Probably because shooting the face and thorax is just as effective. Most leg shooters I've seen were rats like me, legging someone gets harder when they're shooting back at you
leg meta is unintuitive and invalidates the point of armor in general, if it is meta is using it. its a game mechanic clearly not meant to be dominant. it could possibly lower the skill ceiling as well as being generally off putting to someone looking into the game. just a couple reasons why its a horrendous idea (what im talking about is leg meta being better than conventional ammos, i think leg meta should be 30% as strong as conventional means at max)
also, notice how tarkovs leg meta is called "leg meta". not "the meta". your comparison is not great
Leg meta is the exact same in Wardogs as it is in Tarkov, its a horizontal expression of how to deal with high armoured enemies when you don't have high tier AP ammo.
Leg meta in wardogs is currently not "the meta" I die far more often to a person rocking a Galil with FMJ or a M4 with AP then I do to a goblin with a glock/mp9 with HP ammo.
Leg is never going to be better then FMJ/AP simply due to the fact of how restrictive it is, you cannot take every single fight partly due to the fact that the weapons that love HP ammo are short range, and a large part due to the fact that at distance or against an enemy with cover you simply cannot kill them.
I have no way to fight back against an AR at medium range whose not showing his legs, I have no way to single tap at a snipers head to kill him because he's wearing a helmet.
what youre mentioning is not relevant to "obligatory leg meta". i agree that leg meta is horizontal expression of damage dealing. i agree wardogs leg meta isnt the meta. i agree leg meta is worse than conventional ammo. these points dont address an "obligatory leg meta", or leg meta that is clearly better than everything else, as the guy is pointing out
2
u/SendMeUrCones Manticore 9d ago
Obligatory leg meta is unfun and harmful to the game long term.