- Add bullet types. This option needs to return from the old game. It adds more depth.
I agree on the HP and AP ammo. Its interesting way to give more depth to the game. That being said, In the old game, If you didint have AP ammo in your gun, you would lose firefights against armored targed most of the time, thus making AP ammo must pick.
So if the devs were to bring the ammo types back, they need to findout how to balance it first.
Yes. Having different ammotypes will just make the guns much harder to balance.
This depth can be implemented to the guns without different ammotypes: different weapons can have different AP and HP values built into them.
I don't think the game should be balanced in a way, that makes pistols viable as a main weapon. That breaks immersion and makes the game not believable. Pistol is supposed be a secondary weapon.
This is ofc only an opinion.
Also happened to me multiple times in the past few days
To confirm if it actually is a real bot: real bots dont have exp levels, it just says "bot" in the place where humans have their lvl number. At least this is how it's in local play.
1 hit by a bullet to the upper chest should kill you, esp. if its an assault rifle round or larger. (Any caliber round to the head should also kill you obviously)
Agree with this when talking about unarmored target.
Body armour should ofcourse provide protection however, so perhaps a 25% dmg reduction from light armour and 50% from heavy armor to the places they cover would be appropriate.
Other than that I would like damages done to follow a rule sorta like this:
Character Health = 100 dmg
Damage of different calibers:
Full rifle calibers = 125 dmg
AR calibers = 100 dmg
Pistol calibers = 65 dmg
Body part dmg modifiers (100% is normal dmg):
Head = 150%
Upper chest = 100%
Stomach + groin = 75%
Arms + Legs = 50%
Body armour modifiers:
Light armour = -25% (upper chest & stomach)
Heavy armour = -50% (upper chest, stomach & groin)
This would give a very realistic yet balanced and great feel IMHO, esp. if vital 150% dmg zones beyond just the head are added, like for example the heart or spine.
I think you are on the right track. IMO best suggestion so far has been from @thehappybub in another thread (sorry for not linking it right now, I can do it later if you want though)
A good idea is to have the AP values built into the weapons, because it helps weapon and armor balancing. So I'm not supporting the idea of bringin AP back at all.
Commenting your example: I think the armor modifiers should make a noticeable difference between light and heavy armor. In my opinion light armor doesn't have to be able to stop AR rounds, just protect from lighter weapons and shrapnel. Heavy armor is the choice for stopping AR. So noticeably bigger stopping power for heavy armor, then tweak points & movement penalty and add proper tagging, and it's in a good balance: provis better protection, but slows you down and tagging makes sure you still can't cross an open area that is guarded.
We definitely don't want the arcade CoD/BF style lethality where it takes on average 3-4 hits with an AR to kill someone, that would just kill the lure of this game IMHO.
I been active on the forum for some time now and I am seeing that this is not what 99% players here are after for. The main disagreement seems to be about armor effectiveness. If armor is not effective at all, that would surely kill the lure for me. It wouldn't be believable.
Ooooh! Glad to hear they are working on the AI as well!
Thumbs up for NWI for this one.
If this permanent ban was done correctly, it should be very easy for the mods to pin point in laser accuracy exactly why. Now it's too vague. "Flamebaiting" has been the "best" answer so far. That's waaaaaay to vague for a permaban. I will come back to this later with another post.
The line has to be clear, otherwise bans will can not be objective. And if bans are not objective, it's always because someone didn't like a person. And that's wrong, unless you want to dictate the conversation on your forums. Of course the owner of the forum can do whatever he wants, but there are consequences.
Yep! And someone just told me in this thread that I have Benz cock up my ass and that I should get it off there. This might have also implied that I would be a homosexual. Hmm....
Benz never said anything even remotely close to that.
This ban is wrong.
NOTE: My thread got locked because people who opposed my feedback came to the thread and started shitstorm. How convenient. Mods shouldn't have locked that thread, because not a single person who is on my side about that feedback never said anything that should result in locked thread. But of course locking that thread is very convenient for some people.
@thehappybub said in Bring @Benz Back:
Even if a mod came to the conclusion that Benz flamebaited, why don't they crack down on direct insults and racism, super-recent examples of which I included a few on the previous page... … I'd say statements that warrant more severe repercussions than a flamebait.
I just think the mod should reconsider, it was an overreaction. The mod should especially reconsider a permanent ban.
Definately an overreaction. They either will have to cancel the ban or ban a whole lot of other people as well to justify it.
@jagg could you elaborate more on this?
EDIT: I wasn't in alpha so I don't know how it differs
@thehappybub Disputing a warning is perfectly okay, and is not what got Benz removed from these forums.
It would be nice to know what exactly did get him removed? I suppose there's no need to not make it very clear for everyone.
Benz was toxic. I’ve read a ton of his comments and all it ever was, was cathedral ceilings and everyone is bad at the game and wrong and these are “facts” because he said it and he’s better than everyone and no one has any arguments against him because he’s always right even if someone gave him an argument. Good riddance!
He was giving arguments from the viewpoint of making the game more competitive (NOTE: I don't necessarily agree that I would like the game to be a competitive game). He had valid points for that point of view. Most of the people who "argued" with him could not counter his arguments in any way and "got their feelings hurt" by feeling inferior. Whenever someone actually gave proper, real arguments, instead of blind denial, @benz tried to counter in a proper way. I learned a lot from reading his arguments.
He always said that he accepts if someone prefers something just because the person likes it. But that's not argumenting about if something is better for a certain gameplay reason.
from all the yelling at each other in the other threads, nobody has really agreed to weather low TTK increases or decreases tactility. I agreed to disagree and said it nor increases nor decreases rather that it is a different type of tactility. after all that makes sense, changing anything in a game will not make it "not tactical" rather differently tactical. do you agree?
I've also agreed that TTK does not make the game more tactical, it's the other mechanics that matter much more (movement mechanics etc.).
Yes, changing anything in the game will make gameplay different. I've been using word "tactical" to describe a game in tactical shooter genre. Yes, Quake has different tactics because of the different mechanics, but I don't call it a tactical shooter
- skill ceiling
we have also been yelling about this one and nobody agrees. again I think even though OHK means there isn't as much "aim" skill required for headshots that you would need in other games. I would argue that there is skill to be had that isn't aiming skill thus it doesn't effect the game that much, and then the larger maps make the games main skill map knowledge.
Yes, removing skill areas from aiming makes "map knowledge"-skill or "reaction"-skill or whatever skill bigger in proportion of all the skill areas in a game. Regardless of removing aiming skills by implementing OHK, map knowledge-skill is still as complex as it was before. Lowering or raising TTK does not make map knowledge-skill any more complex. So the skill required to master map knowledge is still the same.
Skill ceiling = total of all the skills that can be mastered by the player in a game.
Example: let's say a game has total number of skills of 10, that the player can master. If we remove 2 skills from the game, we are left with 8 skills to master. So now the skills left are bigger in proportion (1/8 instead of 1/10) but there are less skills in total, thus lower skill ceiling.
OHK would have effect only on TTK. It doesn't make areas like map knowledge any more complex. Changing map design would make map knowledge-skill more complex.
this one is dodgy because insurgency wasn't known massively or teamwork like teamwork you see in CSGO, but then this is only my knowledge which is only in 32player PvP rather than 5v5 comp matches. I would say that making it 5v5 would already make it a team game, as you have a proper team to call out to.
But in either way, do you mind if I ask how TTK would effect teamwork anyway?
It has been said that it's harder to solo when TTK is higher, because then it's harder to take on multiple opponents at the same time. Especially if there are no mechanics to enable low TTK (like headshots). That would make it more preferable to "gang up" and move together with other players. I guess that's what public server teamwork is usually more about, moving together, not so much about very detailed, precise tactics.
Competitive teamwork is different, in my opinion. It can have much more nuances when the same players play together as a team.