Suggestion: higher damage at point blank

  • Well, title says it all.


    Sometimes I hit a player at point blank before he hits me, but somehow it's me who end up dying. I wonder if this is some kind of netcode/hitreg problem, but anyway, two shots should be enough to kill someone at point blank, no matter what weapon you're using. That's kinda annoying because you really know you shot first :cursing:


    EDIT: And snipers, of course, can kill you with one shot at point blank... shouldn't an AR do the same?! I know it's just a game but some realism wouldn't hurt.

  • Post by sqroot ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves ().
  • Why would you want to further encourage point blank hipfire encounters and bad positioning?

    Why you believe that increasing close range damage for everyone would result in you killing your opponent first is a mystery to me as well, that seems like some seriously flawed deduction.

    As I said, I'm not encouraging anything but some realism. Two shots should be enough to kill/incapacitate anyone at point blank.


    If you think that's a mystery, then you're missing the obvious: sometimes I land two or maybe three shots in someone, but he still manages to kill me (specially if it's a sniper). Of course, that wouldn't happen if point blank damage was higher, because higher damage = less time to react.

  • Post by sqroot ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves ().
  • As I said, I'm not encouraging anything but some realism. Two shots should be enough to kill/incapacitate anyone at point blank.


    If you think that's a mystery, then you're missing the obvious: sometimes I land two or maybe three shots in someone, but he still manages to kill me. Of course, that wouldn't happen if point blank damage was higher, because higher damage = less time to react.

    Pursuing realism in this game is about as pointless as it gets.

    The issue you described is netcode related, decreasing TTK won't change that (if anything, it will make it worse, as killtrading is already way too common as is and would be even more common with a lower TTK).

    Not saying I want a super realistic game, if so I would play something else.


    This isn't only about realism, but more important than that, a fair and well balanced game. A sniper kills you with one shot at point blank, other weapons need 3 or more shots, that's ridiculous. No matter if you shot first, you'll die. A lower ttk would benefit the one who shots first. And less time to react = less trades. Most of the time, the trades happen because you shoot someone but he still has time to shoot back.

  • Post by sqroot ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves ().
  • Post by sqroot ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves ().
  • U do know that all guns besides sr smg and some pistols has to shots to kill at point blank

    From my experience, the only weapon that kills with two shots at point blank is the Deagle. I think Python too, but never tried it. Of course, Jack and SPAS can kill with one shot, but that's an exception...

  • Luckily the knife is utterly useless in almost every regard.

    It's unpredictable, has very low range and a charge time longer than it would take any SMG to kill you.

    If you get knifed often, you're probably doing something wrong.

    Thank god it's not often, but more times than I'd like. At "surprise encounters", many players will try to use the knife, killing you even if you shot them first, which is absurd to say the least...

  • Luckily the knife is utterly useless in almost every regard.

    It's unpredictable, has very low range and a charge time longer than it would take any SMG to kill you.

    If you get knifed often, you're probably doing something wrong.

    knifes don’t have to be good there knifes

    the person who got warned for expressing freedom of speech:cursing:

  • Post by sqroot ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves ().
  • Post by sqroot ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves ().
  • You insinuatined that the knife should be godlike

    You should work on your reading comprehension.

    Person A claiming that they die to knifing too often and person B replying that the knife isn't actually that useful does not imply that person B thinks that the knife needs to be good.

    Let’s take this in perspective, if I say that waffles are trash, I would suggest that waffles should be better. And you say I need to work on my reading compression

    the person who got warned for expressing freedom of speech:cursing:

  • Post by sqroot ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves ().
  • Let’s take this in perspective, if I say that waffles are trash, I would suggest that waffles should be better. And you say I need to work on my reading compression

    Suggesting that trash smells bad doesn't imply that you believe that trash should smell like lavender either. A stated fact does not necessarily induce an opinion on the topic. For real though, let's stop this pointless argument. I don't believe that the knife needs to be buffed.

    If you say the knife is bad, you would want it to be good

    the person who got warned for expressing freedom of speech:cursing: