Motion Blur
- Thread starter Jamer
- Start date
Deathsai said:
lol, i know, ive been messin with the sizes and i think i found one thats not too big.
Upvote
0
skypirate said:
the psychological impact of bullets (NOT paintballs) wizzing past you... not to mention a bullet is traveling at about mach 3-4 .....yes in paintball you barely notice bullets flying close to you... but that is not comparison on any level weather psychological or physical
Upvote
0
PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN said:
You want people to be suppressed and keep their heads down. Yet at the same time, you don't want them to camp. WTF?!
Suppression is FEAR based. It is not a physical handicap that blurs your vision. Your post perfectly proves that blur is not dealing with the issue correctly. Players in the game are not afraid of getting shot and they don't camp. Rather, they are just annoyed by the blur effects and wait a moment for them to go away. If the game was an issue of brave soldiers vs cowardly soldiers, then some soldiers would cower and "camp" and some would remain courageous under fire. Isn't that what real war is? In real war, and even in paintball, campers get owned. By remaining stationary, they get flanked and they die. It's as simple as that. Paintballs don't blur your vision. But there is a fear factor to deal with. Some people keep their heads down the whole game and get flanked. Others ignore the suppression, accept the risk, and fight back. Once again, suppression is FEAR based and should not be a physical handicap. This DESTROYS the entire risk factor of the game. If someone is shooting at you, it doesn't matter if you want to take a chance and hold your ground anyway-- because now you can barely see crap. Congratulations. MG's can be used as virtual smoke-screens.
I've played other games before, and what keeps a player's head down is knowing that they will get pwned if they don't. They try to run out into a machine gun turret, they die. But here's the thing: they actually have a CHOICE. Blur essentially takes that choice away from the player.
The problem is that some people play RO without any team tactics. They aren't brave per se-- they're just playing like retarded Rambos. It ends up working sometimes because the other team doesn't have any tactics either. The solution isn't blur. The solution is team tactics.
I wish people would STOP trying to force others how to play a certain way. That includes suppression. Yes, some people will be brave or maybe even stupid in the face of danger. Some people will be little girly men and cower and camp. Whether or not a playing style works depends on the situation, the player's skill, and the team tactics. Forcing play styles is lame. It's like forcing weapon balance so that an assault rifle is equally as powerful as a pistol when in real life they AREN'T balanced.
How many times are you going to contradict yourself? On one hand you say that in real war people camp. On the otherhand, you say that camping isn't particularly warlike.
How is that a good thing? SUPPRESSION IS NOT A PHYSICAL HANDICAP ON A PLAYER!!! THE MG IS NOT SHOOTING PEPPER INTO PEOPLES' EYES.
The reason people duck from an MG is because they think they'll get shot. NOT because they can't see. That's just retarded. Don't you understand?
You have convinced me more than ever that blur needs to be removed for bullets. It is unrealistic, does nothing to fear, and prevents people from taking risks.
Eh, I've had a guy shoot an AK-47 into the dirt 3 feet in front of me. I didn't freak out. My vision didn't blur. I was very calm and told him to point the gun in a safe direction.
For some reason, you guys believe this myth that suppressive fire always works. IT DOESN'T. Suppression works by fear. If the enemy is not afraid, suppression doesn't work. In many battles, soldiers charge headlong into overwhelming enemy fire. In Gettysburg, Confederate soldiers charged Union lines. They got decimated. But suppressive fire didn't work because the Confederates were brave and disciplined. In World War II, Japanese troops charged allied positions in "suicide charges" all the time. They'd charge with their bayonets right into a hail of bullets.
So this blur effect is complete crap. If a soldier is afraid, he'll keep his head down. But don't force players to do so because they have a physical handicap. That totally eliminates important factors from the game, such as discipline under fire, the willingness to die, the willingness to take risks, and courageous or suicidal charges.
Another important thing I want to add is that many times people DON'T REALIZE THEY ARE BEING SHOT AT. The blur effect is like a gamey sensor that tells them "you're taking fire!" Let them figure it out on their own by listening and seeing the dirt kicked up around them. And if they don't figure it out, they die, like in a real war.
Upvote
0
You clearly haven't been playing very long. The blur is a very nice feature, and it certainly isn't going to go when so many people appreciate it. I've been playing RO since UT2003 and it is definetly better with it.
As I said, you aren't being forced to stay down at all.
As I said, you aren't being forced to stay down at all.
Upvote
0
Here's an idea skypirate. Go and play the mod for a while and learn exactly WHY the blur was added to the game, instead of flaming my every word because my view just happens to differ from yours.
Upvote
0
Currently, I find MGs to be fairly useless in the game. They're good in urban situations where you have to round a corner to hit a guy (IE: the HQ on Odessa), but in open ground they're worthless. You get flanked easily and the MG usually just says "SHOOT HERE FOR A FREE KILL!!".
The suppression effect makes them more useful because at least you can screw up the other guy's aim temporarily. Without the blur or screen dimming, the MG is totally pointless because we don't have concentrations of troops often enough to make it useful. People spread out too much on both sides to make the MG worth a damn.
Now, as to whether the motion blur being able to be turned off is somehow "unfair", I don't really think so.
It's your choice to turn it on or off. Same with the HDR bloom. I turn both off because I like to be able to see, and frankly I can see better with the screen dimming than with the motion blur, and with HDR off. They could force it on, but that'd hurt the lower-end computers pretty badly.
I think it's a cool effect, of course -- both are. But no one's forcing you to turn either on. If you choose to do so, that's your choice, but if we HAVE a choice in the first place, complaining that someone chose to do something different and this is somehow "unfair" is pretty silly.
The suppression effect makes them more useful because at least you can screw up the other guy's aim temporarily. Without the blur or screen dimming, the MG is totally pointless because we don't have concentrations of troops often enough to make it useful. People spread out too much on both sides to make the MG worth a damn.
Now, as to whether the motion blur being able to be turned off is somehow "unfair", I don't really think so.
It's your choice to turn it on or off. Same with the HDR bloom. I turn both off because I like to be able to see, and frankly I can see better with the screen dimming than with the motion blur, and with HDR off. They could force it on, but that'd hurt the lower-end computers pretty badly.
I think it's a cool effect, of course -- both are. But no one's forcing you to turn either on. If you choose to do so, that's your choice, but if we HAVE a choice in the first place, complaining that someone chose to do something different and this is somehow "unfair" is pretty silly.
Upvote
0
The problem is, is killing a machine gunner with a long-distance rifle shot really unrealistic? Sure, as a machine gunner you could be supressing one guy, two, three, maybe six guys at once when proper supression is added. But that still leaves ten other enemies that can flank and shoot you from anywhere on the map. You can't suppress an entire enemy team at once. There will always be the possibility of getting flanked and being taken out. Exactly how it's supposed to be though. That would also mean that MGs would be most effective in smaller areas and when it's aimed at choke points. They already work like that right now, if you try to set up in an open space or even aim your MG at an open space, you're dead.
I do think suppression should be more violent. It has to be made so that nobody is ever going to stick their head out when an MG is firing on them. If they do, they deserve a death. What Skypirate doesn't seem to understand is that suppression effects in a game (blurring in RO, view jerking in AA etc) aren't there to force a player to play a certain way, all it does is force them to play more REALISTICALLY. Not only that, but proper suppression also brings more tactics to the game (flanking, covering fire, return fire etc).
On some maps I just give up the MG and switch to rifle instead and get a WHOLE lot more kills. Odessa is one of those maps. When a rifle is more effective than an MG something has to be wrong, right?
I'm not bad with the MG, on the right maps though. Give me an MG-42 on StalingradKessel and the Russians will never be able to leave the warehouses. I can also rack up a lot of kills with a DP-28 in my hands while defending the Petrol Yard in Krasnyi. It totally depends on the map for me.
On some maps the MGs are less effective than on other maps, it's just like that.
I do think suppression should be more violent. It has to be made so that nobody is ever going to stick their head out when an MG is firing on them. If they do, they deserve a death. What Skypirate doesn't seem to understand is that suppression effects in a game (blurring in RO, view jerking in AA etc) aren't there to force a player to play a certain way, all it does is force them to play more REALISTICALLY. Not only that, but proper suppression also brings more tactics to the game (flanking, covering fire, return fire etc).
On some maps I just give up the MG and switch to rifle instead and get a WHOLE lot more kills. Odessa is one of those maps. When a rifle is more effective than an MG something has to be wrong, right?
I'm not bad with the MG, on the right maps though. Give me an MG-42 on StalingradKessel and the Russians will never be able to leave the warehouses. I can also rack up a lot of kills with a DP-28 in my hands while defending the Petrol Yard in Krasnyi. It totally depends on the map for me.
On some maps the MGs are less effective than on other maps, it's just like that.
Upvote
0
Sic-Disaster
anybody know what i could do about my problem though? its a few posts up
specs are 1024 MB RAM, 2,5 ghz motherboard, though the amount i can use for games is 1,8 :\
x850 256 mb ram
A couple of things.
Drivers,
Video (ATI catalysts)
Mother board Chipset drivers
Sound Drivers.
Direct x 9.0c the latest version
Upvote
0
the only problem with mgs right now is the accuracy is horrible. just increase their accuracy to those found in DOD and mgs will be fine. a good MG set up in DOD almost always requires you smoke him or to bring a sniper out to bring him down so you can advance
Upvote
0
PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN said:
I'm not flaming. I'm respectfully disagreeing with you. I wish you'd be respectful too.
The reason why, in my opinion, so many MGs get shot so easily is because they aren't being used correctly. MGs should cover a relatively small angle slice to provide a corridor of fire. They aren't supposed to take on the whole front 180 degrees. Due to their poor mobility, they'll easily get flanked that way, especially if they are put in the very front. MGs should be at the very backline of the squad. If someone comes through an alley or an open field, the MG saws him in half. Hopefully people will cover the flanks of their MG, because if the MG is solo, he will likely die very quickly. MG is a supporting unit. Use the MG to support your squad. Don't use the MG to go have fun by yourself.
Upvote
0
Agreed. Increase machine gun effectiveness and keep the blur and people won't expose themselves as much. I keep a low profile when I move because of fear of riflemen, not MG's.
Upvote
0
Nimsky said:
Yeah, I agree with this. There's some situations where the use of an MG is simply tactically pointless. You're better off with a rifle. As the ATTACKING team on Odessa, most of the time this is the case. An MG simply says "SHOOT ME". As the DEFENDING team, I've seen MGs put to devastatingly effective use.
From what I've determined, MGs work best under the following conditions or combination thereof:
- Small, predictable corridor for enemy infantry to move, which the MG can cover.
- Long range open area with very little cover available.
- Choke points.
- When fired from cover on one or more sides with as little exposure of the gunner as possible.
- When provided with cover on your flanks by one or more riflemen.
Examples of these are:
- On the hill overlooking the road to the Back Route on Kaukasus
- On sandbags at the HQ with a view of the two streets leading to it on Odessa.
- next to some rocks on the top of the hill at Hill_88 (or whatever that custom map is).
- In one of the wooden bunkers on that custom map where the Germans have to charge up a huge hill and take three bunkers at once.
In pretty much every other situation where I've tried to use an MG, I either have very little foot traffic to shoot at, or very little cover and get my own ass shot off.
I will say that the MGs seem to be pretty inaccurate under most circumstances and it's only when the enemy is tightly confined that the sheer volume of fire manages to keep them down. They seem to buck around WHOLE lot even when prone.
That said, I don't expect them to be useful in every situation. They are, to me at least, about as specialized a role as the PTRD: only useful under very limited circumstances.
Upvote
0