you want to update, you're stuck with two loadouts)
[EDIT: For god's sake, please upvote this suggestion instead of just passing by. I argue that this issue would be one of the easiest issues for NWI to fix. Personally, this will help playing the extended BETA2 version of INS:S way more bearable for all of you highly organized players!]
In a recent past suggestion, I wanted the two shotguns to be more different from each other than what they are right now. But one guy who commented mentioned if the game could add in Combat Shotguns; I'm not too much into the idea, but this can be an opprotunity to change up the weaponry for INS:S farther than what NWI has does before.
I have some ideas on what Combat Shotguns can be implemented in INS:S. Nothing too drastic that could be overpowered in INS:S:
SPAS-12 (Famous Combat Shotgun in popular media/video games that can do Pump or Semi-Auto firemodes)
SPAS-15 (Lesser-known Combat Shotgun that is like the SPAS-12, but can be loaded with a Magazine)
M-1014 (Standard Combat Shotgun for the U.S. Armed Forces)
M-1208 (M-1212/M-1216) (Unique gun mechanism to twist magazine to load more shells)
STRIKER (South African Combat Shotgun. High capacity with the built-in drum mag. Long time to reload though)
Any DOUBLE-BARREL SHOTGUN (IMO, they are technically Semi-Auto. They can have a special ability to fire both shells at the same time for a powerful attack, but with higher recoil and less accuracy)
MTS-255 (Russian Semi-Auto shotgun with a revolving cylinder magazine like a revolver. Can have the modification of a fast shell loader like revolver speed loaders)
SAIGA-12 (Russian Combat Shotgun loaded with magazines. Can also go Full-Auto and have a lot of opprotunities to modify, but only loaded with small-capacity magazines)
VEPR-12 (Essentially like the SAIGA-12, but maybe easier to apply with name licensing?)
I've been a long-time player of INS since I love the gunplay and especially the maps. I believe that the maps have made INS great; Market, Tell, Revolt, Station, etc. are all great well-balanced maps.
If it's compatible with INS:S's game and gunplay, it'll be sweet to play on those maps again remixed in the Unreal Engine!
Honestly this is one of the prime examples as to why I don't understand people judging the game based off an obviously unfinished/unpolished BETA. It's not the finished version of the game as shown on the top left corner with the title [BETA], and the developers is already risking the decision on delaying the game so that the finished version would be better than what they originally planned on releasing, so I don't know why you expect a BETA to be, by your standards, near-perfection judging off of your hastiness on refunding.
Remember that this game is developed by a small team compared with big AAA companies that have developed Battlefield 5/CODBO4's BETAs, so INS:S is a long way from being stable. In my opinion, NWI has been quick with updating INS:S from my experience with ALPHAs and BETAs. I've played the ALPHA for a number of hours and I can stay without a doubt that the game is so much better than before, but I agree that there are still blantant problems affecting the game's identity as an Insurgency game: heavy armor, TTK, optimization, hit registry, and sniper rifle damage.
And with your comment, "The Devs want to sell us a half-baked game. We all know how well that went for No Man's Sky Dev team. Won't fool me twice," there is a clear difference between them. NMS was done by a studio who didn't have a history of developing a procedurally-generated open-world sci-fi game, Hello Games got lucky with their advertising/marketing, THERE WAS NO OPEN ALPHA/BETA AT ALL, and that the director of the game let the hype control too much of their public image. I wasn't part of the hype train since I'm not interested in exploration games, but I was still skeptical and interested on how NMS will end up after release.
With INS:S, there is an open ALPHA/BETA (only for pre-orders though) so that us participants can critique the game ahead of time, NWI has a history of developing great hardcore FPS games like INS & DOI, and recently they want to take their time with updating and adding content. This forum, the few gigantic updates before, and the open BETA proves that the developers want people to critique INS:S ahead of time so that INS:S isn't "half-baked" whenthey release the game.
I'm surprised that you are impatient with the fixes and changes INS:S needs with NWI history on INS before. @io543 clearly shows NWI's history of sticking with INS before and after release, and I believe that based on their past actions, they'll keep on supporting and improving INS:S through more updates and a campaign they want to develop.
I don't know if this is in the works right now, but there needs to be an African-American/North African English-Speaking Voice Actor since playing as an African Security soldier is possible.
It's just weird to see an African soldier character with voice acting that obviously doesn't fit with the character's look.
Playing Breacher, there is no real choice of shotguns. Both perform exactly the same with the only difference being the iron sights.
I know that pump shotguns are very similar with each other down to the basics, but I have a couple ideas on how to individualize the two shotguns.
Since the M870 has a solid stock, ADS when shooting should be more stable with follow-up shooting.
Since the TOZ194 has no stock, the weapon should be lighter in weight and faster ADS transition, but follow-up shooting is slightly unstable and recoil is higher.
Can't agree with the return of AP rounds. I've played INS for a very long time, like 418hrs, and everyone runs AP rounds by default no matter what. The developers from one livestream made a good analogy that AP rounds was their CODMW/MW2's Stopping Power, so I don't believe that bringing AP rounds is a good idea in general. In terms of combatting against armor, that's another kind of problem to post about here.
I believe that the Semi-Auto toggle feature is good enough. Played both Co-Op and P.V.P. enough with G3, SKS, SVD, and the MK14 to see that using Semi-Auto is its own challenge. Easy to keep yourself from spraying bullets if you want to hit people at a distance (and I'm not talking about sniping distance, like around 20-40m away from you that is close enough for medium distance). Full Auto for most low-cost weapons have enough recoil to give trouble hitting people at a distance like the AKM and the SCAR-H.
Just for the benefit of the doubt, maybe Insurgents have found or stolen an armory of Western weapons and equipment?
Many real insurgent groups had access to Western weaponry before, whether or not they've been provided by Western governments a long time ago or that they captured a Western-influenced armed force and stole everything.
But I get what you mean. I made a post for BETA1's forums that the general x4 scope for Insurgent's assault rifles should be these Russian scopes I have found on Google, specifically the MPZ scope on the bottom left corner:
Don't know if this will cause balance issues, but the Insurgent's Marksman Class should be able to use the FAL rifle as a counter select-fire battle rifle to Security's M14 EBR.
Not like the Insurgent faction is underpowered with their Marksman class. The Mosin rifle gets to have the stripper clip modification and the SVD is the strongest Semi-Auto-only rifle in the game, but to combat against Security's M14 EBR, the FAL is needed to balance the asymmetric weaponry between factions.
This will sound nitpicky, but I feel as though in comparison between the Security and Insurgent factions on their Intimidate speech lines, the Security faction's Intimidate speech lines are kind of weak and pointless.
I'm specifically talking about Security's "DROP YOUR WEAPON!", "ON THE GROUND, DO IT!", and other lines similar to those two lines. Honestly, how would ordering insurgents, who probably vowed a blood oath to kill til their heads get blown off, to drop their weapons work? And to be meta, it's not like there's a gameplay element to surrender since it's unnecessary for a multiplayer game with a balance of casual and hardcore gameplay and gunplay.
Since the Security faction is technically a private military company, it's not like they have to follow a strict procedure on capturing insurgent soldiers. There can be veteran soldiers doing mercenary work who are filled with adrenaline and PTSD, causing them to get heated against their enemies, so I would believe that they'll be throwing more aggressive, psychotic obscenities to insurgents than giving them a chance to surrender.
I do have a few ideas for more aggressive Intimidate voice lines for current and future Security voice actors:
"FUCK YOU!/FUCK. YOU."
"OH FUCK OFF!"
"DAMN IT/HOLY SHIT, I'LL GOING TO KILL YOU!"
"I'LL END YOU MOTHERFUCKER!"
"THINK YOU SCARE ME?!"
"IT'S OVER FOR YOU!"
"I'LL FIND YOU, YOU SON OF A BITCH!"
"YOU'RE DEAD MOTHERFUCKER!"
"I'LL RIP YOUR HEAD OFF!"
"I SURVIVED WORSE THAN YOU!"
"U.S. FUNDING MOTHERFUCKER!"
"START RUNNING, I'M COMING!"
"RUN, FUCKER, RUN!"
Anyone have any other ideas?
I am so annoyed to see the Left-Arm gesture looking so wrong every time when I am editing my loadouts.
I understand that the game's in BETA right now with lots of time needed to fix the majority of the glitches, bugs, graphics, and optimization, but at least fix the anatomy/gesture of the the soldier characters first. Having the correct anatomy can go a long way for good art direction for human characters.
Luckily, I know well enough of basic anatomy and drawing to visually show what would be a better gesture (Yes, I mostly traced, but I really want the bad anatomy to be fixed ASAP):