It is because they scavenge the explosives from the enemy's weapon cache and DIY/rig the explosive. It is logical.
I agree with some sort of defense timer to improve Push games. But because unlike BF games, restricted zones do not kill you in 10 seconds in Insurgency, aggressive attackers can still rush to the next objective or wait on it.
One way is to make dead defenders spawn inside/nearby the next objective, the moment the previous objective is captured instead of their spawn point. This will ensure defenders can always reach their objectives first.
1: Delayed lifting of attackers restricted zone, in order to discourage a rush from A to B. Give it 15 or 10 seconds before it lifts. The same time it takes for new defender restricted zones to start.
2: If A is lost, defenders spawn at B or near it instead of their usual spawn location. Subsequent spawns are their usual location. If they lose B, then they spawn at C or near it.
There's a reason I'm saying "Sandstorm isn't insert game here" because the style of Sandstorm follows in the footsteps of the style of Insurgency: Source, where many weapons were capable of one-shot kills with AP loaded, regardless of armor worn.
Now, I don't another AP meta, but this whole idea that Heavy Armor allows you survive anything completely spits in the face of what core Insurgency gameplay is. Insurgency has always been an interesting combination of realistic and arcade elements, and I just don't want to see Sandstorm go more towards one direction or the other.
I quoted you because of the bolded part you mentioned. That is the AP meta.
The reason guns was powerful is because of the AP meta. Without the AP, most guns do not 1 shot heavy armor or even light armor. It became the de facto upgrade because the weakness of AP rounds was just the limbs. However, even with AP, heavy armor in Source enables the target to tank 2 AKM rounds, 3 AK74 rounds and 3 M4 rounds. The M16 was given higher damage and penetration per shot even though it uses the same round as the M4 because it directly competed against the AKM. Range also played a part in damage calculations although due to smaller maps, it was hardly an issue. AP rounds also gave rifles penetration bonus for wallbanging.
For sake of cost calculation, a bolt action in Source cost 1 point + 3 points for AP. Making the weapon a 4 point weapon. This means you have additional 8 points for various other upgrades like scopes and suppressor.
Semi auto like the EBR cost 3 + 3 for AP making it 6 point weapon. With a scope and suppressor, you would have used all supply points. This is while you only get 12 points to play with.
Compared with Sandstorm, the bolt action is 50% cheaper, and you even get more supply points in Sandstorm for other upgrades. Since there is no 'compulsory' upgrade (AP), points can be used for other weapon upgrade or side arm etc.
Heavy armor is a choice. Balanced by weight and costs. By using Heavy Armor, you give up either weapon upgrade or utility, and you become slower due to weight. In return, you have more survivability against gun fire. It's not that you don't take any damage, it's just you can survive a chest shot with 7.62x54r calibre round. However, your health remaining may not be enough to survive another pistol round if it connects. It's a second chance.
Please present your argument why a bolt action should down a heavy armor target in 1 shot at long range. I argued that the bolt action is already cheap in cost at 2 points to balance the weaknesses. While the semi auto sniper rifle is at 4 points to balance the higher ROF and Mag count.
Note: Please stop using the argument "This is not "insert game". It is not even valid.
That is your opinion of course. I prefer it as it is.
My thinking is that each weapon calibre has a counter. The small calibre weapons needs 2 shots to down a no armor target. The medium calibre needs 2 shots for light armor. And the large calibre needs 2 shots for heavy armor.
The bolt actions or semi auto high calibre weapons or any high calibre weapons SHOULD be able to 1 hit no armor or light armor targets in the chest. I SUPPPORT that.
However heavy armor should be able to tank high calibre weapons unless it is very short range where the penetration and damage did not fall off enough to warrant a second shot.
All high calibre weapons can be balance by scope availability and effective range. The longer the range, the more fall off damage and penetration penalty. So balance sniper weapons less falloff penalty and other high calibre weapons like G3, FAL and MK17 higher fall off penalty.
Note: I don't even play PUBG or Tarkov. Let's stick to discussing WHY something should be and present the reasons for it.
Before anything else , Bolt-Action needs to be one shot kill.
Bolt-Action = There is one second delay between each shot.
You fire a shot - - > Wait for the animation - - > You fire another shot
It takes about 2 seconds to kill a person.
Currently , Bolt-Action has a huge disadvantage.
Bolt-Action needs to be one shot kill.
On the other hand , Full-Auto needs more recoil.
You just press down left mouse button - - > You fire 3 bullets continuously - - > All 3 bullets hit the target accurately
It takes less than 0.5 seconds to kill a person.
Full-Auto is too powerful because the accuracy is too high and recoil is too low.
Currently , Full-Auto has a huge advantage.
Full-Auto needs more kickbacks and more horizontal recoil.
Recently, I have seen so many people who just want to spray bullets like water from a garden hose.
Many people are doing this because Full-Auto does not have enough kickbacks.
I would disagree making the bolt action a 1 hit kill weapon, especially against a heavy armor target. The weaknesses of the bolt action is already 'balanced' by its cheaper costs.
For sure, making it one hit kill against unarmored or close range light armored targets are valid. But heavy armor needs to matter as a choice, to give a 2nd chance against high calibre rounds.
If the bolt action being a slow firing weapon is made a 1 hit kill weapon, then the costs should be increased because the weaknesses has been balanced out. There is no valid reason why it should be a cheaper option.
My suggestion is: instead of boosting the bolt action rifles to 1 hit kill weapons, I recommend it boosting the effective range of the weapon instead and make the rifle more centered during the bolt action animation. And semi auto weapons available to sniper class has it's effective ranges reduced.
This will make the bolt action rifle not needing to adjust for bullet drop at long ranges hence easier to make two shots on target, while the semi auto rifles needs not only to adjust for drop, also needs an additional round to kill targets because their effective range has reduced.
The beta is testing the match making system. Also it needs the player to click on Next Match in order to continue, this ensure AFK players are not in the match making queue.
I would assume by right, the match making(MM) system will sort the players according to rank, in order to balance 'skill' and experience levels. Also MM will match a party of up to 8 players into an appropriate server where there is slot or put them into an empty server and match other players to fill in the other side.
Once server files are released to server hosters, you can join a regular server through the browser. And I assume we may get to vote for next match as we used to.
Found this spot while playing yesterday. Hopefully gets fixed before launch. You can basically gun down enemy the moment they spawn.
@mohdak you can watch the recap of your games and if it's true that your shots are connecting and not killing an enemy, I suggest you bring it up as a bug and use the video ID as proof it is happening.
It can help the devs identify the problems they can attempt to solve.
Micro transactions are not evil. If it is implemented with best intention in mind. Cosmetic items are one of the most harmless type of value a customer can have as long as it doesn't affect gameplay. For example, a ghillie suit kind of camo can affect gameplay and that shouldn't be available.
A game especially with a buy2play model can continuously be developed and be supported by a development team if it can continue to be profitable. While high game sales reward the devs previous efforts in developing the game, a micro transaction system can ensure the game survival for a long time. Of course DLCs can be sold but DLCs for addititional content are not considered 'micro' enough for people to casually buy it.