Revisit suppression?

[Nazarov]

I have never liked the suppression fire jump as a rifleman. Even at long distances, it gives a marked advantage to autos, MGs, and pistols. Semiauto, fine; they were designed for long range and are superior to bolt action in terms of RoF.
I think a suppression system that reduces mid-long to long distance accuracy instead of crazy crosshair jump would be more appropriate. This way, you would have some chance of firing back in panic in close to close-mid range. Of course, this would come with blurred vision.

 

[Mekhazzio]

The only functional difference between a random freeaim jump and a random bullet vector variance is that the former gives you feedback that it's happening. In the latter case, you'd have people missing shots without knowing why.

 

[Nightingale]

I think this solution would make the feel of the game too unintuitive for only a minor correction to weapon imbalance.

 

[MrHello]

Are not automatic weapons renowned for being used to suppress?

So is it not a given that automatic weapons have the advantage whilst they're suppressing someone with a rifle?

 

[Conscript]

I'm not a huge fan of the current suppression system. I understand it's function and why it's there, but it feels very exaggerated and arbitrary.

I get very frustrated when a bullet flies way over my head and my weapon gets jerked around randomly. It feels - forced, and unnatural and it's annoying having you're aim completely and utterly disrupted just because there's incoming fire, sometimes even not even that close to you. It's one of those psychological frustrations, where I get annoyed that the game has forced something on me - "Incoming fire - You are scared and nervous, I'm going to jerk your gun around!!".

I think I would much rather they greatly increased the sound effects for bullet whizzes and impacts and let suppression happen naturally - if I know bullets are coming very close then I take cover as a matter of course. And if I do stick my head up, my aim is generally not as good anyway if I'm rushing to take the shot.

Like I said, I understand why its there and I see the purpose suppression serves, but it its annoying and I think I would prefer the heavy suppression effects were reserved for incoming artillery bombardments etc. This is more of an opinion than a criticism.

 

[MrHello]

What do you mean it feels arbitrary? To what?

I feel the suppression effect itself is perfect, it's just the radius of the circle that dictates whether or not to be affected by flying bullets is slightly too large.

 

[AtheistIII]

where I get annoyed that the game has forced something on me - "Incoming fire - You are scared and nervous, I'm going to jerk your gun around!!"

Well, i guess if under real fire you would have as much influence on jerking your gun around like ingame, maybe even less.

 

[Conscript]

What do you mean it feels arbitrary? To what?

I feel the suppression effect itself is perfect, it's just the radius of the circle that dictates whether or not to be affected by flying bullets is slightly too large.

As in, the game is dictating that I should be feeling fear. Bullets come fairly close, so it dictates that my aim should be upset and thrown around - even though I was still calm and didn't feel the need to take cover.

Make bullet effects much more pronounced and my ability to return fire will be diminished as a result of me taking cover anyway out of instinct - not having a game mechanic to dictate that I shoudn't be able to fire back.

 

[Schnitzel15]

I get very frustrated when a bullet flies way over my head and my weapon gets jerked around randomly. It feels - forced, and unnatural...

1 word - reflexes. You can't force yourself to remain calm when touching a hot kettle, right? The same thing with bullets, your character (since you've never been shot at before) knows that bullets are death and it's only natural how he responds, he violently shakes in fear of each whizzing bullet.

It's all realistic and that's how it should stay since this is a realistic shooter.

 

[Conscript]

1 word - reflexes. You can't force yourself to remain calm when touching a hot kettle, right? The same thing with bullets, your character (since you've never been shot at before) knows that bullets are death and it's only natural how he responds, he violently shakes in fear of each whizzing bullet.

It's all realistic and that's how it should stay since this is a realistic shooter.

My point is, it's not dynamic. The game dictates it through a mechanic. I think the same result could be had through increased bullet impact noises, etc, which would upset my actual aim with the mouse, or my willingness to stand up and fire back.

Like I said, it's not a criticism, what we have is probably the best system we are ever likely to get, just an observation that it comes across as very frustrating sometimes.

 

[Nazarov]

1 word - reflexes. You can't force yourself to remain calm when touching a hot kettle, right? The same thing with bullets, your character (since you've never been shot at before) knows that bullets are death and it's only natural how he responds, he violently shakes in fear of each whizzing bullet.

It's all realistic and that's how it should stay since this is a realistic shooter.

I have never been fired at so no, I wouldn't know. But I assume you have never been fired at either, at least I hope, so I don't think it's fair to call it realistic.
You cannot react as fast as in RO to every bullet that whizzes by. That's humanely impossible. Your reaction would be to take cover or freeze in fear and shivering in fear (i.e. unable to focus on aiming), not be jerked around by every bullet that misses you.

 

[Nazarov]

Are not automatic weapons renowned for being used to suppress?

So is it not a given that automatic weapons have the advantage whilst they're suppressing someone with a rifle?

In real life, yes.
In RO2, automatic weapons do not need to suppress because they are too accurate. It would be perfectly fine if your aim gets distorted by the suppression fire at long distances, only if it discourages rifleman to return fire and look for cover. As it stands now, that chance to take cover barely exists because not too long after automatic gunning, the target is dead.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

Considering that there is no gradient to the effect, merely a simple binary suppress/don't-suppress, it's currently overdone. My first time playing after the patch was on Spartanovka, and upon spawning on the German side, I was immediately getting suppression kick from Russians firing over the hill. That's absurd. (EDIT: The current radius is 9 meters. That's right, a bullet going 30 feet over your head makes your aim jump as much as one hitting the wall 6 inches from your face. Like I said, absurd.) (EDIT EDIT: Apparently there is a reduction in place, it's just very mild. You have to be well off-target for it to reduce the kick noticeably)

If the radius is going to be increased to such extreme levels, and if suppression is to be kept similar to what it is now, there should be a more gradient effect; close misses get the full kick, while distant ones get a much smaller twitch.

It'd still annoy me to get suppressed by shots that aren't anywhere near me (Or getting aim-kick from the friendly MG firing from the next window over), but at least it would reduce it some. I'd rather they also tone the radius back down a bit, though.

In real life, yes.
In RO2, automatic weapons do not need to suppress because they are too accurate.

Most combat in this game is around 100 meters. MGs have no problem hitting a person easily at that range, in real life. If you're exposed to a MG shooting at you at 100 meters IRL, you're probably dead in very short order.

And the only reason SMGs manage to kill at that range is because people don't ever duck behind cover when they're shot at (Which is what real-life suppression does, it encourages people to keep their heads down). Instead, they try to fight the aim-kicks and stay exposed long enough for the SMGer to empty his magazine and eventually get lucky. Although at 100 meters against a target in cover, you've got to get pretty lucky.

 

[Nazarov]

Considering that there is no gradient to the effect, merely a simple binary suppress/don't-suppress, it's currently overdone. My first time playing after the patch was on Spartanovka, and upon spawning on the German side, I was immediately getting suppression kick from Russians firing over the hill. That's absurd. (EDIT: The current radius is 9 meters. That's right, a bullet going 30 feet over your head makes your aim jump as much as one hitting the wall 6 inches from your face. Like I said, absurd.)

If the radius is going to be increased to such extreme levels, and if suppression is to be kept similar to what it is now, there should be a more gradient effect; close misses get the full kick, while distant ones get a much smaller twitch.

It'd still annoy me to get suppressed by shots that aren't anywhere near me (Or getting aim-kick from the friendly MG firing from the next window over), but at least it would reduce it some. I'd rather they also tone the radius back down a bit, though.



Most combat in this game is around 100 meters. MGs have no problem hitting a person easily at that range, in real life. If you're exposed to a MG shooting at you at 100 meters IRL, you're probably dead in very short order.

And the only reason SMGs manage to kill at that range is because people don't ever duck behind cover when they're shot at (Which is what real-life suppression does, it encourages people to keep their heads down). Instead, they try to fight the aim-kicks and stay exposed long enough for the SMGer to empty his magazine and eventually get lucky. Although at 100 meters against a target in cover, you've got to get pretty lucky.

This is off a tangent, but MGs shouldn't have a pin-point accuracy shooting from behind a cover. don't know if it was a glitch, but the guy's head was no where to be found when he was sniping me.
It's not uncommon to be sniped by SMGs either.
Of course if you can or go into cover none of this would be an issue. But some times you do get killed even when you think you're under cover.

 

[PeteAtomic]

No

 

[Mekhazzio]

I'm not a fan of suppression systems. A reflex flinch for a very near shot is believable, but that's more of a hit effect than suppression. Any effect for a shot that's only barely aimed in your general vicinity is a gamey gimmick. The current 9 meter radius cylinder around the bullet path is way over the top.

Suppression is a psychological effect, and as such, should be reproduced psychologically in the player. You get players to react by a) letting them know someone is shooting at them, b) making the outcome of giving someone a clear shot predictably reliable (ie - if you expose yourself, you're probably going to die) and c) making that outcome have some impact (a strong death penalty).

Weakening any one of those, like reducing weapon accuracy, is counterproductive if you want to make people fear incoming fire. If the target thinks you have good odds of missing, they're going to be more likely to just ignore your incoming fire.

It doesn't help that the current system has some very serious bugs in it.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

This is off a tangent, but MGs shouldn't have a pin-point accuracy shooting from behind a cover. don't know if it was a glitch, but the guy's head was no where to be found when he was sniping me.

It's a glitch. Deployed weapons have some oddities to them at times.

It's not uncommon to be sniped by SMGs either.

Hah. When someone stays exposed long enough for a guy with an SMG to empty their mag and score a lucky hit, it's not "sniping." Nor is hitting someone exposed at 100 meters, or even less. That's what I usually see when people complain of SMG "sniping." Further distances require even more luck. Yes, you can spray fire at 200 meters and get lucky. That's a far cry from "sniping" though. That's just flinging out enough lead that one of them just happens to hit a person.

The only way you're going to stop this "SMG sniping" is if you have the bullets de-spawn after a certain range, and I doubt anyone is going to consider that realistic. Complain all you want, but the SMGs in-game are several times less accurate than they are in real-life.

 

[Mekhazzio]

It's a glitch. Deployed weapons have some oddities to them at times.

To elaborate, bipod weapons have some severe issues with synchronization between first-person and third-person. The angle of the weapon on the shooter's perspective and on everyone-else's perspective can vary by some really large amounts (I've seen 90 degrees before), so you can be shot by someone who appears, on your end, to be aiming into the sky, and thus have their head safely tucked behind something. They're not actually blind-firing.

 

[Nazarov]

Hah. When someone stays exposed long enough for a guy with an SMG to empty their mag and score a lucky hit, it's not "sniping." Nor is hitting someone exposed at 100 meters, or even less. That's what I usually see when people complain of SMG "sniping." Further distances require even more luck. Yes, you can spray fire at 200 meters and get lucky. That's a far cry from "sniping" though. That's just flinging out enough lead that one of them just happens to hit a person.

The only way you're going to stop this "SMG sniping" is if you have the bullets de-spawn after a certain range, and I doubt anyone is going to consider that realistic. Complain all you want, but the SMGs in-game are several times less accurate than they are in real-life.

No I don't mean spray sniping. Bursts of auto in 3 quick succession or less scores a hit to the head. I wouldn't complain otherwise. and it is more than 100 meters away mostly. I'm sure SMGs are accurate if you have no sway or can always aim perfectly, as in the game.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

No I don't mean spray sniping. Bursts of auto in 3 quick succession or less scores a hit to the head.

At 50m or so, sure. Even out around 100m or so you might get lucky. Mind, at just 100m the in-game stats are inaccurate enough that the bullet will be landing somewhere in a three-foot circle, so even landing a head-shot when you're perfectly aimed requires a fair bit of luck. Hell, "perfectly aimed" requires a bit of luck for long-range shots, with how thick those sights are.

I wouldn't complain otherwise. and it is more than 100 meters away mostly.

I suspect you're over-estimating the range. Usually when I see complaints of "SMG sniping" pop up, it's started at around 70m, and even then it requires a good amount of shooting. Even with bolts, most of the fighting is still around 100m. Given that, it seems pretty absurd to say that SMGs are killing people more frequently at further ranges than they are at shorter ranges. They're simply bad at it. There is no "SMG sniping" that couldn't be done quite a bit better with a bolt-action rifle.

I'm sure SMGs are accurate if you have no sway or can always aim perfectly, as in the game.

Good thing that's not how they are in the game either, then.