Not only is the movement faster in Sandstorm but theres no momentum stop when you get shot, similar to the original insurgency. I didnt think much of it at first but as I play more, im seeing a lot more people just sprinting around at maximum speed, its a bit too fast and it feels like Call of Duty multiplayer where everyone sprints until they see a guy most of the time.
I also think low weight vs high weight doesnt have much speed difference and theres not really a reason to be lightweight.
Everyones kind of projecting their thoughts as correct.
Im my opinion, TTK is fine for everything except bolt actions which should be 1 shot on everything except specifically the legs and even then thats a hard maybe.
To say 7.62 should oneshot, I am assuming you mean the x39 variant in AKs and stuff and ill quickly disagree there that they should absolutely not just oneshot, but they should definitely twoshot at most from a close distance. Something people dont consider as well is the range on these weapons and AKs have pretty low velosity and range and I feel this is an important factor. 5.56 shots from an M16 might not twoshot body armor every time but it will hit like hitscan across the map and make shots easy, as well as being effective up close in a small burst.
Im a big fan of what theyve got so far and I feel the complaints of lethality are forgetting that insurgency source had everyone running AP ammo without fail, 100% of the time. If Sandstorm had AP ammo im sure most of everyone would have the same TTK as source. I feel the removal of buying AP ammo is the best thing we could have gotten.
To be honest, for heavy armor, 7.62 and 5.56 could probably do just about the same damage and as armor goes lower, 7.62 damage could be higher along with all of the other 7.62 bennefits like wall penetration. To contrast this, 5.56 does lower damage than 7.62 but loses less damage as the armor tiers go up.
Suicide bombers should be able to sprint by the way.
Id like to start by first specifying that this is my opinion. I aspire to balance videogames but this does not mean I am correct, ive always wanted to design game mechanics and make sure everything feels right, being inspired a lot by the game development choices of the halo games from early bungie, focusing more on fun than whatever the e-sport community has been focusing on. Ill start with a popular topic of discussion and work my way into something people dont talk about that I feel can heighten the game a lot.
Time To Kill
Time to kill a big discussion point and people are saying that its not fun when the other person is a bullet sponge and some people want the oneshots back and some people think this should oneshot but not this and armor is a big discussion point as well. I really feel like there is a good inbetween for this kind of thing and no one really talks about how to get there. You dont need everyone to have AP ammo and have everyone oneshot or at most twoshot with any gun to be competitive. You can have the lower TTK of the lower calibers right now and still have that feeling that "I shot first so they were pretty much dead from there." I feel that there shouldnt be many guns that oneshot mostly being bolt-actions. As much as I like how the PKM oneshots right now, im not so sure its the best choice for balance reasons, it has a hefty amount of recoil but im not sure if thats enough. That thing is a monster of a gun and its basically a full auto sniper rifle that youll usually only shoot one shot with. I feel that the TTK issue can be negated by the inclusion of more suppression mechanics but not in the way theyre implemented right now, which leads me into
Suppression and Health/Damage
which I feel can bridge the gap between low and high TTK. I think health should come back much slower, for one, and being damaged should automatically set you to a very high amount of suppression which can even make a garbage 9mm pistol feel effective against heavy armor, even if it takes four or even five shots to kill because the truth is, even with heavy armor on, taking a 9mm bullet isnt going to feel good and in the field im sure being shot at all is going to throw you into a panic. While you might initially read that and think "thats so stupid i dont want rng to decide if i win or not", the other alternatives are "my pistol doesnt work" and "it doesnt matter what gun i use because i oneshot anyway" and really both of those are bad in my opinion. Its not so much RNG either. Suppression can do things like mess with your audio and make it harder to take note of your surroundings, it could make your aim much more unreliable against the shooter and give a good edge to people with a lot more ammo, even boosting the effectiveness of SMGs which are generally completely outclassed by rifles in nearly every way other than a ton of ammo. It would also present a nerf to DMRs like the M14 or SVD unless they land those killing shots because theyd lack the suppression of missing a lot more. I also feel that taking damage (depending on how much) could possibly slow down the person being shot. I think someone in heavy armor might be able to tank a 9mm and keep moving but perhaps taking higher calliber bullets could slow down the person who takes them, boosting the reward of someone who can land their shots even if the shot doesnt immediately kill, you could also make this more specific like being shot in the legs may slow down the person who gets shot. Id even go so far as to say that being shot at all should move your aim around, and while you might again say "thats stupid" or "thats not fair" the alternative is that youd die immediately because they would have AP ammo and low TTK. You could also apply the aiming suppression effects to things like flashbangs to boost their effectiveness and generally make the whole thing stronger and more rewarding to use.
I think sound isnt being used enough here and can even provide incentive to use light or heavy armor. I feel weight should be tied to footstep noises to really reward someone for taking just a pistol or an smg with no armor or ammo carriers and things like that, this would also directly nerf support as a whole as carrying that LMG makes you pretty loud to move around and basically wont let you push up fast as even an inexperienced player can hear you coming, making the support role more of a SUPPORT role and not an offensive rifleman with a huge magazine and higher damage. I have also heard from many people that theres a lot of issues in PvP where people run around because the footstep noises are so quiet and it becomes incredibly run and gun where that stuff shouldnt matter. Im not sure the validity of these claims but its worth noting. Talking about PvP however...
I feel the number one problem with the PvP in this game is the forehead bullet dilemma. Ive played two matches of PvP in Sandstorm and probably 3 in Insurgency Source, and its not that im bad at shooters or anything, I do fine on other titles but Insurgencys slow combat and focus on positioning really only heightens the problem of a guy with 3 pixels of his head sticking out of a corner of a window with a oneshot semi-auto sniper whos capable of destroying 5 waves of your team without anyone even able to get a shot off at him. And this has happened to me multiple times. One player getting about 30 or 40 kills in a single around because the other team just cant see him at all. This is going to destroy the games pvp at anything except top-tier levels, its just not fun and its not realistic or fair because only veteran players are going to know where these exploitative spots are. Its generally just a bad time, I feel if the forehead problem can be eliminated, the game will see a significant boost for the PvP scene. I want to see less emphasis on oneshotting a dude with a sniper from a position he couldnt have possibly seen and more on actual gunplay and suppression.
Another big dilemma ive seen is that some guns are just better than other guns, im not going to talk about this too long since there are a lot of guns and I cant say ive even used every gun even with my extensive time with sandstorm but I would say that guns at the same prices should be sidegrades. If a gun is GENERALLY better than another gun, one should also be more expensive than the other. I think its quite silly when some guns are more expensive but worse than a gun at a lower cost.
I think everyone knows how ridiculous the melee in this game is, im not sure how much theyd be willing to look into it but really anything would be better than it is right now, including almost not having it. If I had to give my opinion on a good melee system in a first person shooter, I guess id say Battlefield One does it the most successfully so far, locking you into an animation (provided you actually get the kill) that generally makes the melee effective against one person but ultimately suicide in any two-man engagement.
And im not saying these are perfect but I would be confident in saying its a lot better than what is in the game currently.
Please, if you liked what I have to say give me a thumbs up or post a reply, id hate for my post to get lost. If you disagree please quote the section you disagree with and talk about why its bad and all of the specifics of that, I want to have a well organized discussion about all of this stuff.
Thanks for reading.
You know you could just like, play the game. Ive got about 100 hours and ive pretty much got everything I want, and I didnt spend my cash very efficently.
Buckshot can go up to 70 meters while being effective, same for slugs honestly. The power does drop off but im sure if some of that hit someones face at that range theyd still drop.
Armor? Not so much.
Edit: Even effective buckshot range is 30 meters.
But I just explained why.
Honestly, an autoshotgun would be pretty overpowered but theres ways to counteract this. Someone said "its not very effective against armor" but really that isnt true, shotguns are pretty much as powerful as the round you put in them, this is why flechettes are such an issue right now. Theyve got almost the range bennefits of a slug, better armor piercing abilities than a slug and a spread, even if tight of other shotgun rounds.
I can see an autoshotgun with flechettes being one of the strongest weapons in the game, so the first thing that comes to mind is to make it one of the most expensive weapons in the game. The next is to limit the classes that can use it, I dont think breacher should be able to use it, id go so far as to make it a commander only weapon. You also cant make the recoil too high next to a pump shotgun since they essentially do the same thing, if anything they should have about the same recoil as a pump shotgun, the only difference is you dont have the pump time to compensate for the reload unless youre willing to sit and wait for the shot to come back down. It would also be silly to have a slower reload to a pump shotgun, the list goes on and on. Essentially theyre just shotguns without the need to pump, making them weaker in other areas in comparison to a pump shotgun would be a bit unrealistic even if its for the good of balance, but I really think you can balance the gun without making it weaker with some of the suggestions ive put above.
Theres a lot of discussion over TTK and stuff like that and AP ammo and how this all worked in Insurgency Source, I have my opinion but perhaps theres way to increase the effectiveness of lower TTK weapons without simply raising it up.
Most low TTK weapons are lower calliber and most of them have reasonably low recoil (if not that should be addressed), but the issue is still there. In my opinion, being shot at and actually getting hit should be a radically harsher effect that stops you from properly aiming. At first glance I can already see some worry but in the end I feel this would be an overall positive change, if you cant shrug off or ignore shots flying at you (or into you), itll encourage the player to play slower without actually slowing him down. Lots of people have also been discussing the time it takes to aim down sights and how fast you can move, perhaps a proper suppression or punish for being shot would suffice. This would definitely make pistols more useful as well because someone on the recieving end would have a hard time landing a shot on you while you blast him with [b]5 9mm shots in the chest of his armor[/b]. Furthermore, I feel when I actually get shot its just not punishing. It becomes “who can land the killing blow first” when in actuality it shouldve been me who lost because I got shot first, but if the bullet didnt kill me I still have options and I feel rushing out a perfectly aimed shot shouldnt be one. Im not saying to disable the person whos shot but im saying it should be MUCH harder to shoot.
As always, this is my opinion so give your thoughts, thanks for reading.
Being as nice as I can, wanting oneshot mechanics back in the game is absurdly stupid and the people acting like its a better solution are also a bit stupid.
Lets compare the AKM to say, an M4 under “every gun kills in one hit”.
Why would I pick a gun with: less range, less firerate, slower bullet velocity and more recoil?
Assuming I was playing to win specifically, theres no reason id ever take a 7.62 rifle ever again when a 5.56 will oneshot , seeing as it has much better everything except wall penetration and even then wall penetration is silly anyway and I would never rely on it.
I mean, the argument is as simple as that, theres no reason to even keep this going. The game just becomes 5.56 rifles and nothing else unless someone doesnt have the points for something else or they arent playing with the idea of using the objectively best gun (playing for fun, like using a boltaction).
Please drop this one-hit-kill shit, its going to drag down the game. We just need better effects for getting shot so a higher ttk isnt as bad for the guy landing shots, while also rewarding other players for taking the higher callibers.
Ever use the PKM without a compensator? Hoh boy that is a true test.
What made INS Source really good is its lethality.
The choice of AP ammo
This game is losing its way.
Allow me to speak for myself when I say that every gun oneshotting isnt why insurgency was popular. I dont think AP ammo was a choice either. Its technically a choice but the choice is deciding between enjoying an icecream or drowning yourself, its a no-brainer.
I think the game found its way, at least in this specific context. Theres things I dont agree with but the damage isnt one of them.
- Recoil should be reduced only if you're stationary as then you get support from your knees.
But then what's the point of crouch walking? What's the point of crouching at all when going prone is better? Right now, the only advantage of crouching is that you can stay mobile with the benefit.
Being in cover and being able to move around and being able to uncrouch instantly to a sprint???
Since when did people walk around on a squat irl?
Oh when will the damage control end..
You seem like youre baiting pretty hard, in the end you arent going to get your way, change anyones minds and the average user isnt going to care.
This thread should be locked already because its very clear you arent here for discussion, only to cause a problem. You wont listen to even the most neutral posts, really only posts that agree with you.
I think some of the guns that some classes get should be looked at, the easiest example would be an insurgent advisor and his ability to take the svd which is an absolute destroyer.
When the insurgent team can take up to 5 one-shot semi auto snipers and the security teams .308 assault rifle (mark 17) twoshots (while the lower calliber rifles like the m16 also twoshot), it really makes me wonder which team has the power here.
Also where are the security balaclavas?
Probably most shotguns can, honestly.