I think people seem much tankier due to the decreased damage on limb shots. In Ins2014, getting shot in the arm was pretty much fatal 90% of the time.
They said there is no clear consensus from the community because you and other non-Insurgency """people""" came and fucked up the discussion.
Now this is what @Tooth-Decay was talking about.
SVD alongside the FAL are oneshot kills. Learn to read. These guns only need very minor buffs.
What are you suggesting as a buff for guns that already kill in one shot?
I also suggested this a month or 2 ago. Would be really nice.
It would be nice to scale things so there's no need to scroll or minimize scrolling. Otherwise it works well, it's clear, you can save&delete presets, so it's all good in my opinion.
Bump for the AI guy
This is excellent suggestion!
We can exclude headshots for the purpose of having a discussion about how many rounds in practice it takes to kill somebody unless one meets somebody's head. This is relevant with the MP7 because the headshot percentage is so high due to the low damage of the round less often ending the engagement through body shots than with another weapon. I never stated that in practice 4.04 shots to kill was anything other than what it is.
So you are confirming that MP7 is indeed a 4 hits to kill weapon in practice on average.
Agree or deny?
Human variation is a thing which exists when a human is interacting with a product designed to bring joy and entertainment. You cannot ignore the human variation and pretend that for Sandstorm's lifespan all shots from everybody will be torso hits for your personal convenience.
I know it exists in human interaction, not the point. You cannot include it, because it skewes your numbers. And it's literally possible for this variation to be anything. (Example: somebody can hit only foot and shoots on semiauto one round per 3 seconds. There's some human variation for your calculations. How is the TTK now?)
Agree or deny?
The 3.2 average is determined by whatever the average engagement range is. This is due to the delightful statistical phenomenon in that it is an average. This means if it's closer to an average of 2.75 hits to kill up close (which is perfectly reasonable) it'll likely be closer to an average of 4.25 hits to kill at long range. This assumes long range kills are less frequent occurences which I'd argue is fair. Still though, this is not high lethality.
If 80% of the engagements happen in the range where 2.75 is the average hits to kill.
Is the average hits-to-kill then 3.2?
I didn't state text had a tone of voice, I commented on your choice of content. In that, you personally attacked me with outright falsehood. You didn't deal with my core point.
Wrong. See below.
As such, you are not going to be able to produce me saying any of the lines of text you have written and at best could maybe argue I inferred something.
"From my interactions with strangers ingame the TTK seems to be a problem for 95%+ of people yet the forums disproportionately reflect the casuals."
"I recognise the casual demographic is vastly overrepresented on the forum compared to the amount of people who're really disappointed with the gunplay whom you happen to meet ingame, but the statistics speak for themselves."
My point was I'd like you to admit that you want CoD TTK.
So I hit the point right on, and got the core of your point right. There we go.
You confirmed you do.
How? I never said such thing.
I am however interested in where you think I played a victim card, this would greatly amuse me.
By saying I attacked your character. I attacked your actions.
As for the rest of what you've written, it's just all over the place. Claims I've "mixed in" inconvenient facts for you "as a last resort" shows you no longer wish to have a civil, reasonable, point by point discussion about the merits of A over B.
You claimed the M16 damage in Sandstorm is same than in COD. I proved that it's not. That was pretty civil.
50-99 damage is more than 30-40
Agree or deny?
Clearly you are under some serious delusions about the meaning of my language, despite that even in reflection I am confident with the way I have chosen to express my points. I try to be willing to engage in rational discussion, but with you individually, I may make an exception.
Well it's hard for me to understand that 2-3 is more than 3-4 and that 30-40 damage is the same as 50-99 and that 4.04 is actually 5+. Call me delusional all you want.
Sandstorm is being advertised as high-lethality on the Steam page. Actively. Is CoD a high lethality game or is it casual? Because Sandstorm has less lethality than CoD. Let's stop mincing words.
Yep and I pointed out that lethality seems to have room for subjective opinion. I don't know about COD, you're the one who's been talking about it.
@jensiii leg shots weren't effective at all the last game so I don't see what you're getting at here.
I wasn't talking about the last game, I'm talking about the current game (Sandstorm). With that question I was just trying to find out more about your opinion.
Reason why I want TTK low is I want the high lethality nature is to make every weapon viable like the last game and seeing the damage models fucked especially with bolt actions being worst than the DMRs in damage output per shot is just BS
I agree on the bolt actions.
Not only just the damage models but I have to mention every time how this damage model feels like a gimped BF4 hardcore with more RNG elements such as suppression being heavy regardless of caliber and the weight recoil system that doesn't make sense to reality.
Agree that these could use tweaking.
....Until then, body shots are the standard.
Yep, bodyshots are Sandstorms "headshots". And they are in the range of 1-2, with few exceptions of 3. Like you said, in CS headshots aren't even OHK and that is the standard.
The MP7 is 8 hits to kill if you're shooting ankles. Yes, this was tested, it just wasn't published on the table as it wasn't really related to the core point. The MP7 according to my stats is 4+ hits to kill but 1 in 4 kills is a headshot. Adjust the statistics for deaths which don't include headshots and it becomes a 5+ hit kill weapon in practice. There's nothing wrong with my numbers here.
So we can exclude headshots? Why? But we can include ankles?
If we include and exclude hit areas however we want, we will get a lot of different numbers.
If we exclude all other areas but include only headshots, it's an average of 1.0 hits to kill. Extreme example to show, that it will mess the numbers if we do that.
Your 4.04 stat includes all hit areas. That's how that weapon has killed in practice.
"Human variation" like the fact that you use yours in semi auto compared to somebody who doesn't. 2 hits to kill certainly doesn't mean you're killing any sooner than somebody using it in burst and firing more rounds off. Remember, we established this in the other thread?
I use semi/auto for accuracy and full auto on close range to get bullets faster at a target. Semiauto being slower than fullauto is no news. 2 hits in chest to kill is still 2 hits in chest to kill regardless of the fire mode. Player who gets enough shots on target faster wins.
Where is the "human variation" in this shots to kill and how that has an effect on how many hits a gun takes to kill on a certain hit area? I can't see any.
"Human variation" is just a random parameter of inaccuracy you have thrown into your number and you get an arbitrary number as a result. It doesn't make sense. It can be anything.
The statistics you produced, are these at point blank range? If so, you need to realise the damage falls off with range so it takes additional shots. You need to account for this. If you redo your statistics and see how many shots it takes in each location at 150 metres, then compare as a range, you'll see why the numbers average around 3.2.
Yes they are close range.
I think I see what you mean by this. We would also have to take account what exactly is the most common engagement ranges in Sandstorm and how that effects the actual average number. What is the engagement range that gives 3.2 average?
You are correct that I should also try out the longer ranges. I'll do some testing with them so I'll see the damage fall off in action better.
I haven't actually thought about reducing the damage falloff. Maybe that could be a good setting to tweak if it's too harsh. But I don't currently have an opinion on that.
Nice to see you got all offended about me asking you to categorise your opinion.
This is all in your imagination, because text doesn't have tone of voice.
You've then proceeded to attack my character with emotional falsehoods and not attack the point made.
I called out something you have already done, so it's not false. You said that I have to spesify some game that reflects my opinion and you even named one. I have told my opinion, if you just would read the posts properly:
"Shots to kill seem to be between 1-3 and that's what I consider to be a low TTK, and I'm happy with that."
Now you can categorize that yourself how ever you want.
I attacked your exact point and called it out. You played the victim-card as your defense. If that wasn't the point, then that part of your post was pointless. Unless you care to elaborate on, what exactly the point was?
Because you want SS to do it your way, not CoD's way.
The fact that the TTK is the same (or maybe even a little higher on the M16) is coincidence, not something you "want".
It's not me, who is comparing Sandstorm to another game, br0.
Are you now "categorizing" me as "COD casual"? I think I hit the nail in the head in my last post.
BTW: you completely ignored my questions. Not surprised.
Then you tell me I want CoD TTK of 3-4 hit kills when I've posted a full itemised explanation on the page before of exactly what I want to see, which is 1-2 hit kills for the most part. Oh damn, your wit, your intellect, how can I compete with that.
It seems you can't unfortunately, since you did not get that part. I was talking about hits to kill and weapon damage all the time, then you mix in weapon recoil/controllability as a last resort, when you see your claim about weapon damage is not holding up.
Congratulations, most of the guns on the list you guys provided (16 out of 22) already kill in 2 shots. I personally think 1-3 is good range. But that's COD right?
You can gun down an enemy in CoD without him reacting to it too. It doesn't make it high lethality. Ins2014, DoI, they were high lethality. Bullets were lethal.
Thank you for your opinion about lethality.
@jensiii this is COD/BF TTK judging by the damage model here.
most games that fall in the category of insurgency and RS2 typically have damage models more lethal than this with taking 1-2 shots to kill someone
There are guns in Sandstorm that take only 1-2 shots to kill someone. You're talking like there is not. There's a spreadsheet that you can look in the beginning of this thread. 16 guns out of 22 kill in 1-2 shots.
Or are you implying that toe shots should be 1-2 shots to kill as well?