Damage models unfair

I mentioned the TTK too often now, I don't want to do it again.

But please give the community a chance to change this. I know I can't do it by posting this.

You guys could put a question in the next survey like "Do you think the damage models need to be more hardcore?" or "Do you think the TTK should be much faster?"

Please let the community decide. Im sure im not the only one getting sick and tired of getting a hit on an enemy and then dying because he hit me once with a gun like the SVD or EBR.
You can just look at DGL(Digital Gaming League) Pro matches, everybody plays eighter VAL, SVD, EBR or shotgun. They don't even consider picking an AK, M4, Scar or something like this, do you know why? Because there is a chance they don't even kill in one hit.

This is not a fun meta so please change it.

last edited by Zayzek

I know you posted this a week or two ago but god you're so right. people soak so many shots, game feels like COD not like insurgency. But fuck, not even the devs care any more.

Its just sad that the community can't even decide anymore because this forum is basically dead and the devs won't even check it because these like 3 upvotes is all you can get on this forum now.

I understand you guys but I dont agree totally.
I think a more realistic damage model would include cripple shots in the legs and other effects like when you got shot you whole body shake so you cant return fire accurately.
In real life, urban context, is rare when someone is stopped by a single shot unless this shot is in the head. I already saw (in video) one guy took a .40 shot in chest and he ran more than 10 meters before fall.
In military context with everybody using ballistic plate, it would not be realistic to kill someone with only one shot. I thinks those other mentioned effects would be cool. if you shoot someone in the legs he would fall and just be able to crawl for about 2 minutes and after that he would die by blood loss. Any team friend could be able to do first aid and bandage him.
Other than that, shots in you core would make your aim shake and the first shot guy would loss accuracy. That's is more real approach.

@Shadoware Thats a great idea, in the old Insurgency there was a thing where when you would get shot you would slow down but you were still able to shoot. but you had to take the fight or die, in Sandstorm I you can still escape with sliding or just running.

They should really add AP ammo back into the game since there is heavy armor that needs like 2-3 shots by a lot of guns, but the AP ammo should cost a lot of points, like 3-4 and 5 in competitive

Maybe AP ammo could be something we found in the map or get after some achievement. Maybe in the final cache. I heard that shots in pelvis can immediately incapacitate somebody, if the shot break the pelvis, even if they don't die immediately they won't be able to stand and continue the fight. Other than that only shots in the nervous system (head and spine) can shut somebody off immediately.

Ins feels like cod? get the fuck out of here with that shit wtf are you smoking? The only stupidly absurd TTK weapons are the 9mms like the uzi and mp5 if you're shooting at heavy plates, try being slightly realistic here as in the real world 7.62 is a much more powerful round than a 5.56, so it makes logical sense that the 7.62 guns have a faster TTK and deal more alpha damage than the 5.56.

Devs said they didnt want to return to the AP meta but the AP meta let you use any gun and have fun with it, people can still do that, if you're getting owned by people who happen to be using one of hte weapons you think is just far superior then even if you roll with the same gun you're still going to get fucked as you're being shot at accurately while you run about trying to dolphin dive like it's 2008 all over again.

Also guns aren't ment to be balanced, the M4 has superior rate of fire and accuracy and less recoil than the guns which fire 7.62, if them "pros" only roll with the one shot guns then they aren't very pro at all they are just meta-whores.

Give me an M4 over a FAL anyday and i'll dismantle any self proclaimed "pro"

Ins is a mix between arcade and simulation, we're more arcade than sim like armed assault, yet the guns in ins are fine, you're dropping bodies in 1-3 shots, maybe up to 5 if you suck at aiming and only go for center of mass on ARMOURED TARGETS.

yeah that was kind of the fun part in old ins, beeing able to use any gun you like and not have a disadvantage, and since there is armor they should add a counter to it, like AP ammo but it costs 4 points

Or they could remove armor


Armor was nerfed into the ground since beta. Heavy armor used to be a must-have similar to AP.

Now all armor is really good for is eating one extra round from a FAL or EBR on heavy, buying a few extra pistol rounds to the chest, and very minute amount of explosives protection.

Damage is already pretty hardcore, with armor essentially being completely invalidated.

If nothing else, I'd personally bump all the rifles and carbines firing intermediate cartridges to 1-tap unarmored chests. It seems fair enough to those that want a more hardcore TTK, while making armor still relevant, and an actual choice in exchange for losing a little bit of mobility for a point.

I'd be fine with anything so long it's not back to AP meta of 2014. As much as that part was fun, it was an obvious balance disaster and should not be encouraged to be brought back. I actually like that some guns take more than one shot to kill to give a slight chance for players to react to those shots.

@Rock but there are weapons that do one hit so the meta is just to take these weapons, have you ever watched a competitive match ob the DGL? everyone is playing VAL, SVD, EBR or Shotgun.
Is this a better meta than every weapon being viable with a 4-5 point equipment like AP rounds?

You do realize that weapons like the m4 are fully automatic rifles with a high rate of fire, right? they are made for close to medium ranges, they have less recoil than their 7.62 predecessors and if you use full auto that 1 extra shot won't really matter...Guns like the VAL, SVD, EBR have a loot of kick and less firerate, they fire a stronger cartridge and thus have more stopping power. They are made for medium to long-range engagements. Shotguns, on the other hand, need to cock after every shot, good for close range bad for long-range, have you ever seen how deadly a real-life shotgun is? It's not like the shotguns on most shooters I'll tell you that much. I don't care about what this so-called "pros" do. The game has too small of a community to have many "pro" teams competing with different playstyles... I usually run m4 or VHZ on security and I can kill any person using the weapons you named because of the fire rate advantage I have. If they are too far for you to use automatic, then go for accurate headshots with single fire or even better don't engage at all...Be tactical and use the weapons that suit your playstyle and map!

@Zayzek I normally die in 1 shot from across the map so the damage seems to be severe enough to me. I don't think my avatar has a bigger head than any one else lol.

@Vulfen you die in one shot across the map because the sniper is using the good guns, nobody would use an m16 with a 7x scope like in the old insurgency

I think there is a too big damage difference between the bigger and smaller calibers. It is not balanced or realistic that FAL (7.62x51mm) kills even a heavy armored target with one chest hit and M16 (5.56x45mm) does not kill even unarmored. All rifles should at least kill an unarmored target with a chest hit. With the short barreled carbines this range should be short though. In real life in close range combat 5.56mm rounds fragment (barrel length increases fragmentation range) and do similar or even higher damage than 7.62mm rounds with chest hits.

last edited by Action83

@Zayzek I die in 1 shot in that situation but many others. Sometimes shotguns when they arent even pointed at me. Other times they have aquired me before they even round the corner and I am dead as I see them.

"Realism" in a shooter like this is always a pretty relative thing. In real life people don't have hit points, bullets don't have damage values, and the wounding effects of projectiles on humans is very complex. Sure, pretty much any infantry rifle is capable of killing an unarmored person in one shot to the chest. You could even say it's the most likely outcome. But, chances are, that person is going to die between 30 seconds and several minutes after being shot. And it's entirely possible that they'll be conscious and fighting for at least part of that time. The kind of instant-fall-to-ground-dead shots we see in Sandstorm, and pretty much every other computer game ever, is only going to happen from a chest shot if the bullet hits the spine. That sort of accuracy is something that's trained for, but it isn't something that's generally seen in combat.

All that is to say: I find the current damage model to be fine. It's not particularly realistic, but it's not unrealistic either, and making bullets more lethal within the framework of the current system isn't going to be any more realistic.

@Shadoware said in Damage models unfair:

I heard that shots in pelvis can immediately incapacitate somebody, if the shot break the pelvis, even if they don't die immediately they won't be able to stand and continue the fight.

Oh yah, pelvic shots are no joke. A high velocity hit to the pelvis is a mobility kill for sure. And there's a lot of major arteries and nerves that run through it and are easily damaged if the bone fractures.

last edited by MAA_Bunny