Well colour me tickled! We get to keep our pistol now I see!!! My pistol choice matters and I actually use it - AWESOME! Very pleased with this
The M14 for security is also more appropriate. I haven't tried insurgents yet but presume it's still the Mosin which is fine.
Really hooked on hardcore checkpoint now. It's all I play.
The movement speed also feels perfect to me. When I switch back to normal checkpoint, it feels almost silly running around that fast.
Great job NWI! Happy camper here
Even though I'm replying to my own post, I thought this topic warranted a new thread. Would love to hear other peoples suggestions too about how to improve on the idea of limited supply for hardcore checkpoint.
- The idea of limited supply is good. BUT... It's a bit TOO limited IMHO. I like the idea of taking what you need for the mission and making it last. But, if you die, it's a bit of a bummer to get stuck with a kit you don't like for the balance of the match. I'm not sure what a good solution is yet but I'll give it some thought.
MY SUGGESTION: Spawn the player with their original pistol choice (with 3 clips) instead of the Makarov and NO primary weapon at all.
Why do I think this suggestion is worth considering?
It would make your pistol choice more meaningful. The pistol is your BACKUP weapon. Well, let it be your backup. This would also mean that putting points into your pistol selection is more important as you may actually need to rely on it! More meaningful choices is a good thing.
Surviving with your chosen pistol until you can scavenge a better primary could be fun! Surviving with a Makarov on a single clip? Less fun...
Achieves the idea of limited supply without completely invalidating the players weapon preferences. We each have our favourites. Having your entire kit ditched when you die and being forced to play with random weapons isn't always fun. Keeping your chosen pistol but having to "make do" with the rest seems like a good compromise.
Anybody else have thoughts on how this aspect of the game might be improved?
However, they apparently decided to overlook the fact that Outskirts not only spawns zero small ammo crates, but also doesn't spawn a Resupply Box at the last objective.
Well... shit. I've only tried hardcore checkpoint on the new Outskirts map and wondered where these supposed "ammo boxes" were. Tnx for the heads up.
After switching back to INS2, I wanted to check out the new hardcore checkpoint mode and am happy to see the direction it's going! Thought I'd pass along some of my initial impressions:
Movement speed is MUCH better. I realize this is personal preference depending on whether you lean towards arcade or milsim but for me I prefer a methodical/stalking type of gameplay.
The new map (Outskirts) is very nice. Once again a preference issue. I but I like having to survey the terrain and clear the nooks and crannies. Having a few "lanes" that can easily be memorized and blocked off isn't as much fun for me. The collapsed building is a nice touch.
The idea of limited supply is good. BUT... It's a bit TOO limited IMHO. I like the idea of taking what you need for the mission and making it last. But, if you die, it's a bit of a bummer to get stuck with a kit you don't like for the balance of the match. I'm not sure what a good solution is yet but I'll give it some thought.
Friendly fire is an issue I don't want HUD markers in hardcore mode but this is where I like the original cosmetics much better than all these new accessories that players have asked for (and NWI have delivered). It used to be much easier to tell Security from Insurgents. But with both sides getting similar cosmetics, you can't use head scarves/helmets/face covering to quickly tell each side apart as you used to be able to. That was the obvious good solution which I felt WAS done well and has been spoiled which is a shame. I'd love to see a modding option that forces the cosmetics for each side to more unique and easily identifiable outfits.
All in all, it's a great step to coax me back but I'm still holding out for:
- Varying objectives (co-op) so that each time you play a map it isn't Groundhog Day. DOI started to innovate with this. Why not SS?
- Modding - While SS is getting there, I'm eager to tweak it to my groups exact preferences.
But overall, well done! I love Insurgency and am eager for SS to mature to the point where we're all happy to move on from INS2/DOI. I want the snazzy graphics, awesome sound and better bots... But gameplay comes first!
I have a similar issue. Unfortunately, stability and frame rates are both worse for me.
I already reported the CTD with the auto feedback form.
As for frame rates, have noticed something odd. I messed with the settings during a local coop game to see if I could make it any better and noticed that it seemed to be a COMBINATION of MEDIUM SHADOWS and ANTI-ALIASING (tried FXAA, SMAA x1 & TAA).
Obviously, these can be expensive, but what is notable is that when combined, the drop was extreme (I had down to 13 FPS when I'm usually around 60). The other notable thing is that it only happened with MEDIUM shadows. When I shifted to HIGH shadows, the extreme frame drop went away.
So, yes. For me anyway, running with HIGH shadows rather than MEDIUM actually gives me better and more stable performance.
Not technically a bug, but unusual behaviour.
When you run and do a knee-slide into a car or barrier, if you have any excess momentum, you will ricochet and your excess momentum can carry you beyond cover.
I think that when you slide into a barrier, you should stop - no matter what the angle of the barrier is to you.
The slide should be terminated when you hit the barrier (green slide) and you should NOT continue to slide out of cover at an angle (red slide) like you are on a ice rink.
As described in title: Q & E Keys are hard-coded on resupply page.
I use Q/W for lean and E for use.
As the resupply page seems to re-purpose the LEAN keys to switch tabs/pages and the USE key to resupply, for me it should be Q/W to change tabs (incorrect) and E to resupply (correct).
I think a couple of tweaks to the existing system could address some of these problems:
ONLY count the initial explosion as friendly-fire. Burn/Gas/whatever damage-over-time should NOT be considered friendly-fire.
The shooter does have control over where he triggers the explosives and thus can take responsibility to avoid friendly fire. However, he can NOT prevent people from entering (or failing to exit) the affected area and should not be punished for such.
Friendly fire is often only a fraction of full damage. In a short TTK game like Insurgency, this is presumably to give time for the shooter to register "blue on blue" warnings and have time to stop before killing the friendly.
I'd suggest lowering the friendly fire bullet damage even further and make it asymmetrical. Perhaps something like:
- Friendly target recieves 10% of bullet damage.
- Friendly shooter receives 15% of bullet damage.
Ideally, this would achieve a few things:
It would give more time for the shooter to realize his mistake and stop shooting before anyone dies. Helpful for genuine accidents like when someone walks into your line of fire. This would also help prevent griefers from causing you to teamkill by intentionally walking into your line of fire as you'd have more time to avoid the unintentional TK.
If he (either intentionally or unintentionally) doesn't stop in time, the HIGHER reflected damage would kill (and thus stop) the shooter BEFORE the friendly dies. So the target (while still getting wounded) wouldn't pay the "ultimate" price for the shooters mistake. Griefers who want to TK for the LOLZ would only kill themselves and be more obvious about it to teammates.
As this potentially would "only" require tweaking values to the existing system, I'd like to think that it also would have the advantage of being relatively easy to implement.
Once again, just my 2¢
Only one of my two friends can see my community server in their server browser and connect to it. The other friend and myself can connect with no issues.
This led me to believe that the first friend (who can't connect) has a network issue specific to him. However, he can join our party and play together with us on NWI public servers.
His inability to see my server persists even when trying to connect via IP, after a reboot and trying again on different days.
What's odd is that he can see SOME community servers, but not as many as my other friend and myself which is strange!
Also, he's only using standard windows Defender/Firewall. He also tried connecting via a mobile hotspot to bypass his home network and had the same results.
I'm forwarding "-port=27102 -queryport=27131" as per my startup .bat.
Anyone got a solution or any advice?
Do you have to wait through the entire draw animation of an explosive before you can move to the next slot? If so, that should definitely be fixed.
Yup. I've died so many times cycling through explosive animations. Takes an age.
So let me get this straight. Are you saying there should be a shortcut key that allow us to toggle either a grenade slot or the RPG slot?
Yea, sure. I wouldn't mind having a new binds for selecting a specific explosive type. Speaking of binds, I remember the community from Day of Infamy requested adding a new bind that treat 'lean' as a toggle. I'm glad they added it in Sandstorm. I would love to have new bind for selecting a specific explosive slot.
Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. Each explosive slot should get it's own bind so you can select it immediately.
Currently, when you select an explosive, you switch to the one in the "first" slot. If it's not the one you want, you have to wait until you put it away and then take out the next one. If that's still not the one you want, you have to once again take the time to put it away and then take out the next... <boom! you're dead> ... one.
Having to cycle through your explosives is very time consuming. Especially when you can't set the order you prefer at loadout.
If I have an RPG & Moltov and want to quickly toss the Molly, I usually have to cycle through the RPG first which takes an age. With heavy carriers this just gets worse.
Please consider adding dedicated binds for each explosive slot and/or at the very least let us set the order which we want to access them.
Thanks for the consideration.
Just wanted to add my thanks for the effort you've put into this and your willingness to share it with the community.
These things take a lot of time and I appreciate you being generous with yours.
I'm away and won't be able to test it until after Xmas but didn't want to forget to pass on some kudos.
Okay so despite the title, I'm really not sure whether NWI is trying to be dishonest, being forced to do so, or just extremely bad at estimating development times...
...Granted I have zero experience developing a game, but when everything they announce is as unrealistic as it is, it makes me question their honesty.
I don't believe it's a question of honesty. Software development is full of unexpected challenges, not just technical but marketing/financial/etc. which often result in very poor estimates. That's why you so often hear from larger developers (who can afford the wait): "It'll be done when it's done."
This doesn't take away from your point that their estimates have been wrong and that content has been scaled way back. When they realized they'd bitten off more than they could chew in the time available they back-peddled. But I believe this is more about correction than deception.
Being primarily a co-op and single player guy, the lack of game modes including the story is disappointing. At this point, we'll have to hope their good track record of post release support will remedy this.
The worrisome part is of course performance. Even if their internal build is gangbusters, there is precious little time to get it out into the wild and test/tweak in before release. As concerned as we all are about this affecting Sandstorms initial reception, I'm sure it pales in comparison to theirs.
...To make myself clear: My issue is not the slow development of this game, it is the unrealistic announcements of NWI and them then trying to rush this game out before it's ready... <snip> ...I would be happy to see this game delayed for another few months...
Like you, I'd much prefer that they bake the cake until it's done. It may not be ideal that they ice it with additional content after it's served, but so be it. The important thing is that it is solid on launch. I am also happy to wait.
It really boils down to this: in reality, a 7.62 round is preffered because it rips through most commonly-found cover. So what that SAPI plate won't stop it? ... it really doesn't matter when you're blasting people literally through walls.
5.56 will perform better against armor due to its high velocity, but once it hits a tree branch it loses a lot of its power. That's not really that helpful in reality.
At the ranges SS is played at, it matters more because 5.56 would very clearly outperform 7.62 on direct hits. What I would like to see in the game is implementation of realistic penetration for both rounds. A 7.62 should go through most everything that isn't a very solid wall. If you see an enemy through a window of some plaster building and they duck below it, you blasting that wall with a battle rifle should get you a kill. If that's how it worked, I would consider the rounds balanced as they have specific strengths.
Not being very knowledgeable about these sorts of details, I find this very interesting! Perhaps another great opportunity to further differentiate between weapons as you suggest.
I have found it is extremely difficult to win any matches in 'local play'. The biggest problem is defending an area.
If I die, I will re spawn miles away. By the time I get anywhere close to the area again, my team are all killed and we lose. I can never win!
Yes, defending is difficult because if you die, you don't have time to run back and stop them from recapturing as you pointed out. As a recapture is an immediate loss, it's game over.
One thing you can do is as soon as you die, quickly switch your view to one of your AI teammates (presuming at least one is still alive) and then take possession of that bot and keep defending.
If you don't do this quickly enough, the game doesn't make you wait while your bots fight (this is solo mode after all) and just respawns you with a new wave of AI.
However, it's this respawning that pulls your remaining AI from defending the point causing the problem in the first place. So, once again, if you can take control of an AI bot QUICKLY you can hopefully keep fighting and complete the defence.
All that said, as Local Play is non-competitive solo mode (presumably just for practice and fun) it might be nice if the devs considered:
- Adding some bonus time if you die while defending so you have time to salvage a defence of a point.
- Simply remove the Defend requirement from Local Play and avoid the problem entirely.
The other issue I have is that sometimes I will be in the defending area, and still be alive, but the opponents still capture it! I think unless myself and the whole of my team are killed, then the opponents should not be able to capture the defending area.
Capturing is "pushed" back and forth by the number of bodies on the objective. Your team needs to outnumber the enemy team for it to move in your favour.
My suggestion regarding XP for playing the objective would also work here I think.
Generally, I believe we need a much broader view of what constitutes "playing the objective".
Would definitely like to see the LMG's reduce movement further than a normal rifle when ADS, that makes a fair bit of sense...
I edited my original comment and deleted the line about limiting the player to walking speed while ADS because I'm suggesting that ADS be ONLY allowed with the bipod deployed. Thus ADS with a LMG would only be possible with NO movement at all.
More suppression for all guns in general would make for a better game and define the MG's role further.
Not so sure about this. My gut tells me to NOT increase suppression for all weapons but increase suppression significantly for LMGs ONLY. That would really make effective suppression unique to LMGs and give them a very specific competitive advantage thus defining their role.