Plea from rockpapershotgun

[Zennousha]

Personally I really, really like the effect that DH's system has on gameplay. Sure it takes a little bit of control away from the player but it forces them to actually work with their team and increases the skill required. It doesnt make it impossible to kill someone shooting at you it just makes you work a little harder to aim, which is about as close to steadying your nerves IRL as you will get in game.

It is already far easier to fire accurately in ROO than it is IRL and the DH suppression effects reward teamwork without completely preventing a player from returning fire. Its not like when a bullet whizzes past you your screen jumps up 5 degrees, I dare say that if you are shooting at a target that is between 50 and 100m away the suppression effect has zero impact on your aim.

A little control? It's like you're an <no need to pick on people with disabilities!> and the muzzle flare is like giant pulsating strobe lights. I'd rather not 1) have control taken away and 2) support blind hip fire from SMGs while taking a corner.

 

[Federico 76]

Well, actually i like the DH suppression effect and i've nothing against it, i usually play DH quite often and i find that, after all, it's not so hard to hit someone at 50-100 meters of distance when under fire...
But i'm sure that a smooth weapon sway that gradually increase based on the intensity of the incoming fire would be probably better than the "epileptic" effect of DH.

 

[Reise]

I was working out what to post here and then I realized I already exhausted all my points last time we talked about suppression.

- Avatar having violent spasms like he belongs in a hospital and could use some thick glasses = Bad.

- Some kind of new and practical middle ground with actual innovation behind it = Good.

 

[gusone]

If I am getting shelling I want to be frozen stiff absolutely scared out of my mind curled up in a foetal position. I can't see I can't shoot I can't move. I like that.

 

[Dwin]

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).

IIRC, Ramm was quite adamant about NOT including a DH style control-robbing suppression system. However, I would like to see increase blur effects for RO2 perhaps, maybe something close to the level of blur when a grenade explodes next to you. Ost's suppression blur was very easy to get used to.

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

Yeah, I hate when games do that.

Games like Project Reality and DH go way too far, by practically blinding you or even worse, reducing your accuracy (by making your gun bounce around everywhere) when you are being shot at. These come off as just plain annoying and take away too much control from the player.

I'm not sure if Project Reality decreases your accuracy when you're getting shot at, but what I prefer about it over Darkest Hour's suppression is that it doesn't completely take away your ability to return fire. If you concentrate, you can keep your sight on the target. It's difficult, but possible. Where as DH makes it completely impossible to return fire unless you're using an automatic weapon or you are lucky.


A good compromise between both systems would an increase in weapon sway when you are being shot at, and a general slow down of all player actions, like reloading, aiming, and weapon settling. In this way, you are hindering the player, but you are not removing control.

 

[Zetsumei]

I'm not sure if Project Reality decreases your accuracy when you're getting shot at, but what I prefer about it over Darkest Hour's suppression is that it doesn't completely take away your ability to return fire. If you concentrate, you can keep your sight on the target. It's difficult, but possible. Where as DH makes it completely impossible to return fire unless you're using an automatic weapon or you are lucky.

I wouldn't want the guns to decrease in accuracy at max that the front and rear sight perhaps unalign a bit. The bullet should remain to go where the barrel is pointed at.

 

[Dwin]

Also, about that RPS article, I think the most relevant part of it concerning RO2 was not the suppression effects but the destruction and adaptive cover system. Now we don't know much about RO2's level of destruction yet, but being able to blow holes in walls and such would be incredible.

 

[PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN]

It always amuses me that people think I was taking player control away in DH when they're still perfectly capable of moving and shooting. Apparently "control" is somehow being defined as the ability to pick off a machinegunner while under fire, the exact behaviour that it was designed to prevent.

The whole point of suppression is to encourage your enemy to keep his head down. It turns out however, that people only like the idea of suppression, they don't actually like having it.

@Reise: New and innovative was what I did with DH and everyone complained. What makes you think TW can come up with something completely different again that people will actually like?

 

[Fedorov]

In RO, when you have your screen almost completely black, you have to hide because you can't return fire, so it WORKS and making the soldier move on his own, pretty much defines "taking control away from the player".

 

[Zetsumei]

@Psycho Chicken
I would prefer the DH system over what RO currently got, but I don't think that the DH system is perfect. There are a lot of things that can be tweaked and added to improve upon said system.

In RO, when you have your screen almost completely black, you have to hide because you can't return fire, so it WORKS and making the soldier move on his own, pretty much defines "taking control away from the player".

The screen doesn't go black it gets darker so you can still see around you and especially notice light spots like muzzle flashes and tracers, and when you have motion blur enabled emitters do not get blurred at all. So you can perfectly see where someone is firing from based on the location of the muzzle flashes. The current RO suppression system doesn't work because people do not take cover or use suppressive fire in any way, people only use fire to directly kill rather than suppress.

Making muzzle flashes/tracers less visible or harder to locate when being suppressed is another thing that would be another good step towards making suppressive fire more effective. And I do hope to see that in Rohos.

I don't like the method of DH that much as I've said but at least the effect of suppression exist and can be utilized in tactics and gameplay (and this is noticable on public servers in DH). Its not like DH really starts controlling your character it gives it a reflex reaction which is different from automatically making someone run away go in the foetus position and piss in his pants.

 

[Fedorov]

I have an idea:

how about that if you get too suppressed you have a chance that your avatar takes the control completely away from you and runs to some hole to hide and cry? Like in real wars.

 

[Fedorov]

The screen doesn't go black it gets darker so you can still see around you especially light spots like muzzle flashes and tracers are visible, and especially when you have motion blur enabled emitters do not get blurred at all. So you can perfectly see where someone is firing from from the muzzle flashes. The current RO suppression system doesn't work because people do not take cover or use suppressive fire in any way, people only use fire to directly kill rather than suppress.

Aren't you supposed to see who is shooting at you? or you just get blind when people fire at you? But you see they are firing at you, it doesn't matter if you know where they are or not, they are already firing and they've got the advantage, and the blackening effect is disruptive enough. so you hide.

I do take cover so it works for me.

What I see here are lots of butthurt MGers here who don't realize that the guys who kill them are not the ones that are being fired upon, but someone else in the whole map, and they blame the suppression effect. Now even with bullet penetration system that will make most covers useless, do you want even more?

 

[Zennousha]

It always amuses me that people think I was taking player control away in DH when they're still perfectly capable of moving and shooting. Apparently "control" is somehow being defined as the ability to pick off a machinegunner while under fire, the exact behaviour that it was designed to prevent.

The whole point of suppression is to encourage your enemy to keep his head down. It turns out however, that people only like the idea of suppression, they don't actually like having it.

@Reise: New and innovative was what I did with DH and everyone complained. What makes you think TW can come up with something completely different again that people will actually like?

Don't get me wrong. I anticipated this idea, and it sounded great on paper. It was just an easily abused and frustrating system in practice. Sometimes though these changes are necessary in order for someone to take ideas from past concepts and make something outstanding.

 

[Zetsumei]

Aren't you supposed to see who is shooting at you? or you just get blind when people fire at you? But you see they are firing at you, it doesn't matter if you know where they are or not, they are already firing and they've got the advantage, and the blackening effect is disruptive enough. so you hide.

I do take cover so it works for me.

What I see here are lots of butthurt MGers here who don't realize that the guys who kill them are not the ones that are being fired upon, but someone else in the whole map, and they blame the suppression effect. Now even with bullet penetration system that will make most covers useless, do you want even more?

I pretty much only play with a bolt action rifle.... But thanks for trying to insult me.

If anything currently the blackening of the screen highlights the person that is suppressing you making it easier to kill him. What I want is suppressive fire tactics and game play to work as DH proved that it can work in a game.

Perhaps when someone fires at you, you end up in cover, but I and most other players simply but a bullet in the head of the MG and that is plainly wrong. You do not raise your head when bullets are flying over your head.

 

[Zetsumei]

Aren't you supposed to see who is shooting at you? or you just get blind when people fire at you? But you see they are firing at you, it doesn't matter if you know where they are or not, they are already firing and they've got the advantage, and the blackening effect is disruptive enough. so you hide.

I do take cover so it works for me.

What I see here are lots of butthurt MGers here who don't realize that the guys who kill them are not the ones that are being fired upon, but someone else in the whole map, and they blame the suppression effect. Now even with bullet penetration system that will make most covers useless, do you want even more?

I pretty much only play with a bolt action rifle.... But thanks for trying to insult me.

If anything currently the blackening of the screen highlights the person that is suppressing you making it easier to kill him. What I want is suppressive fire tactics and game play to work as DH proved that it can work in a game.

Perhaps when someone fires at you, you end up in cover, but I and most other players simply but a bullet in the head of the MG and that is plainly wrong. You do not raise your head when bullets are flying over your head. You should wait till they stop firing or relocate and then put a bullet in the MG's head or you should ask a team mate to do it.

Suppression is one of the key elements of infantry tactics back in ww2 and still today. Its simply too important to leave out, although the method used should be thoroughly tested and tweaked. The effective range of a lot of weapons was longer than the max range people could actually accurately hit something, the reason for this was suppression.

 

[Fedorov]

I pretty much only play with a bolt action rifle.... But thanks for trying to insult me.

If anything currently the blackening of the screen highlights the person that is suppressing you making it easier to kill him..

Perhaps when someone fires at you, you end up in cover, but I and most other players simply but a bullet in the head of the MG and that is plainly wrong. You do not raise your head when bullets are flying over your head.

Well I do play MG whenever I can, and if I'm killed is never by people I'm actually firing at, unless I stop to reload. If I get killed is by someone else.

When I play as rifleman I can't shoot at anyone who is directly firing at me, unless the hitbox of my cover is bugged (but that is a different problem with a better solution)

BTW I wasn't referring to you when I said butthurt MGers

What I want is suppressive fire tactics and game play to work as DH proved that it can work in a game

I haven't seen any tactics involved whenever I played DH, the only thing it proved to do was alienating the players to not touch the damned thing again.

As someone said here: "this suppression system suppressed me enough to not play it again"

I'd really hate to see this in RO2

 

[Zetsumei]

Well when I play mg I never run into suppression issues as I do not even try to bother with suppressing someone. I just make sure that I'm at a range where I can kill every person. Firing in the direction of someone when you have a low chance of actually killing him is 100% useless currently.

I see people cleverly use suppression in DH whenever I'm playing, and next to that I use it to my own benefit as well when I'm an smg. I don't really like most of DH's maps so I don't play it often. But you can easily see things such as some people firing at a window while others move forward.

I think nobody is saying they want DH's suppression method, but I want something that works. I think there are other methods that can be tried, but if those don't work then yeah I'd rather have DH's suppression than effectively no suppression like in Roost.

If you look at this poll here: http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=45155 You see a shape similar to a normal distribution with the mean saying that people want something inbetween RO and DH's system.

 

[Fedorov]

than effectively no suppression like in Roost.

There is suppression in Roost and it works, stop saying the opposite.

If you look at this poll here: http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=45155 You see a shape similar to a normal distribution with the mean saying that people want something inbetween RO and DH's system.

Yes, the majority wants something in between, but from the same results, there are more people inclined to the same suppression as in RO or lower than higher.

 

[Zetsumei]

There is suppression in Roost and it works, stop saying the opposite.

Yes, the majority wants something in between, but from the same results, there are more people inclined to the same suppression as in RO or lower than higher.

There is a suppression system in the game and indeed it works as intended code wise since the screen gets darker/blurred. But what I meant with that it doesn't work is that its not effective as people do not get actually suppressed by the system.

People only put their heads down by rational thought if they would otherwise with a big certainty die, which they would have done as well without the black screen. While the key of suppression is exactly suppressing the enemy if you're not in a position to kill someone. If you can kill someone you should just kill him rather than suppress him.

May I ask what sort of maths you applied in your calculation? 31 people want the same as in Roost, 16 want lower suppression, 27 want heavy suppression like DH, and 44 want something in between RO and DH.

I dunno how you counted but 44 + 27 = 71 is more than 31 + 16 = 47.

If you would divide it into the 3 categories you made then it would be.
71 people want more suppression than in Roost
31 people want suppression to stay the same as in Roost
16 people want less suppression than in Roost

That is quite a big group that thinks the suppression effects in Roost are not sufficient.

 

[Fedorov]

People only put their heads down by rational thought if they would otherwise with a big certainty die, which they would have done as well without the black screen.

and you want the system to artificially **** you up effectively making the game another frustrating experience like DH

May I ask what sort of maths you applied in your calculation? 31 people want the same as in Roost, 16 want lower suppression, 27 want heavy suppression like DH, and 44 want something in between RO and DH.

I dunno how you counted but 44 + 27 = 71 is more than 31 + 16 = 47.

If you would divide it into the 3 categories you made then it would be.
71 people want more suppression than in Roost
31 people want suppression to stay the same as in Roost
16 people want less suppression than in Roost

That is quite a big group that thinks the suppression effects in Roost are not sufficient.

My calculations says that 91 people think that DH system is bull**** and only 27 supports it.

And if the last option to have RO suppression wasn't split into two would make 47 and be a higher number than the people who wants something higher (yes, 16 of those people would specially hate a higher effect than in RO if they don't even want the one in RO because they think is too much)

So original RO option would be the most voted if it wasn't split.

Also, the proof that the detractor's opinions on this matter are stronger, is that while even if you don't like it, you still play RO, but we just can't stand DH.