Plea from rockpapershotgun

[WiFiDi]

As long as its cosmetic like it says there - fuzzy screen, narrowing of the view - that's cool.. but once you start taking control away from the player ala Darkest Hour, you've lost me. I really hope Tripwire doesnt go the DH route (I know, they said they're going to do something like the DH mechanic, and honestly, it lessens my excitement about the new game).

Also, that cover system in that video looked like crap... you shouldnt be able to see outside of your character like that.

you can't that was a cheat he used. you can only see in first person. (when i say that i mean you can't see ****.) but taking away control from a player is nice but how much and personaly i think maybe on a snow map if they ever make one, you'll reload slower and more cumbersome like. but this change is for everyone so its like making reload time longer not taking the ability to reload out of hands.

 

[-[SiN]-bswearer]

so i was bored and decided to hop into a couple maps of DH to remind myself of how annoying the suppression system is.......you know something is seriously wrong when YOUR OWN TEAMMATES shooting near you forces your avatar to spaz out.......let alone having an mg ~400 meters away shooting at you with no chance of killing you, but you are incapable of picking him off from behind cover. it's just funny because that "suppression" had the exact opposite effect on the riflemen in my area. because we all realized sitting behind cover and trying to kill the mg wasn't going to be possible, we just rushed up into the capzone......and the mg didn't kill any of us. the "suppression" actually encouraged us to get up and advance rather than keep to cover with our heads down.

 

[REZ]

Heheh, it's so poorly done it amazes me anytime someone defends it or says it actually works to suppress.

 

[reyalpOR]

you know something is seriously wrong when YOUR OWN TEAMMATES shooting near you forces your avatar to spaz out.......

Teammates suppressing own team = wrong, I agree . And the spazzing is a bit over the top.

let alone having an mg ~400 meters away shooting at you with no chance of killing you, but you are incapable of picking him off from behind cover.

The only other alternative we know of, has the rifleman easily picking off that MGer despite all the rounds shooting around said rifleman (as in ROOST). Which I find plain silly. ROOST's suppression system is just not that effective.

it's just funny because that "suppression" had the exact opposite effect on the riflemen in my area. because we all realized sitting behind cover and trying to kill the mg wasn't going to be possible, we just rushed up into the capzone......and the mg didn't kill any of us. the "suppression" actually encouraged us to get up and advance rather than keep to cover with our heads down.

That story actually sounded favorable to DH to me. Not only did you not pick off the Mger (as one might've in ROOST), but it did in fact result in your team to keep their heads down. The only reason it didn't work for the MGer was because he was a terrible shot.

I will say however, DH's system does need to be tweaked some. So far I agree with most of what Zets has said on this subject.

 

[Fedorov]

That story actually sounded favorable to DH to me. Not only did you not pick off the Mger (as one might've in ROOST), but it did in fact result in your team to keep their heads down. The only reason it didn't work for the MGer was because he was a terrible shot. .

yes, because running against an enemy MG instead of trying to kill him from a distance, is extremely realistic

 

[Reise]

The only reason it didn't work for the MGer was because he was a terrible shot.

I think this might be a reason many people believe their "suppression" isn't working. Their aim isn't to kill the other guy, just shoot around him in an attempt to scare him off or keep him from moving.

So when someone finally does take the initiative, the gunner is too preoccupied with their "suppression" and they forget to actually shoot the guy.

Later on they're on the forums talking about people killing machinegunners while being rained on by bullets. Think about it - if you were actually putting people down alongside your suppressive fire, you wouldn't have guys freely taking shots at you.

 

[-[SiN]-bswearer]

yes, because running against an enemy MG instead of trying to kill him from a distance, is extremely realistic

yeah lol, i don't think he got that this was the point i was trying to make...

suppression should have kept our heads down, but it however encouraged us to get up from cover and advance on the objective.

 

[Zetsumei]

yeah lol, i don't think he got that this was the point i was trying to make...

suppression should have kept our heads down, but it however encouraged us to get up from cover and advance on the objective.

Since I doubt the distance was at 400, the mg in this case was just a bad shot. An mg should suppress you when you can stay in cover. If you do decide to move forward he should have simply hit you as then he goes to killing from suppressing.

The radius of suppression in DH might be too high as well, according to the us army field manual suppression happens with bullets flying within approx 1 meter of you.

Aka if bullets fly within 1 meter of you while under cover, when standing up they should go right through you.

 

[reyalpOR]

yes, because running against an enemy MG instead of trying to kill him from a distance, is extremely realistic

Isn't it? How many WW2 anecdotes have you heard that have soldiers over-taking an MG emplacement without actually physically over-running it?

yeah lol, i don't think he got that this was the point i was trying to make...

suppression should have kept our heads down, but it however encouraged us to get up from cover and advance on the objective.

But it did keep your heads "down". Regardless if his fire was super accurate or not it most certainly stopped you from "ROOST'ing" all over his face

The story seemed to play out quite perfectly believe it or not.

Since you couldn't effectively deter the MGer from where you were because of his fire (aka DH suppression), you had to move up and overwhelm his position. That actually sounds like a war story one could hear from a veteran.

SYLVESTER, ANTOLAK

 

[213]

any feature grounded in reality that makes this game more difficult for the majority of players and self proclaimed fans of realism is welcome, even if i don't particularly like it.

so yes, please put this in. please handicap the player in events where he should be handicapped even beyond reasonable gameplay.

thank you.

also, gotta love how many "omg give us uber realism" players are against this.

 

[PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN]

Friendly fire only causes suppression in DH if the firer is a certain distance away from you. Similarly, bullets only trigger a suppressive response if they pass within a certain radius of you. If a friendly player is within that radius and they fire, their bullets will not suppress you.

If a friendly player is behind you somewhere and shooting past your head, then yes that will suppress you and so it should. A bullet's a bullet and if you know you're being shot at, regardless of who's doing it, you don't stay standing there to see what happens.

Working as intended I'm afraid.

 

[-[SiN]-bswearer]

But it did keep your heads "down". Regardless if his fire was super accurate or not it most certainly stopped you from "ROOST'ing" all over his face

reading comprehension? the fire did NOT, i repeat for the 3rd time NOT keep our heads down......which is the main goal of suppression.

Since you couldn't effectively deter the MGer from where you were because of his fire (aka DH suppression), you had to move up and overwhelm his position.

you just don't get the concept of suppressive fire do you? you seem to think that suppression is just supposed to make returning fire at an mger difficult, but that's not the fundamental purpose of suppression fire. suppression fire is mainly used in order to keep soldiers pinned down behind cover so that they CANNOT advance on your position or an objective. as shown in the example i provided, this was not accomplished since the mger did not keep us pinned down behind cover, but instead encouraged us to ADVANCE on the objective (which to note, he was at least 200m behind the objective).

either you just don't get it or you're trolling me

If a friendly player is behind you somewhere and shooting past your head, then yes that will suppress you and so it should. A bullet's a bullet and if you know you're being shot at, regardless of who's doing it, you don't stay standing there to see what happens.

Working as intended I'm afraid.

i'd love to see your historical research and experimental results to back this claim up. soldiers actually gettting suppressed by their own squad mates is absurd. your attempting to defend this is borderline laughable.

i'm not being shot at.....the enemy is being shot at. any competent human being would be able to tell the difference and would not be spazzing out due to unintentional "friendly suppression fire".

 

[Flogger23m]

. the "suppression" actually encouraged us to get up and advance rather than keep to cover with our heads down.

Exactly what I do in DH. And so do plenty of the people I see playing the game. Playing slowly and behind cover doesn't matter much.

Since I doubt the distance was at 400, the mg in this case was just a bad shot. An mg should suppress you when you can stay in cover. If you do decide to move forward he should have simply hit you as then he goes to killing from suppressing.

The radius of suppression in DH might be too high as well, according to the us army field manual suppression happens with bullets flying within approx 1 meter of you.

Aka if bullets fly within 1 meter of you while under cover, when standing up they should go right through you.

The concept of "suppression" is taken out of concept in games.

Gamers tend to think suppression is two things.

1) Holding your gun side ways over your head, shooting from behind a wall.

2) Bullets going past an enemy automatically, and always, causes the enemy to turn into a drunk who is having a heart attack.


In the real world, if a bullet goes past a persons face and they don't get behind cover, the suppression is not working. And yes, that can and does happen. Everyone reacts differently. Bullets going past ones face doesn't = jumping around all the time.

It is really hard to model such effects in a game. But the DH system is a poor excuse of such a system.


Another thing I hate about DH is that if you are walking/running in the open and a bullet goes by you, it can change your direction. Countless times I have been running, then a burst of bullets go past my face. When the "suppression" effect fades out, I am suddenly walking in the opposite direction.

Please don't tell me that bullets going past your head/body can unconsciously change your walking direction.

 

[guzz60]

(I'll apologize in advance if this has been mentioned as i'll admit I haven't read the entire thread).
I think suppression works really well when servers have "realism weekends", when everybody's reinforcements are at zero you actually have a much bigger incentive to not get shot ...
I really hope there will be a lot of realism servers like these on HoS, they are much more rewarding imho.

 

[PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN]

i'd love to see your historical research and experimental results to back this claim up. soldiers actually gettting suppressed by their own squad mates is absurd. your attempting to defend this is borderline laughable.

i'm not being shot at.....the enemy is being shot at. any competent human being would be able to tell the difference and would not be spazzing out due to unintentional "friendly suppression fire".

Of course. You're a fearless hero who trusts that a wayward round won't drill through the back of your head. And I'm sure at range when bullets come flying in you also magically know who's firing them right? Following that logic there's no such thing as friendly fire either because a friendly would never shoot you. We should probably have just disabled it altogether...

I'm starting to suspect that you're trolling for the sake of it. Especially at the point where you went to "remind yourself how terrible the DH suppression is". We get it, you don't like it. Why the hell are you still arguing about it? Do you think that this thread is going to make one iota of difference to the end result? TW knows what they're going to do, no-one else does. People here need to stop trying to second guess them.

 

[reyalpOR]

reading comprehension? the fire did NOT, i repeat for the 3rd time NOT keep our heads down......which is the main goal of suppression.

An MGer shot at you STOP

Rendered you "incapable of picking him off from behind cover" STOP

Which could've only implied you felt it useless to shoot him from where you were at STOP

Which could've only been inferred as you keeping your head down STOP

I was only going by the story you told, you silly goose.

you just don't get the concept of suppressive fire do you? you seem to think that suppression is just supposed to make returning fire at an mger difficult, but that's not the fundamental purpose of suppression fire. suppression fire is mainly used in order to keep soldiers pinned down behind cover so that they CANNOT advance on your position or an objective. as shown in the example i provided, this was not accomplished since the mger did not keep us pinned down behind cover, but instead encouraged us to ADVANCE on the objective (which to note, he was at least 200m behind the objective).

either you just don't get it or you're trolling me >>>> oh boy :|

The DH Suppression System was a success in your story, the failure lies on the MGer that couldn't kill you.

The concept of suppressive fire is to scare the enemy ineffective. The only thing that can truly stop advancement is death.There's no amount of suppressive fire that's going to keep one from advancing if one finds it necessary to do so (importance superseding fear). Suppressive firing is just the threat of but not the cause of "dying"; which is accompanied by effects to one's environment; which then can cause hindering human reactionary effects >>> (which is what we see in DH). DH doesn't necessarily portray the fear itself, but (much more than ROOST) the effects fear might happen to have on oneself.
-------------------------------------
As for the friendly fire issue...My dislike stems from the funny jerky movements that occur because of the DH suppression, which I (as do some) find it impossible to counteract.

 

[Flogger23m]

I'm starting to suspect that you're trolling for the sake of it. Especially at the point where you went to "remind yourself how terrible the DH suppression is". We get it, you don't like it. Why the hell are you still arguing about it? Do you think that this thread is going to make one iota of difference to the end result? TW knows what they're going to do, no-one else does. People here need to stop trying to second guess them.

It is the ideas and suggestions forum.

People should be able to voice their views.

So those of us who don't like the awful DH style suppression shouldn't be allowed to talk about it?

 

[PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN]

There's talking about it and then there's 6 pages of vitriol. I think we've all got the point.

 

[-[SiN]-bswearer]

Of course. You're a fearless hero who trusts that a wayward round won't drill through the back of your head. And I'm sure at range when bullets come flying in you also magically know who's firing them right? Following that logic there's no such thing as friendly fire either because a friendly would never shoot you. We should probably have just disabled it altogether...

I'm starting to suspect that you're trolling for the sake of it.

looking at your above ^^ comment....yet you think i'm trolling you?

We get it, you don't like it. Why the hell are you still arguing about it?

one could say the same about your stance.....we get it, you like the system you created, so why are you arguing about it?

like flogger said, the point is this is calm, rational discussion about a potential feature in RO2. if you don't want to post then don't, but some people obviously still feel like adding to the discussion. there's a thread in the KF forums that's got 25+ pages......page count means nothing as long as posts are related to the topic at hand.

 

[NoxNoctum]

Well I'd be in favor of a PR suppression system too... doesn't take control away from the player in any way (no flinching), just makes it way harder to see, so you can still make that shot, if you know exactly where the person shooting from is. (and if you choose to try to make the shot you can represent that small percentage of soldiers that would ignore the risk to their life, ala Trombley):

YouTube - Generation Kill: Lance Cpl. James Trombley (HBO)

For those unaware of PR's effects:

YouTube - Project Reality Mod v0.75 Suppression Teaser (old version of Project Reality but the suppression effects are the same in the latest release)

But regardless, the minority (Trombley types) should not represent the player in the game, because most soldiers would react exactly the way the dude did in the PR video.

Anyways all you anti-suppression people have already lost as Ramm's said there will be a system somewhat similar to DH but more "refined".