Sandstorm has been out barely 4 months. Give it some time, more will come. Right now they're still trying to get the bugs out and nail down the gameplay, plus adding mod support, all of which is more important in my opinion.
the only Devs that are honestly delivering are the Ubisoft people working on R6:Siege.
Keep in mind that R6:Siege has a dev team of 150 people, an astronomically high budget, and it's a mature and stable game. Sandstorm has none of that going for it right now.
@grumf @marksmanmax In bright daylight the smaller aperture sight can work great at close-medium range. But damn, the way it's rendered in Sandstorm with a larger hole than reality and a hard edge just looks so bad. I get that they're trying to differentiate the rifles from one another, but if they can't get blurring to work on the 3D sights, they should just use the 0-2 aperture on both.
As someone else mentioned here, though, if you're gonna take your sights off-target, you should at least bolt the rifle faster. You aren't doing anything else.
Yes. Definitely should be faster. In reality Mosins can be a real pain even to cycle, as much mythology that has built up around high-tolerance Soviet rifles, it really makes for a sloppy functioning machine, and most Mosins do not have smooth bolt cycles. But, no two are totally alike either, it all depends on the particular rifle. One of my friends has one where you need to smack the bolt with a mallet after every shot to get it to unlock. It's typically way harder to quickly cycle a Mosin than, say, a Kar98, or a Remington 700.
Not sure if that's realistic, but if it is, I think it might be acceptable to throw realism out the window here in favor of game balance.
The Mosin has a strait bolt that rotates 90 degrees to unlock, putting it vertically right in line with and behind the rear sight. It's also a probem with optics, since the handle will hit any conventionally mounted scope. Scopes designed for the Mosin mount forward of the action and have long eye releif.
There is a literal hack job solution: cut the bolt handle off and weld it back on at an angle. It's kludgy though since the action and stock aren't designed for an angled bolt handle.
@mainfold If the M16A2 has so many disadvantages to the M16A4, the M16A2 should at least get something thats better than on the M16A4.
The M16A4 is the 10 years newer version of the M16A2, if the new and improved model is worse than the old one in some way, that'd be a bit weird. Besides, one is for security the other is for insurgents, I don't see why they need to compete with each other.
Iron sights should be the same between them, there is no difference in real life. In game one is just using the long range aperture on the sights, intended for 300+ yard engagements, which is dumb since we don't shoot at those ranges in Sandstorm and they can't model the sight aperture correctly anyway.
Yes, the A2 model has shit options for optics. That's realistic. There's a handful of optics designed to mount to the carry handle, but they're super limited. It'd be interesting to see something like the Trigicon Reflex forward mounted sight in game, but they were never common and I don't know how they'd get in the hands of insurgents. There is a rail adapter for the carry handle that'll allow you to mount anything, and it works alright for 1x sights, but the super long HOB causes some pretty decent zeroing issues, especially with longer range magnified optics.
Yah. To a point bolts will always be inferior if the game is going to maintain any amount of realism. The only place bolt actions rifles shine these days is long range precision shooting - which just isn't a factor in this game. But, I still agree with most points. The greased bolt upgrade should just go away, it makes no real sense, and all bolt animations should be sped up. And bolt guns and accessories need a supply cost reduction, they should always be cheaper than the equivalent semi-auto options.
-> You can't cycle the bolt on a Mosin while holding your sights on-target, even though you can with the M24. I think the Mosin bolt-cycling should work just like the M24 works.
This is realistic. The shape of the Mosin bolt does not allow for the shooter to keep a sight picture while open. The 700 by comparison was designed specifically so that you could maintain a view through a scope while cycling the bolt.
Crazy, I've never noticed that.
To hazard a wild guess, based just on the screen grab, perhaps one empty mag is part of the reload animation (the one in the hand) while the other is the model that gets dropped on the ground spawning?
Do you notice two mags sitting on the ground after you've reloaded or just one?
Yah, this is a weird one. Part of the solution is to just not be so close to cover in the first place. I see people with little tactical training do this all the time in real life before they learn to back off and work behind cover rather than on top of it.
But there's some odd video-game stuff going on. It's a lot more difficult to judge distance to cover on a monitor than it is in real life, so this can certainly happen even when trying not to. Also, if for whatever reason I was forced into a tight space with a rifle in a situation with an imminent threat, I'd never collapse the rifle muzzle up like the game does. I'd rotate the rifle on it's side and pull the stock over my shoulder so I could still fire at a threat.
I mean, the issue here is that re-ADSing is faster than trying to recover from ramming your gun into a wall by accident.
Yah, that's certainly a technical issue. It shouldn't be faster to un-aim and then aim again that it is to simply recover the rifle.
In real life, blood pooling on the ground is going to vary considerably depending on where someone is hit, what they're wearing, how they fall, and how mobile they were before they fell. But, in a very general sense, the blood pool size is not at all unreasonable for someone who has lost enough blood to have died or lost consciousness.
I definitely die to chemical mortars less often than any other fire support. I think the amount of damage is fine, it'll kill you pretty quick if you're in it, the clouds just need to have a greater effect.
In addition to your suggestions, they also need to penetrate buildings. Being able to stay completely safe by walking through an open door is silly.
There is no objectively correct orientation for "north" in the game - since there is no Earth beyond the map nor measurable magnetic fields and such.
Therefore, since flipping the map and changing the way player icons move on it would (I assume) take some work, why not just leave the tactical map as-is and change the compass display on the HUD to indicate north when pointing at what is currently "up" on the map? Seems like that should be an easy fix which accomplishes the same thing.
@bbwallinator I'm not sure why you're taking offense to Arc's responses here. He's simply informing you that what you've noticed is in fact representative of how the real OKP7 sight looks when mounted to an AK dovetail. I'm not sure how he could have been more polite about it either.
I would also argue that only a small percentage of people are truly warriors. These individuals enter "fight-mode" immediately and are almost seeking combat where as the majority are more prone to flee, run away or taking cover. I would suggest that the elite forces, warriors and successful clutch athletes among us fit into the category of facing their fears and accepting the fact that they have to fight and upon embracing this state of mind enter what is known as flow-state in order to conduct themselves in peak performance to win or in this case, survive.
Modern combat training mostly emphasizes avoiding a fight-or-flight reaction when possible. Combat mindset emphasizes breath control and deliberate action to control heart rate and maintain clear thought. I'm certainly no hardcore SOF guy, but in my experience the best soldiers are those that stay calm under pressure, not embrace an adrenaline-fuel fight response.
Plus, Sandstorm does not depict combat between elite operators. Most are basically militia.
Lots of great feedback in the video. I agree with a lot of it. I've got a few comments on specific sections though.
I would like to add this consistent hipfire (not really hipfire but whatever) back to the game and instead of changing the pace of the game down with the ability to shoot accurately, if you're skilled, rather slow it down changing the way the weapon characteristics are.
Yah, part of the issue is figuring out is this really hip fire? The spread and recoil we see right now makes sense for true hipfire like you show in some real world videos (the machine guns should have much lower recoil all around, that's a separate but related issue). But as you showed later on, the 3rd person animations don't show hip firing, they show the weapon shouldered in a low ready. That makes this more of an instinctive shooting / natural point of aim from a shouldered position. That should be a lot more controllable for most weapons.
I would suggest that this fight mode wouldn't make your aim more difficult but instead make it more accurate due to the fact that you either hit the shot, or you die. And your mind doesn't want you to die.
You're right, your mind doesn't want you to die, not really. It just works out that way. The problem is the human fight or flight response didn't evolve for combat with ranged weapons that require fine motor skills. It thinks we'll be arm wrestling a saber toothed tiger, or beating a Neanderthal to death with a club. Elevated heart rate, rapid breathing, narrowed vision, and restriction of blood flow to the extremities all conspire to make shooting more difficult. Combat shooting statistics would certainly look a lot better if soldiers got more accurate with stress, but unfortunately that's not the case.
I love the idea of the tunnel vision effect though. It's realistic, and would be highly effective at visually communicating the state of mind.
My solution would instead be split up in two: Total Weight and Weapon weight being the factors determining your mobility in different ways.
I really like most of this, with one caveat: movement speed should always be effected by total weight. Speaking from experience, the weight of armor and gear is the single biggest factor in how quickly and nibley you can move around the battlefield. Next to that, the weight of the rifle is pretty minor. It's especially true in close quarters, where not only does your gear weight restrict your movement, but bulk becomes an issue too. Snagging on a door frame is a really good way to mess up dynamic movement into a room. I've actually been stuck in a doorway for a few seconds before because I was wearing gear optimized for outdoors combat - oops. And I find that with a heavy gear load, I subconsciously just don't want to move as quickly, or crouch as low, or contort into a weird stance to get behind cover, or hop over the ledge. Fighting with a light gear load is remarkably refreshing.
But ADS speed and sway should absolutely be determined by weapon weight. How quickly you can drive a weapon onto a target and hold it there has very little to do with the weight of your gear, and a whole lot to do with the weight of the weapon and all the stuff you've got hanging off it. In some respects, a bulky gear loadout can almost help reduce sway - if I can tuck my elbows into my vest or rest them on a pouch I can actually hold my rifle a little more steady.