It is because they scavenge the explosives from the enemy's weapon cache and DIY/rig the explosive. It is logical.
@quadsword everyone seems to complain about higher Time to Kill, but so far I have always died within 1 second of being shot at. So yeah I think TTK is still very short and guns are still deadly. Just no more 1 hit kills.
@tactixx I agree footsteps are too soft. It should be 2 - 3 times louder than it is now for running.
@master-quixote Sandstorm maps are bigger, has more buildings and hard cover to move around in. If enemies are in good defensive positions, you can opt to avoid them and try a flank instead.
In previous Insurgency, any defense can be solved with a RPG or grenade launcher. It was useful mainly because the maps were smaller and choke points are harder to overcome. But it created a meta filled with explosives ridden combat. It was very easy to dominate another team as Demolition of Rocketeer class. The class is probably the most powerful one in terms of firepower it can bring. Spamming of grenades also was common because it can kill any enemies within the blast radius.
Currently in Sandstorm, more players are killed by being shot than being blown up. I personally hope this meta remains because explosive meta can be frustrating because players feel helpless against them.
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.
Trucks should be in a covered building like a garage or warehouse.
Because after a while, players will find vantage points to call down fire support on the trucks once they figure a map out.
@master-quixote then it is up to the Commander to clear the path for the team.
I don't agree that 1 player or class should have the ability to overcome a strong enemy defences. A proper defence should be rewarded as would a proper offence. If an enemy defense is really good, then your team need to improve the offense effort.
RPGs are pretty weak to be honest compared to previous Insurgency. Granted the previous game allowed only one to be carried, it can easily clear an entire floor of enemies.
Current RPGs are more like grenades to be honest. Not sure if they recently bump up the damage in today's patch.
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.
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.
Found this spot while playing yesterday. Hopefully gets fixed before launch. You can basically gun down enemy the moment they spawn.