What's wrong with delaying when it's to work and improve upon the project? I don't get why there's a hurry to get a game out, except perhaps budget, publisher deadlines or the whole team being straight up fed up working on a game for too long.
But fan expectations and impatience? That's petty. Just have faith in the devs, until perhaps they show signs of disinterest/laziness/slacking off.
Delaying games usually has very positive outcomes, providing the devs are passionate about their project and the additional time is well used, if course. Which nothing points against so far, so I'm glad to read this. Wish the team all the best in making this game a shiny title. Keep up the valiant effort guys.
Slow TTK =
You must trust your own aiming skill.
If you get ambushed from behind , you can just turn around and fight back.
Your aiming skill will protect you.
As long as you have good aiming skill , you don't need your teammates to protect you.
Some people will wander off by themselves.
Some people will rush to the objective.
It's funny you say that. While not exactly the best option, and not really viable in an actual competitive setting, in Insurgency 2014 I tend to rush a lot and succeed because: probably these players I outplay aren't always the fastest triggers, and I'm a fast trigger myself (and obviously, I play smart enough as well). I mean I tend to go solo regardless because it's fun and much more often than not, I get stuff done.
It doesn't quite happen when the opposite team has actually smart and skilled players, and/or I'm kinda carrying my team alone. But then I adapt and play more carefully.
So yeah not quite sure these last two lines apply only to slow TTK.
If you get ambushed from behind , you can just turn around and fight back.
Your aiming skill will protect you.
As long as you have good aiming skill , you don't need your teammates to protect you.
Not sure I agree with this either. You saying one can consistently be alright without teammates vs ambushes? In competitive as well? It can happen, sure, but consistently? You don't always have higher aiming skill than your attackers. If they're at least as good as you, they will more likely than not win the fight, if they take you by surprise. Kind of bogus.
@coachon COD4 with stopping power is still 4 shot kills on many SMGs and assault rifles.
I disagree. At long range, sure, overall, CoD4 has a more varying TTK with its guns. SMGs are indeed weak quick over some distance. But most other guns are 2 or 3 hits most of the time. My point was more about CoD4 hardcore being lower TTK though. You're talking about softcore. The rest about hardcore I've already said (thus agree), although in that large post that probably not everyone bothered to read entirely.
@cyoce insurgency 2014 has higher ttk than CoD4 hardcore, you still need more than 1 hit to kill in many situations. CoD4 hardcore rarely requires more than 1. I'm talking without involving juggernaut or armor, and with stopping power in CoD4 btw. I don't consider CoD4 very fun without using that. (It's the default damage balance in promod (competitive, with no perks involved), if that means anything.
So as I've said a few times I love CoD4, it has a very similar TTK to Insurgency 2014 (sorta low) but to insist on how too low a TTK isn't that good, and to agree with post above, I just have to retell how CoD4's hardcore mode goes:
Reduced health. Most weapons 1-shot kill in any body part. With a tiny bit of smarts and skill, it becomes easy to mow down anyone you see. Even those that are camping because my aim is often better.
Like @jensiii said, playing pistol only becomes possible and easy. I can even snipe people across map with it, one shot. And it's not just pub noobs that run around in the open, the great players too (granted, those kill me a lot in return as well).
Now, was it completely bad? No... Was it fun? Sure! Always fun to play something OP and get easy kills. Is it fun in the long run, though? For noobs that enjoy cheap kills all day or the type of person that would hack, yes. These people would get their kick without an ounce of shame. I, however found it gets old quick. So I try using less effective guns to challenge myself, if only to style on them a bit. Honestly very fun to pull off tough stuff, and doesn't feel cheap cause I'm already at a disadvantage... But I digress. In the scope of a competitive game (where skill and challenge are of matter), this kind of leisurely OP fun doesn't quite fit in.
Now how close to Insurgency 2014 was that CoD4 hardcore mode example? Aside from even lower TTK (in CoD4), size of maps and visibility of players, pretty much identical. So give and take what you want from this, but I just mean I've experienced super low TTK both with noobs and very good players, and it still is overall too easy and not fun. Unbalanced I'd say.
Sure the good players had the same advantages I had, but to follow on that unbalanced claim, ever played Smash Bros. with a higher damage multiplier? Or with let's say just 1 type of item? Is it fair? Yes, both players have the same advantages. Is it fun? Yes great fun can be had with that sort of ruleset. Is it balanced, is it fun in the long run? To me, no. I quickly get tired of getting knocked about at the 1st opportunity. I quickly miss normal rules where I can actually put some thought into my gameplay. Kind of like has been discussed before, this situation brings the "promotes target acquisition skill over all" into play. I'm surprising myself as I realize how similar this is to what's being discussed here. I could've used Sudden Death (300% damage, mostly insta-kill) as an example to get even closer. You just want to quickly land a hit, no matter what it is. Characters in Smash can dodge and block, but so can you hide and take cover in INS.
This makes me realize one more thing: what lower TTK really does, is make gameplay faster (duh? Lemme elaborate). Sudden Death in Smash aims to decide a winner super quickly, to slice once and for all because a fight has been ongoing for too long without a winner. It effectively removes one thing that benefits good gameplay: time. When you have time to think about your moves, you can apply a decent amount of strategy (time meaning number of mistakes where you take damage here). When that time frame becomes so small, it effectively increases risk and punishment for mistakes and significantly decreases the time one has to react, leaving it now increasingly more to luck than reactivity.
In Insurgency (or really any good FPS), a "normal" TTK should overall allow you to be able to make very small mistakes (i.e.: survive being shot by a player you took by surprise, but not survive running in front of them). In games with a higher TTK, you're kind of encouraged to play smarter, in order to keep your HP high. Obviously, in all cases you play smarter to not die, but that's because the time to kill is overall still quick regardless. It's still kind of within a "fast kill" range, you're not a bullet-sponge boss. This makes me think of MMORPG raids. There isn't as much mechanical skill involved anymore, as a good old, well planned tactic, because the TTK is now so high. I could even see the overall long-term battle in an FPS as high TTK. The objectives are all slower goals to attain, and the gunfights/encounters are much quicker events. All counting towards the end goal, but in smaller increments. You could then say that, very generally put, the objectives require much more planning than the individual encouters. But again, I'm kind of stretching this out a bit...
Right now I'm just trying to see the extremes and how tactical skill vs reactionary skill fluctuate in between. I'm just theorizing at this point but I think I sort of make sense? In any case this might be a good subject for an essay, which I won't be attempting (tonight).
So to go back a bit to the initial point: how does too low a TTK hinder gameplay versatility? Well I just think there's a point at which the options you have become too limited. Where the gameplay starts to flatten, where there are too few opportunities for turnarounds. I think it is healthy for any game to provide a minimum of forgiveness for mistakes, and the lower the TTK you go, the closer you get to that minimum.You could even make a parallel with a game of chess as an example of the other extreme, where "opportunities for turnarounds" are initially very very numerous. Same goes with a whole Insurgency round, where, similarly to a game of chess, every smaller action counts towards the end goal, and there are opportunities for comebacks.
Now with all that blabbering said and done, what is a good TTK for Insurgency? Matter of preference? Maybe. Appears to be the case, from this ongoing discussion. What should it be? Whatever the devs want it to be. What do I want it to be? I think how it is in Insurgency 2014 fits that game very well, in regards to balance to tactics and aiming skill. I personally don't like to spend too long on a target, I want it to be quick, but don't want to feel OP either. And I want to have time to react, if only to turn around. That means mostly no to 1 hit kills unless you hit torso/head and the target is unarmored. And so far this seems to be pretty much the case in Sandstorm, except for a few thing that could need a fix like movement speed or heavy armor.
~getting off-topic a bit~
I'm personally a fan of the faster movement speed, but it doesn't fit too well in this game, gives too much of an advantage in many situations. As I said in an earlier paragraph, allowing mistakes is good, but this fast movement speed may be a little forgiving, allowing to escape otherwise very dangerous situations. As has been suggested previously quite a few times, making acceleration longer and making it so getting hit slows you down sound like good solutions. They could keep the max speed though. It is fast but doesn't seem unrealistic. It's a good sprint speed. The fact that that sprint speed can be held for so long (indefinitely?) may be the problem here. Otherwise I'm thinking the devs have chosen to make this top speed this fast, so that traveling entire maps wouldn't be as long. Which I honestly like. It just needs to actually have drawbacks (slowed down when hit and sprinting for too long, and longer acceleration). Ugh, and with this I went off topic. Am tired and just spouting thoughts at this point... Will copy this into an appropriate thread tomorrow.
Anywho guess I'm done...
tl;dr: "One hit kills" kills gameplay versatility.
Most relevant to read: paragraphs 1 to 5, and second-to last paragraph. Can skip the rest.
Apart from the difficulty thing I think you already agreed with me. I mean the example you state was with armor, right? Either you couldn't aim or that bot had heavy armor. I have no problem downing bots in non-heavy apparal. Agreed with everything else though.
Just want to re-state that while I don't think TTK should be lowered, I like how it is at the moment, I don't like requiring more than 4 bullets to kill. 1 shot with everything is bad IMO, as I stated before, and 2-3 bullets is a nice middle ground. I don't want to drop immediately, but I still want to drop fast. High TTK has its pros, just another way to play a shooter. However I'm not into insurgency for that. Like I said, aside from hitreg issues, heavy armor perhaps needs a balance fix, it might be a bit too good, but otherwise when I shoot other tiers of armor, people drop fast and that's great.
I don't seem to understand your point there. I agree with all that you said. Makes sense, obvious even. But it doesn't negate the point that running in the open is dangerous. Which was all I meant. Of course you can play smart and not run in the open. Point was simply that you die quick when you show yourself wothout caution. If you play well and avoid showing yourself in the open, then of course, you're gonna be safer. Cautious and smart play is rewarding and the opposite is also true. I wasn't debating that. I was merely agreeing that you're not always as safe as you think. The maps are large and filled with shooting spots. People are on the lookout and will kill you quick if they see you, especially because the weapons are appropriately lethal.
Having played enough, you learn to recognize and avoid varying spots depending on map flow, but flanking and surprises are part of the game so you can't always be safe, even if you play smart. But that's obvious and besides the point. And honestly on Panj, there are routes on the sides, that much is true, but the last bit to spawns are still pretty open, leaving you free to kill if a camper is well seated in there. Not arguing against having ways to counter that btw, plenty options to cover your ass. I'm again just agreeing that when you don't know much where to go/where to cover from/what to do, you better hope you're lucky. That said not sure what's going on with the PTSD thing going on lol. Hadn't realized the emphasis they put until you compiled them.
I'm putting a little emphasis on this because you seem to imply that since there's always a way out of trouble, you never ever do. Playing well gets you far, but it wouldn't be a challenge if there weren't any uncertainties at play. Looking at this from a competitive lens, one thing you need to do during a round is to eliminate uncertainties, so that your team can have the upper hand. But again... That much is obvious, I digress.
This is just stupid. Sniper shot and he keeps running like nothing happened
Don't wanna be a party pooper but that seems like a miss. You shot just behind him, and the mist you see is dust from the ground. Happens to me a lot in CoD4 and INS2. Frustrating on the spot, but this video evidence should make it obvious to you... Not saying there isn't bad reg, I've seen the bad reg/bullet sponge videos and it's very real. Just saying you may have misjudged this one ^
That's true and I feel that INS2 was indeed pretty immersive, but Sandstorm doesn't feel too far off the mark either. Right now I'm waiting for some optimisation to actually see and enjoy the game, too laggy for me. But what people need to understand is that the game was never really slow-paced. It's fine if they could find their way at their pace, like I agree being patient and taking your time to get somewhere goes long ways vs running in, but at some point there's an encounter, and I can't imagine anyone doing very well with that kind of passive mindset. Must die a lot and I can't imagine it being very fun for them. And there (must be) other games they would enjoy better, despite this one providing immersion that they enjoy.
I wasn't implying he was a roleplayer either, but the game definitely was always fast-paced, rewarding fast reaction and decisions. And that their approach to the game would fit more into a roleplay/more friendly situation. And by the way I kinda lost track of who said what, I'm talking more generally, since the complaints seem to be general. I get that a lot in CoD4 (which, like I said a couple times around here, has many similarities with the previous Insurgency, believe it or not), I would play fast and react quick and people would complain that I wasn't letting them time to prepare. That's not the point of the game, you shouldn't be here if you expect that.
Speaking more generally now:
It just feels a bit delusionnal to play Insurgency expecting "relax" moments, casual captures. It's fine if players could somehow find a way to enjoy it that way, but they should also be well aware that they're playing the game "their way" and not expect it to cater to that inherently. Reminds me a bit of CoD4, often people would like to play say, pistols only, sniper only. Thats fine, but don't get mad if people aren't playing along, they don't have to. Not the best example, but it's a bit the same with Insurgency. Some people don't realize that their playstyle isn't best suited for that game. Now I haven't looked myself for the dev's actual thoughts on this (what the game's focus is), but the competitive tournaments videos some peeps posted around speak for themselves for me. It's very reminescent of CoD4 promod and CSGO competitive, although without the arcade gunplay of CSGO, and the faster paced movement of CoD4.
That said I'm not saying either "gtfo if you aren't happy", if they can find ways to enjoy the game like they did in INS2, great! I'm just asking them to be aware of the overall direction of the game, and to not expect something it is not. It was never a slow-paced game, just play for what it is. One thing I'll admit, though, is that it seems even faster-paced at the moment. The running speed is fast. That might throw off people used to less. I prefer faster movement myself, but I think slower movement fits better with this kind of objective-based game.
I think the current voices are great. Like objectively good records. However so far they're not as memorable as in INS2 to me. Gotta say I miss the insurgents from it. They really some kind of fun, brotherly fondness to them. If anything I guess a mod from the workshop replacing the new ones would fix the problem for those that miss them. But yeah, don't think we should completely dismiss the current voices, they're not that bad.
Only problem I see, and that may make them sound worse than they are, has already been adressed in this thread: the spam. (A short) cooldown sounds fair (to avoid 0.01 second spam). Short because you don't want to hinder its use either. Then votekick would get rid of the actual spammers. Hang in tight peoples, this be the
I share the congratulating sentiment, however not sure how degrading other games helps your point. It may surprise you, but I came to insurgency from CoD4/CoD2, specifically because it had a very similar feel. Or at least a lot of what I looked for and found in these 2 games, I found in Insurgency as well. Most notably: fluid and solid gunplay-- the guns feel responsive and fun to use; focus on skill-- more so in promod where there are no partygame perks; low TTK-- yes, in CoD4 and 2, with most weapons it is 2-hit kills, granted there were no perks involved except stopping power (the true damage balance to enjoy that game imo), and in hardcore, most guns 1-hit kill at most distances, how's that for low TTK? That's something I really enjoyed seeing in Insurgency too; fluid movement around the map-- although that must be the most different thing, moving is pretty slow in insurgency compared to CoD4, but that's not a bad thing at all considering what the game is about. What insurgency offered however, was a much more immersive ambiance/more realism overall, more accessible objective-based gameplay (as in, more players/opportunities to play; in CoD4, promod has been dead for a while), larger maps, and more. But, love it or not, still had this arcade feeling that CoD4 offered. I was still able to run and run and succeed. But only if I played smart, of course. Unlike much more realistic games like Red Orchestra, where heavy camping and much more cautious gameplay is rewarded. Insurgency still promotes cautious play, but in much more short-burst intense ways.
And then I must say I'm sort of with you on CSGO, I despise the aiming and I prefer more versatile movement, BUT that's still mostly personal prefs (tons of players having great aim in that game (although beyond me) must mean something (I'm bad at it)). I feel the game is actually pretty good at what it wants to do. I just figure it's not for me. That said I haven't played much of the more recent CoDs (past WaW), couldn't get into them much. Definitely not what it used to be.
Sooo... yeah. Really wish the best to NWI, this game is shaping up great for sure!
This baffles me as well. Players wanting a game to be what it's not. I agree that there are like, more supportive classes/positions, which allows players to take a less agressive stance at the game, and that is fine. However to not expect requiring aim at all in a shooter? Kind of asking much, there.
Not sure how it is in sandstorm, but my understanding is that there isn't much options anymore for more supportive gameplay? Imo observer/commander sounds like prime support positions. Demolitions/rocket launcher doesn't require much aim but is super useful too. In any case I can't see how you could do well/help your team much without aiming much in the previous game. I always felt very pressed to aim well or else I'd die. Whether I was camping quietly, or right into the fray.
Otherwise I may be misunderstanding what exactly @oldkingcole225 was doing that didn't require aiming in the past. I mean if he feels the game isn't what it was anymore, pretty fair. I'm now just very curious to hear more precisely what they mean by that. How they played the previous game, and what they expect with this one.
Otherwise I can't say I aim for the head very often if at all. I always aim center-mass as well. We were just saying that the head was currently a good counter to the heavy armor.
Must say I agree much. The game is great fun at the moment, but we expect obvious fixes and the devs are actively working on all that and that's great. But two weeks? Damn, I'm worried as well, for the same reasons as you. Maybe they'll pull it off and we don't know enough of how it is in the dev office/how quick things are moving, but maybe they won't, and I don't want that to happen :'c
@benz I've added stuff to my comment that reflects this, and yeah, indeed go for the head if you see the vest, especially if you have the advantage of surprise.
@oldkingcole225 unsure how this puts emphasis on headshots on the whole. It puts emphasis on headshots for "1 shot kills regardless of armor", but you can still one-shot in torso with a bunch of weapons. Even against light armor, although less so.
If anything I'm happy the heavy armor seems to be worth something this time around. In previous game there was not much incentive to use it because it felt as feeble as light. Now it feels like it offers something. It now just needs to not offer too much and/or offer proper drawbacks.
Agreed, great post from MeFirst, very accurate imo. Although aside from correcting benny's "no skill whatsoever" to "actually some skill", it seems to pretty much agree with him anyway.
That said, maybe off-topic, but worth mentioning I feel: at top pro level, in most competitive games/sports, the mechanical skill is already maxed for most and isn't a concern anymore, you just expect the other player to succeed every mechanical action they start. The outcome of the play then comes down to mostly skills 2 and 3. Map awareness, intuition, guessing, mindgames, that's where the top play is at. It comes down to who tricks who, who makes an error first, etc.
Edit: must say I disagree with MeFirst's TTK example though. Benz is spot on, makes no sense if that's about TTK. It rather sounds like a lag/hit reg issue. If it was about heavy armor, then yeah, if the attacker didnt have HA but the other guy did, the attacker was at a disadvantage. Not very unfair though since the vest is visible and you should know about it and all. Whether the vest is OP is another point.
Edit 2: On the very topic of TTK, have you ever played a game like CoD4 on hardcore mode? Where most any guns are 1-shot kill? I personally find it very fun, but it's because it's easy. It's relaxing to not need to aim much and get easy kills.
It baffles me that anyone would think that lower TTK = harder. It's harder for you because you're easier to kill, but as long as you have the first shot (and it's accurate) you're gonna win the gunfight. Really promotes staying hidden. Which is fine. But doesn't the game already feel that way? If I show my face, 7 times out of 10 I get 1 or 2-shot. 3 times out of 10, I live, but I blame that on poor aim or bad reg. Because most times I don't even get hit.
I just believe that the issue is rather with hit reg/lag or heavy armor rather than the current bullet damage/player health.
@biass what? You thinking of DOI? INS was a pretty damn open game. Just getting to the "front lines" was a pretty dangerous task and I remember dying a lot just because I overestimated how safe certain areas were.
There were choke points in some maps, sure, but the game mostly consisted of holding those choke points with your gun and using smoke/grenades to move up.
Agreed. If we're thinking of close-quarters maps like Embassy or Ministry, then yes, there are some easy routes to enemy spawn. But if we think of others like Panj, Buhriz, Sinjar, Peak, or even Heigths, rushing to enemy spawn (or just running in the open) isn't exactly easy and always feels very dangerous.
Now I probably haven't played enough to be sure of this, but while I indeed saw it took much more to kill well-armored soldiers, playing smart and insisting usually gave me the kill. Also headshots don't seem too hard to hit in this game, it's been forgiving to me so far (which helps countering heavy armor). I mean, perhaps heavy armor needs to be slightly less effective, but I guess it is still higher tier equipment, thus should provide significant bonuses? Perhaps it should also slow you down more? Haven't used it yet, but I'm assuming, with the speed at which I run with light armor, that it's not that slow.
That said I think I need to play more. The TTK doesn't really feel too high atm, as I've been pretty lethal so far, but I'd rather believe the multitude of posts claiming it is too high, from players that have played it longer than me, for now.
I agree that slowing movement a bit when hit would be a good thing. Isn't it already like that in the previous game? Not sure anymore. Otherwise I would simply add that I also agree that being under fire (but not hit) shouldn't slow down or perhaps very slightly. But more specifically I think it should apply an effect on the player. Something that affects visibility and aiming, that reflects the stress of being under fire, pretty much like it is in the previous game, but maybe slightly more intense.
Now very slightly slowing down when under fire would make sense I think. It'd reward firing at running target and not impair running target too much. I'm talking maybe slow down 15-30% when hit, but slow down 5-10% under fire, possibly increasing (from 5 to 10) the longer you are under fire. E.g.: a single bullet only slows you down a tiny amount, momentarily, as if to simulate a a heart jump, but sustained fire causes your guy to panick and be weaker on its legs, slowing him down but very slightly. Just ideas anyway, figured I might as well be descriptive if I suggest something.
Also I dont get all the hate for Benz... He seems to have mostly valid points, but they seem to get disregarded and him punched down for merely showing annoyance. While I agree showing annoyance isn't the best way to respond, reading through this thread and a few others, I may have come to a similar reaction, just maybe I'd have kept it to myself. In any case, appears to me his detractors haven't exactly kept it classy either.
@benny agreed. I would argue that the bots are perhaps too easy as they are now though. But perhaps simply a few difficulty settings would solve it? E.g.: "Normal" as the bots are now, and "Hard" with either smarter/faster reacting bots, or slightly higher danage?
I'm a fan of the faster movement myself, but I wouldn't mind it being slowed down, it IS indeed pretty fast, and must throw off players expecting same speed as previous game.
And bolt action should 1-shot, imo. But perhaps not in entire arms, but only in shoulders. Making it 1SK in head, torso, and shoulders.
Then maybe you don't see this game for what it is? I always feel stressed playing it because it is intense and challenging. If you don't want competitive play or stressful play, PvP doesn't seem like the best place to play casually. So maybe you'd better enjoy coop against bots? I mean, I don't agree with how you say insurgency is. I could never play casually in PvP because it mostly results in death (unless I'm not against any skilled player, then I can take it easy, but I'm lucky when that happens). I just don't feel it's the game's fault for being too hard. When I can't succeed at a game, I try to adapt. And if I fail, I move to something else I can enjoy.