Suppression in ROHOS
- Thread starter NoxNoctum
- Start date
I accept people experiencing the same stimuli will show similar reactions. I purposely do not use the term "similar stimuli" because I do not know the degree of similarity you are proposing. For example a rifle round from a real Kar98 is similar to a rifle round from a MN. I would expect them to cause a similar reaction. What I'm worried about is you will say that a video game Kar98 round is similar to a real Kar98. In that case similar is relative. A real Kar98 round is more similar to a video game Kar98 round than say a video game elephant walking across your monitor. But I wouldn't expect the virtual and real Kar98 round to cause the same reaction.
I know, he actually called you an idiot, but I didn't want to be rude.
Suppressive fire causing a flinch response only works when you have something to flinch to. Accurate sniper fire can be suppressive if it's high enough volume, but in general you don't know you're getting shot at until it's too late. In that case I don't think it can be suppressive in causing a flinch response. If you KNOW there's a sniper firing at you, you should stay under cover, which is the other part of suppression, which is fine.
I don't remember if I ever proposed the exact DH suppression system. I will go on record to say it's not perfect, but is a LOT better than no suppression effect that we see in vanilla RO.
My point is if you are not afraid to be injured or get killed, you do not have the same incentive to seek cover as a real soldier does.
Having the flinch response is artificial, but it also makes a soldier less effective when firing into suppressive fire, which replicates the real world effect of suppressive fire. I you are ineffective at firing back, you will be less likely to do so in a video game. In real life, you are not firing back because you are scared of dying. I say in this case the ends justify the means.
Upvote
0
I've been doing some light venturing into some heavy reading on human conditioning, particularly eyeblink conditioning because upon a Google search I found a book preview that referred to Pavlovian mechanisms triggering eyeblink conditioning.
Just for some background it described the eyeblink conditioning as a trial composed of two parts the subject was exposed to, one being a visual signal like a light and the second being a puff of air blown into the eye of the subject. There were two types of responses, the unconditioned response and the conditioned response. Unconditioned subjects would blink when subjected to the puff of air, yet conditioned subjects would blink when subjected to the conditioned response, and the degree of conditioning is linked to when the subject blinked.
These trials apparently are done over and over again to see the kind of response it elicits in individuals as you condition them.
What I think I've noticed is that "Pavlovian response mechanism" refers to something in particular, some kind of indicator or stimuli referred to as conditioned stimuli which is linked to an unconditioned stimuli or something that an individual has a natural response to or aversion to, like the air puff to the eye via association. With the example of Pavlov's dogs, the dogs begin to salivate when given a particular stimuli because they've been conditioned into thinking, consciously or subconsciously that the US follows the CS.
But obviously your average (living) soldier has not been shot and he has not been killed, so it is impossible to have this kind of a conditioned response. The association would have to be a conscious one. Thus a response to gunfire is not, generally, a Pavlovian response.
So my concern now is to what extent a conscious expectation can be linked to an unconscious reflex response.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prepulse_inhibition
I found something else that's interesting here, called a prepulse inhibition. You subject the individual to a small version of a subsequent stimulus. Evidently it seems that when you do this their reaction to the subsequent stimulus is lessened. Presumably, if you submit an individual to the same stimulus over and over again, their expected unconscious reaction against subsequent stimuli would be reduced.
Just for some background it described the eyeblink conditioning as a trial composed of two parts the subject was exposed to, one being a visual signal like a light and the second being a puff of air blown into the eye of the subject. There were two types of responses, the unconditioned response and the conditioned response. Unconditioned subjects would blink when subjected to the puff of air, yet conditioned subjects would blink when subjected to the conditioned response, and the degree of conditioning is linked to when the subject blinked.
These trials apparently are done over and over again to see the kind of response it elicits in individuals as you condition them.
What I think I've noticed is that "Pavlovian response mechanism" refers to something in particular, some kind of indicator or stimuli referred to as conditioned stimuli which is linked to an unconditioned stimuli or something that an individual has a natural response to or aversion to, like the air puff to the eye via association. With the example of Pavlov's dogs, the dogs begin to salivate when given a particular stimuli because they've been conditioned into thinking, consciously or subconsciously that the US follows the CS.
But obviously your average (living) soldier has not been shot and he has not been killed, so it is impossible to have this kind of a conditioned response. The association would have to be a conscious one. Thus a response to gunfire is not, generally, a Pavlovian response.
So my concern now is to what extent a conscious expectation can be linked to an unconscious reflex response.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prepulse_inhibition
I found something else that's interesting here, called a prepulse inhibition. You subject the individual to a small version of a subsequent stimulus. Evidently it seems that when you do this their reaction to the subsequent stimulus is lessened. Presumably, if you submit an individual to the same stimulus over and over again, their expected unconscious reaction against subsequent stimuli would be reduced.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Now I wouldn't say it's bottom-line impossible. Some people may be exposed to similar stimuli through their lives that dampens the effect. Everybody's different, and that seems like the biggest argument you can make. On the same coin though, you did say that people wouldn't get this effect (or are less likely to) because it's just a game. That's entirely possible as well.
IMO the best way to give these weapons use and keep the game as realistic as possible would be to have those artificial suppression effects.
Now I'm not entirely sure if you're against suppression effects altogether, or just more intense ones than the effects in Ostfront, but I'm sure you can agree that they are necessary just because of that potential difference people may have in response to gunfire.
It's also practical in a gameplay sense because MG's in RO aren't just for shooting bullets really fast, they are used specifically to control the flow of the battle by holding people down, and keeping them from making any stupid moves. If we didn't have suppression effects not only would MG's lose a part of their utility, they would also lose their place in the game as a useful and desirable tool.
You guys can't be looking at this like it's a psychology class, what matters is the realistic implementation of all these things in the game.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Perhaps Pavlovian wasn't the correct term. I prefer your use of the term conditioned response. As humans, we have empathy. A soldier on the front can be conditioned to duck from MG fire by seeing or hearing of his comrades getting injured or killed by MG fire. In addition, conditioning a soldier to duck from MG fire is part of training for battle, so soldiers are deliberately conditioned for that response.
I agree an individual subjected to the same stimulus over and over will have a reduced reaction. The problem when applied to a video game is somebody playing RO can go through more firefights in a day than a real soldier would. How many rounds might you play. If you've been playing RO for years like many here do, then you'd be sort of like an veteran. You would have a lessened response compared to a "newbie" or a real green soldier (who's also afraid of death).
On the opposite end of the spectrum, if everybody has a green soldier response, that's not realistic either, as some soldiers have more experience than others. Perhaps that's where we'll see the "Hero" status come into play. I've previously suggested having a mix of green soldiers and more experienced soldiers on a given map with different reactions to things such as suppressive fire, stamina, etc.
Upvote
0
My personal view is that the game is somewhat lacking in fire and movement mechanics. Rush-respawn-rush-respawn is in my mind not a fire and movement mechanic.
Suppressive fire plays a vital role in f&m, so for the sake of realism we would want it. In turn we would want it balanced off with playability (which is the real issue here - soldiers under fire will almost inevitably flinch and take cover - though at times effectively like when trying to approach a strongpoint. Studies have been done on how few wwii era soldiers would fire their non-crew weapons - even to the point of getting bayonetted while holding a loaded gun. The modern training doctrine encouraging volume of fire even when under fire was not yet in place).
In general - if you are the target of a machine gun, you will take cover or you will die. In practice this should mean that the maps should include a lot of knee high at least cover that is not really penetratable by MG fire. An auto-cower function for those wanting to survive perhaps, the others can take their chances with rpm and penetration.
A more advanced wounding system along with breathing techniques open for other ways of emulating suppression without screwing the game experience. If you want to breath properly, then don't be under direct enemy fire. I would also suggest a bleed-out (similar to brew up in DH) function combined with more collateral damage. Meaning is practice that you will get wounded more by splinters, fragments and debris. Your choice if you want to bandage or not. It might be a wound requiring attention, it might not (I stabbed myself in the thigh once - very freaky as I wondered if I had sliced a major artery. Just nicked an internal tendon - but boy did I look stupid on deck [was on a trawler] with my gear around my knees checking out the damage. Anecdotal I know, but still). Combine with a cower towards functions (you chose what you want to hide behind) and some of the DH suppression effects (I don't think they were properely tested for lag. Suppression is really bad with a bit of lag. Completely disorientating) along with perhaps more non-lethal effects from explosions (ear-ringing, physical movement from blast) and I think we are there.
My ideal being a 10 man squad example. 7 laying suppression fire while 3 approach enemy strongpoint. Goal is to get grenades into windows or whatever before rushing an entrance. The MG in this example representing a lot of the total suppression effect, with carbines at range keeping enemy fire positions ineffective (with the 3 bobbing, crouching and crawling from cover to cover until they get to blindspots or grenade range).
Rushing-respawning-rushin is so red army 1941.
Suppressive fire plays a vital role in f&m, so for the sake of realism we would want it. In turn we would want it balanced off with playability (which is the real issue here - soldiers under fire will almost inevitably flinch and take cover - though at times effectively like when trying to approach a strongpoint. Studies have been done on how few wwii era soldiers would fire their non-crew weapons - even to the point of getting bayonetted while holding a loaded gun. The modern training doctrine encouraging volume of fire even when under fire was not yet in place).
In general - if you are the target of a machine gun, you will take cover or you will die. In practice this should mean that the maps should include a lot of knee high at least cover that is not really penetratable by MG fire. An auto-cower function for those wanting to survive perhaps, the others can take their chances with rpm and penetration.
A more advanced wounding system along with breathing techniques open for other ways of emulating suppression without screwing the game experience. If you want to breath properly, then don't be under direct enemy fire. I would also suggest a bleed-out (similar to brew up in DH) function combined with more collateral damage. Meaning is practice that you will get wounded more by splinters, fragments and debris. Your choice if you want to bandage or not. It might be a wound requiring attention, it might not (I stabbed myself in the thigh once - very freaky as I wondered if I had sliced a major artery. Just nicked an internal tendon - but boy did I look stupid on deck [was on a trawler] with my gear around my knees checking out the damage. Anecdotal I know, but still). Combine with a cower towards functions (you chose what you want to hide behind) and some of the DH suppression effects (I don't think they were properely tested for lag. Suppression is really bad with a bit of lag. Completely disorientating) along with perhaps more non-lethal effects from explosions (ear-ringing, physical movement from blast) and I think we are there.
My ideal being a 10 man squad example. 7 laying suppression fire while 3 approach enemy strongpoint. Goal is to get grenades into windows or whatever before rushing an entrance. The MG in this example representing a lot of the total suppression effect, with carbines at range keeping enemy fire positions ineffective (with the 3 bobbing, crouching and crawling from cover to cover until they get to blindspots or grenade range).
Rushing-respawning-rushin is so red army 1941.
Upvote
0
I agree wholeheartedly!!!! I think suppression in RO is fine as it is!
PLEASE DO NOT ADD SIMULATED JERKS AND MOVEMENT.
With the new MG's being easily deployed and taken down compared to ROOST, snipers will have a harder time pinpointing a kill as MG's can relocate faster or even duck behind cover in-between volleys.
With the new free-aim iron-site mode riflemen will have a harder time making those pop-shots.
Upvote
0
Would be nice to see something like a sight jerk be affected by both the amount of rounds passing nearby and the range fired from. So i.e. MG42 spitting out 1200 rounds an min at 300 yards = much more supression than a MP40 at 5 yards.
Upvote
0
Just to throw some real world material on the subject as well, this passage might be of interest to some. From the book With the Old Breed by E.B. Sledge (A veteran of the Pelileu and Okinawa campaigns.) [Sledge and another Marine are pinned behind a ticket booth by a Japanese Machine Gun]
I highly recommend this book to those who think War is Nicholas Cage sprinting towards enemy positions hip-firing a Thompson. Even the extremely fanatical Japanese had learned by Okinawa that banzai charges were futile. Such actions were usually only committed by isolated groups of troops attempting to break out of a surrounded pillbox or position.
I highly recommend this book to those who think War is Nicholas Cage sprinting towards enemy positions hip-firing a Thompson. Even the extremely fanatical Japanese had learned by Okinawa that banzai charges were futile. Such actions were usually only committed by isolated groups of troops attempting to break out of a surrounded pillbox or position.
Upvote
0
Seeing as this is a very strong topic here I thought to see what you will think of this thread
[url]http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?p=498670#post498670[/URL]
It basically addresses the problem of pop-up shooters that easily take out MGs.
I think that we can forget about artificial flinching now.
[url]http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?p=498670#post498670[/URL]
It basically addresses the problem of pop-up shooters that easily take out MGs.
I think that we can forget about artificial flinching now.
Upvote
0
Lemon, Tripwire already put "hold breath to shoot accurately" feature in. Why is my idea not good then?
Think to yourself, do you need a skill to press a third button to stabilise weapon? How convenient is it? Now do you need a skill to shoot a distant machine gunner with your bolt by having to catch the right moment? This would revolutionise this game and we would be talking about how boring COD is.
COD is just that: press button X to aim, press button Y to steady, press button Z to shoot. For me there is no difference if the weapon is absolutely still all the time or if you need to press a button to make it so.
I want to hear why you think its not good.
Think to yourself, do you need a skill to press a third button to stabilise weapon? How convenient is it? Now do you need a skill to shoot a distant machine gunner with your bolt by having to catch the right moment? This would revolutionise this game and we would be talking about how boring COD is.
COD is just that: press button X to aim, press button Y to steady, press button Z to shoot. For me there is no difference if the weapon is absolutely still all the time or if you need to press a button to make it so.
I want to hear why you think its not good.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Which basically reminds me (as established earlier by VariousNames), noticable amount of those odd moments where someone did something completely crazy were motivated by more or less diffrent things, either by sense of duty, 'someone has to do it', recklessness or something else. One might probably call it that they just smiled back at the reaper whenever they were about to face him, basically 'rejecting' consequences for a moment. You could say that sometimes when E.G. person X dies and someone who was deeply attached to him\her might initially just 'reject' and ignore everything related to that for a while before facing the fact what actually happened.
Similiarly british commando named Jack Churchill refused to use firearms and had claymore and bow (and supposedly he shot several enemies with it) as his weapons. I am pretty sure he knew that bullets are deadly but he probably knew that firefight against a rifle or a machinegun is something to be avoided.
It's somewhat common issue in multiplayer games, but then again there's some historical facts that might go bit against the fire'n movement idea in several armies. Take germans as an example during WW2, only thing that (in theory and quite often in practice) mattered in a rifle squad was to keep the machinegun firing and achieve fire superiority (and do the dirty work) with it and riflemen were mainly supposed to keep enemies from coming too close. Doesn't entirely sound idea about fire'n manouvre, does it? It's one lesson they learned and put in practice after WW1.
Considering that soldier's stamina may vary in general due diffrent conditions (health, age, possible wounds, fatique etc), simply making so-called veterans having beter 'stamina' under suppression sounds silly. Even though we don't know that 'hero' system that well at the moment, I still find it problematic to attempt to model invidual greens or elites or veterans in a shooter.
Simpler way would be to simply add extra wobble to the gun and aim itself whenever moving from crouch to to standing position or temporarily even exiting ironsight for a very brief moment. I know while it depends on invidual training and other factors, keeping your aim perfectly accurate while aiming and moving quickly from crouch to standing position is not really possible to a degree you would expect to hit a target past 30-40 yards.
That could work surprisingly well to some degree.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Jack Churchill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill
This guys real life Hero status he unlocked the bow and claymore?
One of the most bad *** soldiers in WW2.
In May 1940, Churchill and his unit, the Manchester Regiment, ambushed a German patrol near l'Epinette, France. Churchill gave the signal to attack by cutting down the enemy Feldwebel (sergeant) with his barbed arrows, becoming the only known British soldier to have felled an enemy with a longbow in the course of the war.[2]
Another great post about him listed here http://www.badassoftheweek.com/churchill.html
This guys real life Hero status he unlocked the bow and claymore?
One of the most bad *** soldiers in WW2.
In May 1940, Churchill and his unit, the Manchester Regiment, ambushed a German patrol near l'Epinette, France. Churchill gave the signal to attack by cutting down the enemy Feldwebel (sergeant) with his barbed arrows, becoming the only known British soldier to have felled an enemy with a longbow in the course of the war.[2]
Another great post about him listed here http://www.badassoftheweek.com/churchill.html
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I think that it comes down to preference. I personally extremely enjoy the Darkest Hour suppression method. I could argue for hours and make a strong case that its the right system, but you know what? I understand that people dont like it, so instead of saying, "OH OH SCREW THE OTHERS I WANT IT!!!" Ill offer the following;
Game Devs, please allow the owners of the servers to adjust it. I am a programmer and I can tell you guys, its very easy to give server owners the option to either switch it off or tone it down.
Game Devs, please allow the owners of the servers to adjust it. I am a programmer and I can tell you guys, its very easy to give server owners the option to either switch it off or tone it down.
Upvote
0
Suppression in RO is not fine as it is. You can simply turn it off in the options menu and all it does is dim your screen slightly.
It makes long range shoot outs with a rifle vs a mg an easy thing to do. It should have been locked to only the motion blur.
Upvote
0