• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Suppression in ROHOS

Ehrm right.... If you don't bother to read and try to understand (note not saying agree) what people are trying to say, then i wont bother responding to you.

You must have been suppressed by those terrifying weapons.

Here's another terrifying threat!:

url


BANG! Ha! Now you're having heart palpitations due to this imagined threat....I've won again!
 
Upvote 0
So you're mocking firearms because you feel they aren't deadly? This is a computer game there is no real fear of being killed that's why suppression adds in that element although artificial. Are you saying that HOS should have no suppression? Is that your point of these ridiculous posts? That any artificial fear of death is unacceptable? Mg's aren't the only guns that can suppress.
 
Upvote 0
So you're mocking firearms because you feel they aren't deadly? This is a computer game there is no real fear of being killed that's why suppression adds in that element although artificial. Are you saying that HOS should have no suppression? Is that your point of these ridiculous posts? That any artificial fear of death is unacceptable? Mg's aren't the only guns that can suppress.

And yet their proposal is that suppression be included because somehow rate of fire guarantees instantaneous suppression, making MG's artificially more effective than they really are and bolt action rifles relatively artificially less effective than they really are.

What I was mocking is the fact that these guys have all conceded that bolt action rifles are more effective weapons against MGs, particularly in a 1-on-1 battle with an MG in Ost Front, yet they all think MGs should be more effective, so they're proposing an artificial solution. An artificial leveling mechanism.

I disagree with that for obvious reasons. No one has given me a single reason why a machinegun spray and praying should be more devastating psychologically than a well placed sniper shot. Frankly, even the VISAGE of a sniper tends to make me more afraid than a machinegun ragespamming bullets. The reason I'm not afraid of the machinegun is I've seen how inaccurate they are in Ost Front and how hard it is to kill a well-concealed target.

They're arguing that well-concealed riflemen shouldn't be able to shoot machinegunners just because he's being shot at. I disagree with that as well.

That's what these flinch-mechanisms do. If machineguns were more effective than they are in Ost Front in real life due to some OTHER inaccuracy that can be realistically modeled as a physical change...for example, supersonic snaps, potentially vision-blurs, greater accuracy/tighter spreads.....

Everything else, from bullet penetration to mitigating the oft-exploited lean and peak clipping snipers so often use, is already a part of Heroes of Stalingrad. I just don't get the point. Machineguns should be as effective as they are in real life. No more, no less.
 
Upvote 0
I disagree with that for obvious reasons. No one has given me a single reason why a machinegun spray and praying should be more devastating psychologically than a well placed sniper shot.

Oh God, how did I get sucked back into this...

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DETECT A SINGLE SNIPER / RIFLE ROUND UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

You CAN hear / see / feel / get scared by a dozens of rounds per second hitting near you. During that entire time you are taking fire, you are suppressed because you KNOW you are getting shot at.

A sniper isn't going to suppress you if you don't know you're being shot at or don't know they're even there.
 
Upvote 0
Oh God, how did I get sucked back into this...

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DETECT A SINGLE SNIPER / RIFLE ROUND UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

You CAN hear / see / feel / get scared by a dozens of rounds per second hitting near you. During that entire time you are taking fire, you are suppressed because you KNOW you are getting shot at.

A sniper isn't going to suppress you if you don't know you're being shot at or don't know they're even there.

I'm in favor of simulating seeing/hearing/feeling any real effects from bullets passing by a target, just not in favor of anything that isn't an actual effect (i.e. a force) exerted from flying bullets.

I've seen plenty of snipers before they shoot me. I've even sat there and "laid down suppressive fire," actually, I was trying to hit them. Sometimes, once in a blue moon, I hit them. The MG34 seems to be better at releasing a controlled burst and the DP28 is extremely accurate for a fully automatic LMG in Ost Front, but generally I lose that confrontation.

I always see shooters in RO (at least in Danzig) unless they are using the clipping exploit, in which case I see their muzzle flash right before I hit the deck or admit defeat and start ragespamming bullets.

Obviously, bullet penetration will fix the clipping exploit. I won't have to suppress lean and peakers, I'll simply chew through the wall they're hiding behind and shoot them.

"You CAN hear / see / feel / get scared by a dozens of rounds per second hitting near you. During that entire time you are taking fire, you are suppressed because you KNOW you are getting shot at."

Dozens of rounds per second that don't hit you. And actually, the MG42 in fully automatic at 1200 RPM (where its set as a standard in Ost Front) is capable of 20 rounds per second (1200/60), or 1.75 dozens. Obviously, the DP28 at 500 RPM and the MG34 at 900 RPM will be capable of slightly more (34) and less than a dozen (28) respectively. Add this to the fact that the effective firing rate of a machinegun is much lower than the actual maximum firing rate unless you're planning on shooting 10 feet above your target. Obviously, I don't hold the fact that your figures were exaggerated against you, that analysis was for the sake of accuracy.

I realize that even the practical rate of fire of any fully automatic or semi-automatic weapon is significantly higher than the rate of fire on a bolt-action rifle even when the shooter is blazing through rounds.

That's besides the point. You claimed the effect was purely psychological. Knowing you are getting shot at, in my experience, is substantially less devastating than knowing you are about to get shot and killed. Particularly if the machinegunner was ignorantly throwing rounds just to reach his maximum fire rate (which is obviously not practical for getting anywhere near your target).

There is not as much real danger from random bullets as from a sniper rifle zeroed in on your precise location. Which is why when I see a sniper, I move, and why when I see a machinegunner, I aim. That is, if I'm behind cover. The first objective of anyone faced with a machinegunner is to GET OUT OF THE WAY or get behind cover. No one's being braindead, here. When's the last time you watched someone stand and look at a machinegunner out in the open?

Granted, if I feel the machinegunner is getting dangerously close to killing me, I will move. All of you seem to be under the impression that I like to eat machinegun fire, so there you are.

All the same I have a tendency not to run into machineguns because they tend to dominate that aspect of warfare. I tend not to bayonet charge a machinegun because I probably won't live a quarter of a second.

Anyway, if it makes you feel any better, I'm in favor of simulating seeing/hearing/feeling any real effects from bullets passing by a target, just not in favor of anything that isn't an actual effect (i.e. a force) exerted from flying bullets.
 
Upvote 0
Damn Various you're really getting worked up over this.

First off, I NEVER play MG and nearly always bolt or semi so don't try to accuse me of "trolling" for extra MG "l33tness" in ROHOS.

As someone mentioned before, players are NOT AFRAID OF DEATH. You can not suggest allowing players to "react the same way they would in the situation IRL because they won't, that's absurd. NO ONE here is playing the game like they would fight in a war because they're NOT AFRAID TO DIE. Respawning in 20 seconds in no great calamity. You HAVE to force it on them, and doing it either DH's way (though I would lessen the effects maybe a bit) or PR's (which has MASSIVE screen blurr) would work. Otherwise you WILL have rambos running around amidst enemy fire. True, in WW2 doubtless you had some heroic "rambo moments" here and there but far more common was it for soldiers to have some sanity and TAKE COVER. Would you rather simulate what MOST soldiers did, or allow for the odd unusual occurance of heroic, suicidal bravery? I know which I'd rather have.

In PR, people act like they're afraid of getting shot, because of the suppression effect , and it has improved the game considerably.

And yes, MGs should be King of the infantry battlefield. You're out of your mind to suggest that they weren't. The German army's whole infantry doctrine was based on the riflemen providing flanking support for the MG (who was the main killer).

The MG can't shoot at everyone in its field of view. To take it out you must simply flank, or have someone distract him while you shoot him. Totally realistic.

BTW don't try to use RO and movies as source material for your arguments.

As long as there's a good reason to duck and cover, people will. As it stands in Ost Front, people's first inclination is to find cover.

You haven't been playing the same game I have... wishful thinking :p?

So I assume in your irrational state you charged out towards the machinegun and twirled around in circles?

Or did you find cover like an intelligent human being to avoid being shot at?

You know, it certainly would SILENCE the machinegunner if you swiftly put a bullet between his eyes with your highly accurate bolt action rifle. Nothing to fear then.

You know this almost makes me think you're trolling, because this argument is so utterly absurd. You're suggesting to someone who's actually BEEN in combat that he should have just stopped being a pussy and stood up and taken a shot with his "highly accurate bolt rifle"??

Thanks, that's all I needed to see.

So I have some comments now. If this is a purely psychological effect than I will reiterate my previous arguments that anything likely to kill you is going to have a devastating psychological effect.

Your arguments just get worse and worse. You just don't get it do you. PEOPLE DON'T FEAR DEATH in a video game, it's not going to have a "devastating psychological effect". The only way to simulate that sort of behavior is a suppression system.

Luckily I'm confident that TWI will not be following your model of warfare.

And for the love of God, stop using as PROOF, your Red Orchestra video game experiences!!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Listen, I know you guys are having a great time shutting VariousNames down.. he seems to be going further and further afield with each post

..but take a look at the post I made a few pages ago talking about some relatively simple tweaks that for a player playing to win will cause him to suppress himself. I dont think game developers should be trying to herd, like cats, those people who dont have winning as their main objective. If somebody is content to be a goof-off and run headlong into gunfire over and over again, there's nothing you can do to stop that without hindering those who try to stay alive and are playing to win.

Theres no way you're ever going to be able to create a fear of death in a video game without it being forced on the player and making the game unenjoyable to play. The lack of a fear of dying is the exact luxury and pleasure of playing video games of this nature. I consider everyone passionate enough to post at length about these types of subjects as someone who plays to win, and so I'm pretty positive if the those tweaks I suggested were put into effect, you'd all fear the MG and large volleys of fire enough to suppress yourselves. No person playing to win thinks dying and respawning over and over again helps a team win.

I know someone is going to come in and say 'well, people take unnecessary risks they wouldnt take in real life'.. you have to take into account we are on the clock as well. We dont have 2, 4, or 12 hours for the situation on the battlefield to change, so yes, there will be times when you have to risk your life to make progress. Thats part of the game.

My main fear is a blanket suppression effect like the one you see in DH. I've just spent some time watching real firefights on youtube (about 15 or so) and not in one single one of those videos do you see the tip of some soldiers gun wildly jumping about because he's being fired at. They simply take cover. Then they pull themselves together and return fire.

I'm gonna shorten this up cause I was gonna write a bunch more, but I really believe if those tweaks were made it would go a long way to making the MG a feared force on the battlefield. It would also have players (the ones playing to win) suppressing themselves when faced with large volleys of gunfire - whether from an MG or not.

I would hope others would be very disappointed if some forced blanket suppression effect were put in that totally rendered your man useless because someone sprayed gunfire in your direction. I'm all for those tweaks I mentioned in combination with some quick heavy blur and loud zips, pops, and cracks as the bullets come close. That'd be enough to have me flying for cover.
 
Upvote 0
I understand your opinion, and while personally i think those things you stated alone are not enough, i respect your opinion.
The difference is you understand where were comming from but don't agree with our opinions. That is perfectly fine and people can simply share different opinions with each other in a friendly matter. However variousname doesnt seem to want to hold a friendly discussion about the subject, and simply tries to redicule people for their opinions.

Personally i think DH's system is a bit overdone and would rather see is a form of sway that increases (even when rested). As the sway is a function of breathing, and focus on the target. And with that no effect whatsoever with hipshooting.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Zets said:
Personally i think DH's system is a bit overdone and would rather see is a form of sway that increases (even when rested)

Well, if a gun is rested on something, I dont see how it is going to sway. It's just going to lay on the object you've rested it on. In my post a few pages back I mentioned not being able to keep the same exact aim point after going into and coming out of a crouch or a lean (ala popup guys).. I think this is the same thing as the sway you are talking about, but it would only apply to non-rested weapons.. no?

Who knows, maybe the collision effect that has been added to the game will stop popup stuff..

Lets be clear, suppression is putting enough pressure on a guy that he takes cover.. if he can collect himself enough to fire back, those incoming bullets shouldnt make his gun jump around uncontrollably. In RO currently, if you leave your gun in IS long enough it starts to sway.. so maybe that sway could take place sooner if the gun is not rested and the volume of incoming fire is quite high on your specific position (like, really close to you).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
When under fire (or under extreme cold weather with bad winter clothing *cough*) your body gets bad with some basic simple things that require dexterity. Like fixing a nut on a bolt.

As the ironsights can never get unaligned in ro, i think that sway comes the closest to getting the effect of losing dexterity. A lot of functions are combined into 1 input in ro, like looking over the ironsight is the same mouse movement as aiming your gun at a different position.

Now the second side effect would be that people generally hate loosing control of themselves and thus will try to move away to get rid of it, which gives the same side effect as one would have with fear.

-----------

The actual thing i basically want to stop is that if you are behind cover and the enemy is behind cover and the enemy fires at you with an mg, that you take the chance of him missing and just align up the sights and shoot him in the head rather than hit the dirt as what generally should happen.

But i guess well see later on what the devs think about this subject if through other means they could make a person care more about staying alive than say making 10 certain kills with a suicide rush, then supression would work well enough automatically probably.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Fine. Let's deal with history.
We don't need to deal in much of history or prehistory, I think, because you can imagine how that went. Men equipped with swords or clubs and a sheet of hide, wood, or metal charged en masse at one another or withstood cavalry charges or arrow volleys in open fields. Recall the Spartans at Thermopylae. With the advent of the firearm, tactics stayed the same for centuries, with disciplined militaries holding strict formations in immobile combat (save bayonet charges), trading volleys of slow firing musket balls. With the introduction of guerilla tactics we can test the resolve of these professional soldiers...it was absolute. Then came the advent of the machine gun, which resulted in more bodies. Recall the Zulu. In WWI you see bayonet charges into machine gun nests in trenches. Wave after bloody wave. In WWII we see the advent of the trained sniper and the development of mobile armor. The German tactic was combined arms...Blitzkrieg. Planes, armor, infantry.

The Russian tactic utilized their quantity of soldiers and massive military production to field mass amounts of armor and assault troops. With 6 million PPSH's, more than any power's quantity of submachine guns and the persuasive effect of the commissars, the Russians broke German defensive lines as the Germans had done to the Allies. You say there is no fear of death. But, you see, the Russian who deserted was killed. Additionally it's well known snipers were employed in great volume.
In conclusion, suppression is not a well documented phenomenon even when machine guns ruled the battlefield (which is to say, pre WWII, and purely in defensive engagements. There is no reason to suspect that a well concealed shooter with a bead on his target should not or would not fire, especially when so many have charged directly into MG fire and their actual deaths.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Brothers-Robbo
Upvote 0
Ill give you the definition of surpression Various.

Surpression is the tactics of keeping as much fire towards a position that it is impossible for the oponent to fire back, or see what is going on.

One can also say, "O **** a MG, lets take another route....lets not bother him." Smoke is a good thing to use.....

A sniper almost always moves after each shot. A sniper is used to take out important targets from a distance and will rarelly be usen in an attack in order to gain ground or an objective. Which gives me an idea about snipers getting higher points if shooting squad leaders....or MG shooters.

Furthermore, one should take into acoount that a 8x57 round almost penetrates 40 cm wood, sand and also penetrates concrete walls, 3-5 mm iron plates as well. So surpression is not only keeping a position pinned down, but will in most cases kill the people behind. What a long burst will do with a brick wall isnt hard to imagine then.

/S
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
i would like to comment on the "suppression being purely psychological" , i would say that psychology is the least important factor regarding ones reaction to suppression. i think most of the effects you feel are uncontrollable reflexes. when you sneeze, you can't help closing your eyes. when someone pops a ballon next to your head, then you can't help closing your eyes and ducking away either.
thats comparable to what happens when bullets hit close to you, you simply cannot stop certain reflexes. you can get used to it i suppose, and reduce the effects. so a forced effect is not unrealistic. but maybe HOS will implement a feature that gradually reduces suppression effects for "veterans".
the psychological effect comes after the reflexes, but it probably has nothing to do with your inmediate reaction. what it does is affect your morale and ability to get back up and fight on. but that effect can probably never be simulated ingame in any possible way.

-snipers are not supposed to suppress, sniper wait for an enemy to expose and then take 1 out with 1 shot. if the sniper suppresses, then he is a bad sniper.

-MG's do the exact opposite, their role is to shoot as much as possible when needed, so the enemy can't expose themselves (so they can't shoot when defending, or advance when attacking)

the fact that variousnames thinks how he thinks, is the best example to show that RO ost doesn't work quite right. COD crawls with "i rule at this game, so i would rule in ww2 aswell" -kiddies, but i didn't immagine that RO had it's own share.
THE problem with MG's in RO (and most other guns aswell) is that if you use them correctly, you will get owned rapidly.
example: proper MG-use means dominating the area by shooting non-stop in the direction of the enemy so they can't move or shoot. do that in RO and you are history within 5 seconds. the most effective MG tactic ingame is shoot as few as possible without drawing any attention on you, and certainly never shoot when you are not 100% sure that you will kill the target. if you miss, then you become the target.
it's the same with the other rifles, every bullet that doesn't kill an enemy in RO, is a total and complete waste of ammo. it will have no noticable effect on them. while in DH with it's system, i can sometimes empty an entire mag with my semi towards the enemy without a clear target, knowing it will have some effect on them. in RO that would simply be something verry stupid to do.
 
Upvote 0
it's the same with the other rifles, every bullet that doesn't kill an enemy in RO, is a total and complete waste of ammo. it will have no noticable effect on them. while in DH with it's system, i can sometimes empty an entire mag with my semi towards the enemy without a clear target, knowing it will have some effect on them. in RO that would simply be something verry stupid to do.

This. I don't even play vanilla RO anymore because of this feature. Might be a bit too much suppression, but it changes the game quite a bit better. It feels more real and there are countless of times when I just automatically duck when being shot, while in RO I just keep running and avoid being shot.
 
Upvote 0
This is a really in-depth conversation and I don't even know where to start.
So I am simply going to give my opinion. I think that although the suppression system in DH is slightly exaggerated it does a good job of simulating a reason for you to take cover. I think that maybe instead of an extreme screen blur and a sway of the weapon there should be more concentration on the sounds that a bullet would make and the destruction that it is causing around you to make you take cover.


In some cases though the screen blur can be realistic because if you are leaned up against a wall or hiding just under the peak of a pile of rubble the shrapnel/ debris from the bullets hitting the wall could get in your eyes. Or if it doesn't get in your eyes it might still cause you to react by blinking or flinching which would render you incapable to fight / aim you weapon. I know that using movies as an example is highly unreliable but in the movie Band of Brothers this type of flinching or blinking is seen a lot when being suppressed by an mg or a large squad of rifles

hope no one hates me for my opinion:p
 
Upvote 0
The REAL problem is that MGs aren't accurate enough.

If a rifleman really has any reason to be afraid of an MG, it's because the MG has a fairly good chance of hitting that rifleman, thus implying that the MG is accurate up to whatever ranges we're talking about.

If the situation is such that the MG cannot hit the rifleman for the duration of the time it takes the rifleman to line up a shot, then the rifleman is simply outside the MG's effective range.

In RO, I've more times been "suppressed" by enemy rifleman than machinegunners, because of the fact that an enemy rifleman has a greater chance of killing me than a machine gunner. That is the only reason. If you want MGs to have a greater capability to "suppress" enemies, increase their lethality. Since a single MG bullet is usually enough to kill, the only other option I see is to increase their accuracy.

About artificial flinching effects:

I agree there should not be any artificial limitations being imposed on the player in order, unless absolutely necessary. This includes flinching or "morale". I find DH's flinching borderline acceptable, and nowhere near as ridiculous as VariousNames makes it sound. I am not suggesting RO:HOS implement a flinching system like DH's, however consider this scenario: you're being fired at, and the bullet impact kicks up debris that physically distrupts you. Plausible?
 
Upvote 0