#16
(22-09-2016, 20:51)Quadruplesword Wrote: Being honest with you, though, now that I think more about it, removing bolt-actions would probably only go so far to curb the issue of lone-wolf snipers. Even in a game with no bolt-action rifles, you would still have 'that guy' - just that 'that guy' would be using the M14 / SKS instead. What I think needs to happen is a scoring system that prioritizes and rewards good teamplay and discourages lone-wolfing.
It definitely will, but removing bolt action rifles is definitely one part of doing so. And one of the most fundamental.
Reply
#17
Less friendly fire. vote bolt actions!

Anyway about the forest map, I know there is logging operations in the Hindu Kush mtns so I'm pretty sure a guy could make a properly set forest map. In any case my appeal would be for a forest set map with rainfall. Even if there's a a map with mountains someone could still add sections of trees. As a matter of fact I remember now from War there is DEFINITELY forest in Afghanistan. I know people like to come up with their own ideas but who cares. Ideas are free.for all I know maybe there is a foreseeable future.
Reply
#18
(01-10-2016, 18:17)Stunner Wrote: Less friendly fire. vote bolt actions!

Anyway about the forest map, I know there is logging operations in the Hindu Kush mtns so I'm pretty sure a guy could make a properly set forest map.  In any case my appeal would be for a forest set map with rainfall.  Even if there's a a map with mountains someone could still add sections of trees.  As a matter of fact I remember now from War there is DEFINITELY forest in Afghanistan.  I know people like to come up with their own ideas but who cares. Ideas are free.for all I know maybe there is a foreseeable future.

Korengal Valley, anyone? Big Grin
People say Mid East is all sand and all but we have Heights too, that's also based in Afghanistan
Reply
#19
I think Korengal valley is like peak
Reply
#20
(12-09-2016, 21:51)Quadruplesword Wrote: I'm kind of torn on the introduction of a competitive mode. Sure, it would bring in lots of people and there are already people in the community who would love it, but it would also invite a lot of... let's just say less desirable individuals into the community. Almost any time a developer adds a competitive mode, you get those elitists who want everything in the game to be changed exactly how they want it. Which usually means the experience gets ruined for casual players, or you have constant flame wars and arguments breaking out on the forums between casual players and comp players.

 Pretty sure all this exists already. These "less desirable" ppl you mention already play the game. Personally I just dont want this game to turn into Squad 2 or Arma, which with the inclusion of bullet physics, is what most ppl are gonna relate to it as, rather than the fast paced game that exists now.
Reply
#21
To address ur points!

Weapon unlocks arnt coming Ill bet my bottom dollar on it. 

Competitive will be interesting. Initially its gonna be an influx of ppl who think the game is Squad or Arma, havnt heard of the word "callout" and just dont have the initiative and aggression in them required to play on the smaller sized maps I hope it will be played on. The real test will be whether or not NWI can institute an effective ranking system so that the new players arnt immediately crushed by experienced ones. 

For the bullet physics and dynamic damage, its already confirmed. And ppl have figured they were gonna be in since it was announced ISS was gonna be in UE4. The problems I have with bullet physics (Its happening this is just my gripes) is that 1) Its gonna make ppl think even more that this game is gonna be a new Squad or Arma, and they are gonna play all campy and slowly and tacticooly and (Hopefully) Ill still run around and blaze down the fools. In essence I fear its just gonna slow down the pace of this game. Also its gonna probably **** playing cross region. I dont know how well the hit reg is gonna hold up when faced with 200 ping, which means rip the International INS comp community as we know it.

Aiming deadzone, I guess if you want to slow down ur play even more lol. Ill pass but more options are always cool.

Co-op campaign already in?

I guess it just depends how more asymmetrical you want to go. The differences ARE there, they are merely small and in the weapons. But what do you add. Light armour has always seemed pointless. Either fully commit to it or dont bother. No change to damage or protection value is gonna change that. And how do you emphasise it? Because the only real way to do it is in the weapons. Its not gonna be team sizes, maybe different equipment that each side gets? So really the main level of asymmetry is gonna come from a teams weapons.

I mean, kit availability is pretty much fine to be honest and one of the things I think NWI has actually done quite well (for general public servers, comp theatre is another story - massive **** show there lads). It allows for a nice spread of weapons across a 32 player server without pigeon holing you into using 1 specific weapon that is the best in your class. What we dont want is this game to become squad where 75% of the ppl on the server are running m16/AK. The options in the class loadouts are gonna be the primary source of your asymmetry. For instance the difference between breacher and engineer is actually quite bit. Breacher is the best class for security hands down and nowhere near identical to engineer.

Rock paper scissor approach to armour and ammunition I think is ok as long as its not really butchered. But you just mean making AP not retardedly OP so thats fine.

I dont really get how you can make it more punishing, or why you would want to. Going through doors with m16 is already difficult enough for most people, dont know how you would **** it up more. This'l also slow down the game as you also want more ppl into rifleman classes, presumably they can take M4 as well but still, as it is now is fine I think.

Sooo removing the sniper. Interesting idea that everyone has obviously jumped on the bandwagon for because as we all know, most snipers in pub are fucking awful and useless. However lets consider the role of the sniper in the game, as it is currently, not IRL (because this is a game for fun remember :P) So in this game, ppl might note that snipers cost 1pt and have equal to the most penetration in the game. So they are cheap and lethal. Now they can also mount an expensive optic that lets you see across the map. Now everyone here is arguing for the addition of semi auto DMRs, (which already exist in INS in the form of the EBR and the FAL). Note that these weapons are 3pts, where as the sniper is 1pt. See why its in? BALANCE. Picking out the superior EBR/FAL with 7x as opposed to the bolt action limits your kit options by increasing your lethality through increased rate of fire. (Ignoring the fact that NWI allows the 7x on the SKS and m16 for the same cost, again, superior choices to bolt actions and still 1pt - m16 being the best weapon in the game, silly NWI). That is the gist behind the addition of bolt actions. Its about balance, giving a player the lethality of a good optic, good damage and extra kit with limited ammo and rate of fire versus good optic, good damage and ROF but very limited kit helps to balance out the bolt action and DMR's.

I dont really have many thoughts on the other stuff other than, yes we want mods, mods are cool.

Dont really like the removing of DMR's from support roles. It just gives players more options and doesnt pigeon hole them into "M249 or get out." Even if you just limit the scope to 2x that would probably be fine. This game isnt squad and we shouldnt want it to be. (As squad already exists :P)

The fal already functions as a heavy (weight) assault rifle so the mag upgrades dont really matter that much. Its also a point investment, so its a trade off in another place (maybe armour, etc).
Reply
#22
(17-02-2017, 04:26)Solusvod Wrote: I guess it just depends how more asymmetrical you want to go. The differences ARE there, they are merely small and in the weapons. But what do you add. Light armour has always seemed pointless. Either fully commit to it or dont bother. No change to damage or protection value is gonna change that. And how do you emphasise it? Because the only real way to do it is in the weapons. Its not gonna be team sizes, maybe different equipment that each side gets? So really the main level of asymmetry is gonna come from a teams weapons.
I want it to be a game where the Insurgents and Security play out differently by having more to each faction other than just different primaries. I want an emphasis on SEC being slower tanks by having properly balanced armour (that isn't tunneled through as easily by AP .45ACP) and INS having more hit-and-run chances with ambushes and skirmishes.
(17-02-2017, 04:26)Solusvod Wrote: I dont really get how you can make it more punishing, or why you would want to. Going through doors with m16 is already difficult enough for most people, dont know how you would **** it up more. This'l also slow down the game as you also want more ppl into rifleman classes, presumably they can take M4 as well but still, as it is now is fine I think.
Not really, you'd be surprised. People always manage to squeeze an entire FAL or Mk 14 into the rooms and aisles of District.
(17-02-2017, 04:26)Solusvod Wrote: ~snip for brevity~
If you have read properly, I refer to how they play out in-game, because we have all established this was never a simulator. In game the sniper performs exactly the same purpose as the designated marksman. Surprise! 2 duplicate classes.
And the allure of bolt action rifles always never fail to attract the silly and selfish.
Read my point regarding the marksman. My main focus is the removal of the bolt action rifles, as they've done completely nothing. In fact the only way to make them so widely used is by gimping the costs of the other rifles that would've made more sense. I urge you to reread those points.
(17-02-2017, 04:26)Solusvod Wrote: Dont really like the removing of DMR's from support roles. It just gives players more options and doesnt pigeon hole them into "M249 or get out." Even if you just limit the scope to 2x that would probably be fine. This game isnt squad and we shouldnt want it to be. (As squad already exists Tongue)
The support is essentially the automatic rifleman that has been renamed. It's purpose is covering fire, but if it's small capacity semi-automatic spam, that role [strike]seems to have been covered[/strike] has been completely covered by a marksman and a "sniper". Hence I'd like to keep my machine gunners using machine guns. A support who chooses a DMR with a smaller optic is not just less effective than a marksman in his sweet spot, he's robbing the entire team of a machine gun.
(17-02-2017, 04:26)Solusvod Wrote: The fal already functions as a heavy (weight) assault rifle so the mag upgrades dont really matter that much. Its also a point investment, so its a trade off in another place (maybe armour, etc).
No. The FAL has massive firepower and it has perfect 20 rounds. The 30 round magazines essentially make it a superior AKM in every way, accurate, powerful and cheap, with those 10 rounds coming for only a measely 2 points.

It's a massive tragic story in the world of balance.
Reply
#23
Well technically the slow/fast thing is already implemented, Sec get cheap armour etc, its just that Armour only lets you survive like 1 more hit, so ppl arnt usually fast enough to take advantage of it. Even if armour was better I probably still wouldnt run it, preferring speed over survivability. I would like it if NWI expanded on the asymmetry but they should still leave the option for no armour etc. I think we can agree on that.

Give me an example of how you make long weapons more punishing lol. The maps themselves dont really limit what weapons you use. Rooms are large, corridoors can usually accomodate 2-3 ppl abreast, not really restrictive of large weapons. Its not like the weapons are the size of the Death Star.

Yes, sniper is the same role as marksmen. There are a lot of duplicate classes, to give ppl playing options when they play. What happens if you remove the bolt action? People will just use the DMRs and camp lol. EBR, M16, SKS all are better snipers in current INS than bolt actions. I just dont see the point to removing bolt actions. People are always gonna camp with snipers. Also, support giving covering fire is a joke. 1 guy holding left mouse button has never been that helpful in this game, usually he just ends up getting his head blown off. I just dont like this idea so much, as it just removes choice from players, something we shouldnt want. If I wanted to be pigeon holed into using 1 or 2 weapons Id play Squad :P

So, the fal isnt already used like an assualt rifle? 
 

"No. The FAL has massive firepower and it has perfect 20 rounds. The 30 round magazines essentially make it a superior AKM in every way, accurate, powerful and cheap, with those 10 rounds coming for only a measely 2 points." 

Accurate - The game is hitscan every weapon is accurate.
Powerful - Sure
Cheap - Im being trolled on this one. Its 3pts. +2pts for +10rnds +2 pts for AP...suddenly not so cheap. Now AKM is 0 pts (ZERO). Also the fal is slightly heavier.
The FAL isnt nearly as utilitarian as the AKM, and they are both gonna kill some one just as easy. 

I dunno, I think NWI could have balanced things alot worse than they are now.


Im sure NWI will do a good job balancing weapons and classes with all this feedback :P Hopefully the M16/M4 doesnt have the stupid carry handle and has some nice flip up sights.
Reply
#24
(18-02-2017, 16:31)Solusvod Wrote: Well technically the slow/fast thing is already implemented, Sec get cheap armour etc, its just that Armour only lets you survive like 1 more hit, so ppl arnt usually fast enough to take advantage of it. Even if armour was better I probably still wouldnt run it, preferring speed over survivability. I would like it if NWI expanded on the asymmetry but they should still leave the option for no armour etc. I think we can agree on that.

Give me an example of how you make long weapons more punishing lol. The maps themselves dont really limit what weapons you use. Rooms are large, corridoors can usually accomodate 2-3 ppl abreast, not really restrictive of large weapons. Its not like the weapons are the size of the Death Star.

Yes, sniper is the same role as marksmen. There are a lot of duplicate classes, to give ppl playing options when they play. What happens if you remove the bolt action? People will just use the DMRs and camp lol. EBR, M16, SKS all are better snipers in current INS than bolt actions. I just dont see the point to removing bolt actions. People are always gonna camp with snipers. Also, support giving covering fire is a joke. 1 guy holding left mouse button has never been that helpful in this game, usually he just ends up getting his head blown off. I just dont like this idea so much, as it just removes choice from players, something we shouldnt want. If I wanted to be pigeon holed into using 1 or 2 weapons Id play Squad Tongue

So, the fal isnt already used like an assualt rifle? 
 

"No. The FAL has massive firepower and it has perfect 20 rounds. The 30 round magazines essentially make it a superior AKM in every way, accurate, powerful and cheap, with those 10 rounds coming for only a measely 2 points." 

Accurate - The game is hitscan every weapon is accurate.
Powerful - Sure
Cheap - Im being trolled on this one. Its 3pts. +2pts for +10rnds +2 pts for AP...suddenly not so cheap. Now AKM is 0 pts (ZERO). Also the fal is slightly heavier.
The FAL isnt nearly as utilitarian as the AKM, and they are both gonna kill some one just as easy. 

I dunno, I think NWI could have balanced things alot worse than they are now.


Im sure NWI will do a good job balancing weapons and classes with all this feedback Tongue Hopefully the M16/M4 doesnt have the stupid carry handle and has some nice flip up sights.
1. Sure. Exactly why people don't use armour. It's just not practical.

2. Make them harder to squeeze through corridors and make them slower to swing around.

3. At least a camping marksman with a DMR can churn out lead and engage more people than a bush wookie with a bolt action rifles. They do literally nothing.

4. I can use the same argument. If you want a bunch of wonky weapons where you can be an engineer yet have a DMR, get BF4.

5. Yes, but it's a battle rifle. It's magazine is meant to be a counterbalance against its calibre. The ext magazine upgrade simply removes this counterbalance. Just cos NWI could've balanced something worse doesn't mean it should improve balance either. That's a silly mentality.

6. I don't get your beef with the carry handle, mod it in or something.
Reply
#25
(19-02-2017, 01:46)Blackout330 Wrote:
(18-02-2017, 16:31)Solusvod Wrote: Well technically the slow/fast thing is already implemented, Sec get cheap armour etc, its just that Armour only lets you survive like 1 more hit, so ppl arnt usually fast enough to take advantage of it. Even if armour was better I probably still wouldnt run it, preferring speed over survivability. I would like it if NWI expanded on the asymmetry but they should still leave the option for no armour etc. I think we can agree on that.

Give me an example of how you make long weapons more punishing lol. The maps themselves dont really limit what weapons you use. Rooms are large, corridoors can usually accomodate 2-3 ppl abreast, not really restrictive of large weapons. Its not like the weapons are the size of the Death Star.

Yes, sniper is the same role as marksmen. There are a lot of duplicate classes, to give ppl playing options when they play. What happens if you remove the bolt action? People will just use the DMRs and camp lol. EBR, M16, SKS all are better snipers in current INS than bolt actions. I just dont see the point to removing bolt actions. People are always gonna camp with snipers. Also, support giving covering fire is a joke. 1 guy holding left mouse button has never been that helpful in this game, usually he just ends up getting his head blown off. I just dont like this idea so much, as it just removes choice from players, something we shouldnt want. If I wanted to be pigeon holed into using 1 or 2 weapons Id play Squad :P

So, the fal isnt already used like an assualt rifle? 
 

"No. The FAL has massive firepower and it has perfect 20 rounds. The 30 round magazines essentially make it a superior AKM in every way, accurate, powerful and cheap, with those 10 rounds coming for only a measely 2 points." 

Accurate - The game is hitscan every weapon is accurate.
Powerful - Sure
Cheap - Im being trolled on this one. Its 3pts. +2pts for +10rnds +2 pts for AP...suddenly not so cheap. Now AKM is 0 pts (ZERO). Also the fal is slightly heavier.
The FAL isnt nearly as utilitarian as the AKM, and they are both gonna kill some one just as easy. 

I dunno, I think NWI could have balanced things alot worse than they are now.


Im sure NWI will do a good job balancing weapons and classes with all this feedback :P Hopefully the M16/M4 doesnt have the stupid carry handle and has some nice flip up sights.
1. Sure. Exactly why people don't use armour. It's just not practical.

2. Make them harder to squeeze through corridors and make them slower to swing around.

3. At least a camping marksman with a DMR can churn out lead and engage more people than a bush wookie with a bolt action rifles. They do literally nothing.

4. I can use the same argument. If you want a bunch of wonky weapons where you can be an engineer yet have a DMR, get BF4.

5. Yes, but it's a battle rifle. It's magazine is meant to be a counterbalance against its calibre. The ext magazine upgrade simply removes this counterbalance. Just cos NWI could've balanced something worse doesn't mean it should improve balance either. That's a silly mentality.

6. I don't get your beef with the carry handle, mod it in or something.

Addressing 2 - To me that sounds like its just removing a level of precision control. Currently they are balanced to be heavier and if you post up against doors to slow peak them ur guns gonna be blocked, personally I think this is fine as ive seen weapon block in doorways and such **** ppl pretty hard.

Addressing 3 - I mean, a bad player is a bad player and is gonna camp with a big ass scope no matter what you give them, be it full auto EBR or a Mosin. If they were smart they'd use m16/sks or something, but I dont agree that you should take away bolt actions to encourage ppl to play better or smarter, because it isnt going to happen. Also, if bolt actions were removed how would I make sick sniper montages! (shameless plug - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uo-MqezzbI).

Addressing 6 - Because I remember when they were flip up sights and I had great peripheral vision on my M16 :P

Hopefully NWI can make ISS a game that we love just as much as this one lol :P
Reply
#26
Anyone can be a burden to the team. I've seen camping MP5K users as well. But it's another thing to specially give them the exact equipment to specially make them burdens to the team. Bolt action rifles do exactly just that, and are the antithesis of teamplay. At the very least, the first step to deleting cancer from teamplay is not to be content with having players do whatever they please, but to have at least the foundations to force players to do that. Hence, removing bolt action rifles.

The only thing bolt action rifles are are unfun gimmicks and a flame to the moths known as selfish players.
Reply
#27
One think about snipers is from what I've read about previous war sniper stories is that snipers often develop their own sniper only battles. I think it's because the biggest threat to snipers is other snipers, so it turns into the snipers having a sniper war while the soldiers do their thing.
Reply
#28
In fact, I suppose sniper warfare is about the only reasonable warfare to wage in the modern era.  It's, of course, much much slower paced but quite a bit more reasonable in my opinion.  And after an objective ( piece of ground, more or less the only reason wars exist) has been thoroughly sniped through, then it would be appropriate for some kind of breaching close quarters.  But really, who wouldn't want to expend time when your in such a final competition over land as war?  I think I would have hours, days and weeks at my disposal.  The seconds wars online are a fools war.  So I think. What's your thought solusvod, blackout330?

So any way, any sort of a war game should probably include snipers to keep from being just fantasy. And i would also like 2 see an option for carrying a secondary rifle. A lot of games have that ability and it's a reasonably doable thing in real life with the proper securing.
Reply
#29
I think the only thing a sniper does is
1. Cool montages that get cringey with those flashy thumbnails and generic intros.
2. Be a burden when someone limits their capabilities to take a slow low-capacity rifle.

The ranges in the game simply do not provide for good practical sniper combat unless it's Squad or PR's 4km maps. There is nothing they can do better than a marksman sporting his DMR. Hence I'm still staunchly against them being kept.
If a sniper gets a secondary rifle he insteads becomes the übersoldat, capable of taking everything at all ranges.
Reply
#30
Is an übersoldat better than a soldat? I think so, so why not be one?

Thanks, I've sort of planned to play Squad and PR someday in the distant future but for now, INS is all that's available to me. Better days Batter days.


I Wonder if suicide belts could be an option in Sandstorm? Low weight explosive like c4 but quick to deploy.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)