Suppression in ROHOS

[VariousNames]

@VariousNames: Now I'm really confused.

You just said my interpretation of your premise that a human being will react the same to a video game bullet as to a real life bullet was wrong.

Yet later in the same post you state:

Like I said, it's impossible to replicate the exact physical experience in a videogame because you cannot exert any forces upon the player in the vicinity of a traveling bullet. If the bullet can exert forces, which I figure it can, you cannot replicate the exact experience.

What do you think physically happens when a bullet travels to an individual? I've told you what I think. But I think we can very closely approximate the stimuli and thus we can reasonably approximate the reaction. That is, unless the force exerted by distorting the air around the bullet causes a reaction entirely separate from the visual and aural stimuli.

As far as reasonable reactions to MG fire are concerned, I've given you my response and I think it stands.

Anyway, that's the issue. Most would disagree with that premise. We believe a human being in real life would flinch when getting shot at. It's an unconscious reflex that doesn't carry to most people playing video games (though I have seen people physically duck in playing video games, but their avatars don't).

You believe, but you refuse to explain why, and you refuse to illustrate the mechanism and give evidence for it. I refuse to believe anything on the basis of your beliefs.

It's true some people aren't phased by this sort of thing, but they're the exception rather than the rule. ROHOS doesn't seem to be about modeling these exceptional soldiers, but more the average soldier. Maybe Heroes will be cooler under pressure.

Aren't phased in what sense? I just illustrated that throughout history it's been the fact of war that men engage, and it's a fact of history that men will charge headlong into certain death, even inflicting death upon themselves. That doesn't mean necessarily that an individual won't involuntarily flinch when a round travels past him.

The problem is I'm waiting on you to demonstrate this phenomenon and explain why it happens.

 

[Mormegil]

Wow. So you don't believe people flinch or seek cover when getting shot at...interesting.


OK. Well, here's why I think people do this...survival instinct. Most people prefer not to die, so they tend to try not to die. When being fired upon, they if they want to not die, they will move away from incoming fire. That happens at an unconscious level (flinching), and a conscious level (seeking cover).

Secondary evidence this occurs - the entire strategy of suppressive fire. Suppressive fire is used to "fix" your enemy in place while you teammates can maneuver for the kill. At least that's the plan heavily used in WWII.

More evidence this occurs - people I know in the military who have been shot at by suppressive fire from MGs seek cover and try not to die.


The points you made about people charging into MG fire, or kamikazes or otherwise heading into certain death are not because they want to die, or aren't afraid of dying, it's because death is not as bad as the alternative. In the case of Kamikaze pilots, it was because [EDIT] dishonor was worse than death [/EDIT]. In the case of Soviet soldiers charging into MG fire was because there was "friendly" MG behind them, and because Stalin decreed that any deserters or surenderers will be shot and their families jailed.

 

[VariousNames]

Do you know what a strawman is, Mormegil?

I'll wait while you look it up.

I never said that people wouldn't take cover when being shot at and I never said people wouldn't flinch.

I've said repeatedly that it seems to be the first instinct of any RO player when confronted with an MG to take cover and pick their shots.

And I've said just a moment ago that I expect you to explain WHY a bullet would make someone flinch, by what mechanism would this happen, and demonstrate that it happens.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

This thread isn't even amusing to read anymore....

 

[VariousNames]

OK. Well, here's why I think people do this...survival instinct. Most people prefer not to die, so they tend to try not to die.

Sure.

When being fired upon, they if they want to not die, they will move away from incoming fire.

Which is why the first part to picking off a machine gun is getting behind cover where the MG cannot hit you no matter how many bullets he fires at your general location. That's my first strategy and I've noticed it seems to be most of my opponents' first strategies, too, in Ost Front. This part seems to be a go already in Ost Front.

That happens at an unconscious level (flinching), and a conscious level (seeking cover).

What is the mechanism for flinching? Why does it happen? You want to survive so your body deprives you of the one thing keeping you alive (your rifle)? If you shoot the MG your squad is no longer pinned down, you won't get flanked and killed by assault troopers, flushed out by grenades, and so on.

Is it also not a natural response to have adrenaline and to occasionally, in line with the fight or flight response, prepare for a confrontation for the sake of ensuring survival?

Secondary evidence this occurs - the entire strategy of suppressive fire. Suppressive fire is used to "fix" your enemy in place while you teammates can maneuver for the kill. At least that's the plan heavily used in WWII.

So the rational response to this strategy is to let an MG pin down your squad while assault troopers fill your *** full of bullets instead of simply picking him off?

More evidence this occurs - people I know in the military who have been shot at by suppressive fire from MGs seek cover and try not to die.

How about flinching? You're not proposing that we curl up in the corner or that we're forced behind cover every time you're shot at, players are sensible enough not to let that happen already. At least I am. I don't stand there like an idiot even when some schmoe with a PPSH is throwing bullets at me from 100m, I try and pick him off with minimal exposure.

The points you made about people charging into MG fire, or kamikazes or otherwise heading into certain death are not because they want to die, or aren't afraid of dying, it's because death is not as bad as the alternative. In the case of Kamikaze pilots, it was because death was worse dishonor.

Death was worse dishonor? LoL. You mean living without killing an enemy gunship. Failure to serve the state, and so on. It's more like an incentives system. You kill the allies and you're a super-badass. However, that doesn't change the fact that this is a sociological incentives system that seeks to impact psychological behavior.

At any rate, your average soldier in a society like that um...seemed not to buckle under pressure. People are strange animals. We don't always wither under stress, although we tend to avoid it when possible. Is that an accurate description of human behavior?

In the case of Soviet soldiers charging into MG fire was because there was "friendly" MG behind them, and because Stalin decreed that any deserters or surenderers will be shot and their families jailed.

So. Well, well, well. Now we have it all on the table. Where's the "my family will be jailed" system?

Can we implement a "my family will be jailed" incentive system in videogames? Can we implement digital commissars to kill deserters? How about your body seizes up and you drop all your weapons when you fail to do your duty to the state and kill the fascist scum? How about the commissar comes and executes you when you fail to press the charge?

Now I'm really to the point where I think we could really leave well enough alone.

 

[MrHat]

Why is this so hard to understand? When an MG is unloading bullets at your position, you tend to not stick your face up into the line of fire to "simply pick him off." RO does not model this very well, and people tend to act against the instinct to live: just pop up and shoot. Adding some blur is a good way to encourage people not to do this. But RO doesn't have a strong enough effect as it is.

And before you go off on a tangent, I don't mean shoot near you, I mean within a few feet, to the extent that if you stuck your head out bullets would be whizzing right by you if you don't immediately die. People don't do this in real life, yet it is relatively easy to do in RO. I think part of it is fixing the accuracy of the MGs, but part is it's too easy to pop up and instantly fire accurately.

 

[Mormegil]

Sorry typo, meant dishonor was worse than death.

 

[Mormegil]

What is the mechanism for flinching? Why does it happen? You want to survive so your body deprives you of the one thing keeping you alive (your rifle)?

The mechanism for flinching is called reflex response. Have you ever been punched in the face? If you have, you'd know your reflex is to close your eyes and flinch back. If you are a boxer, closing your eyes is actually a horrible horrible thing to do. During that split second your eyes are closed even on a miss, the second punch comes in unnoticed and scores. Boxers have to train to get over this reflex response.

So the rational response to this strategy is to let an MG pin down your squad while assault troopers fill your *** full of bullets instead of simply picking him off?

Nobody is saying it's the rational thing to do, but it is what people do when getting shot at.

 

[Pvt.Skoko]

The points you made about people charging into MG fire, or kamikazes or otherwise heading into certain death are not because they want to die, or aren't afraid of dying, it's because death is not as bad as the alternative. In the case of Kamikaze pilots, it was because [EDIT] dishonor was worse than death [/EDIT]. In the case of Soviet soldiers charging into MG fire was because there was "friendly" MG behind them, and because Stalin decreed that any deserters or surenderers will be shot and their families jailed.

Thank you for further explaining my point which i found difficult to express.


and i completely agree.

 

[VariousNames]

The mechanism for flinching is called reflex response. Have you ever been punched in the face? If you have, you'd know your reflex is to close your eyes and flinch back. If you are a boxer, closing your eyes is actually a horrible horrible thing to do. During that split second your eyes are closed even on a miss, the second punch comes in unnoticed and scores. Boxers have to train to get over this reflex response.

Nobody is saying it's the rational thing to do, but it is what people do when getting shot at.

How about you let the players be the judge of that? (by the way, you told me the difference was a psychological consideration....the fear of death....a rational fear....not an automatic reflex response to stimuli)

I have to ask what it is exactly about the projectile moving past an individual that causes the unconscious flinch reflex. The aural, visual, or felt stimulus? Seeing as two of those things can actually be simulated pretty accurately in videogames, you should be able to expect a player reaction on a reasonable basis without forcing it consistently on all players.

Moreover I have to reiterate my suggestion that absolutely everything causing that stimulus or a similar stimulus cause a flinch or a reaction of some kind, a FORCED reaction. I expect some degree of consistency instead of something that arbitrarily rewards players with weapons with the highest rate of fire based on your opinion of what is the most effective tactic.

You know, I played some Darkest Hour today and I was astonished by how my play style was affected by the suppression effects. I had two confrontations with a sniper in the trenches of Hill 108. I was equipped with an M1 Garand and used it to my advantage over his Kar98k which would have easily executed me in Red Orchestra (i.e. without the suppression flinch effect) by ducking behind the trench wall and popping up to lay down 2-3 rounds towards his position before moving forward while concealed. The reason I did this is I knew that every time I fired at him he was literally incapable of aiming at me. It worked, and both times I gained enough ground to lay a round into him while keeping him locked firmly into a position.

On Foy I was equipped with an M1 Carbine and I took some time to see how far I could stress this suppression effect. I would aim at Germans coming out of spawn, fire almost an entire magazine into them, then dive behind cover again and reload. Obviously, they were incapable of retaliating. This culminated in a hipshooting contest between myself and a sniper equipped with a G43. Have you ever had a hipshooting duel in DH? You shoot at eachother randomly like normal except your gun flies all over the screen from the forced flinching effect so you both fire all around like spazzes.

Basically I have a new tool in Darkest Hour. If I pick a weapon with a high rate of fire I can simply fire rounds towards my target and instantaneously disable him. More importantly I've discovered that whatever the context, no matter who my opponent is, simply shooting at him keeps me alive longer. I find myself less inclined to use cover in DH. This is because I can simply shoot at enemies to make them incapable of shooting me. They can only reciprocate by firing back ending up in neither of us scoring an accurate shot.

When I got a hold of an MG42, it was obscene. Every time a rifleman or shooter at hundreds of meters popped up out of the trenches, despite my being fully exposed and a perfect target, I disabled their offense immediately by firing in their direction before playing a round in them.

This is why I tend to think that the suppression mechanic is more a mechanism by which you allow the machine gunner to stay out from behind cover, fully exposed, just because he sprays bullets (although, mind you, it works perfectly fine for semi-automatics like the M1 Carbine). This does not encourage intelligent use of cover, it encourages bullet spamming.

Even well concealed players are instantaneously disabled by semi-accurate fire with DH's suppression system. Sorry, I tend not to like that. Because I can exploit it so damn easy it doesn't bode well for the rest of the community.

 

[heath4n]

The suppression coding that DH is quite simply spectacular. Strap on a set of high quality headphones and you are in the game like no other title to date. It brings an amazing level of immersion that can give you a rush from a public server game like no other.

I played competitive paintball for many years and the suppression concept that DH uses is very close to what you actually would experience. Being involved in skirmish when it first started with bolt action guns right through to the fully automatic monsters they have now, I have seen the huge advantage semi's had over pumps. Firing at someone does simply "suppresses" them and this is realistic and the bottom line is that the DH system is a great attempt at simulating this in the game considering the difference between a computer game and real life.

Unless you had heaps of combat experience, to not flinch when someone is firing a semi auto and landing shots near you is knights cross material.

This is what I'm excited about with the RO2 heroes concept. I suspect that TW will use a very similar suppression system to DH that will be affected by experience of players with slightly less suppression suffered by "heroes". I think that would not only be realistic but a hell of a lot of fun and most importantly provide long term playability without ruining it like cod did.

I truly hope that TW restricts this experience from being applicable to all servers and restricted to a particular server or groups of related servers so you can level up on your favourite server and the heroes will be known as they only mainly play on that server. Not only would this stop kids coming into servers for the first time and being heroes but it would encourage players to get more involved in that server and again most importantly, increase the chance that a player gets addicted to the game and becomes a regular and joins the local community.

 

[Mormegil]

@VariousNames

I was explaining Flinching because you asked the mechanism for it - it's a reflex response.

Then I quoted you on the irrationality of seeking cover - which is different than merely flinching. I said that wasn't necessarily the rational thing to do, but it's what people scared of dying do - which you won't get on a video game unless you threaten to kill the gamer.



Your experience on DH is closer to the reality of combat, and you've proven the suppression system does what it's suppose to do - get a more realistic representation of combat.

 

[VariousNames]

@VariousNames

I was explaining Flinching because you asked the mechanism for it - it's a reflex response.

Then I quoted you on the irrationality of seeking cover - which is different than merely flinching. I said that wasn't necessarily the rational thing to do, but it's what people scared of dying do - which you won't get on a video game unless you threaten to kill the gamer.



Your experience on DH is closer to the reality of combat, and you've proven the suppression system does what it's suppose to do - get a more realistic representation of combat.

So let me get this straight....reality entails that simply showering locations in bullets makes it so that the enemy is incapable of firing at me?

Hahaha, that's not how it works in DH. In DH even the person I'm spraying at can shoot back, they just can't shoot back accurately. So what tends to happen in DH is bullet spamming duels like the hipshot duel I had yesterday in which you just try to deter eachother by forcing your crosshairs to shoot away from your target, thus keeping you alive longer.

It doesn't encourage the use of cover (realism) at all, it encourages you to fire before you aim. Once you start spamming the suppression flinch on your opponent, you've got him on lock and don't need to go behind cover at all.

 

[Mormegil]

So let me get this straight....reality entails that simply showering locations in bullets makes it so that the enemy is incapable of firing at me?

Hahaha, that's not how it works in DH. In DH even the person I'm spraying at can shoot back, they just can't shoot back accurately. So what tends to happen in DH is bullet spamming duels like the hipshot duel I had yesterday in which you just try to deter eachother by forcing your crosshairs to shoot away from your target, thus keeping you alive longer.

It doesn't encourage the use of cover (realism) at all, it encourages you to fire before you aim. Once you start spamming the suppression flinch on your opponent, you've got him on lock and don't need to go behind cover at all.

HAHAHA, that's exactly the point.

 

[Zetsumei]

VariousNames its really interesting about your experience with DH, beside possibly when hipshooting your experience sounds pretty close to what we exactly want.

Aka most of your experience is pretty much exactly how it should be when comparing tactics etc.

 

[VariousNames]

VariousNames its really interesting about your experience with DH, beside possibly when hipshooting your experience sounds pretty close to what we exactly want.

Aka most of your experience is pretty much exactly how it should be when comparing tactics etc.

Then my opposition to you is total.

 

[VariousNames]

HAHAHA, that's exactly the point.

So you want HoS to be, basically, bullet spamming duels?

 

[Mormegil]

So you want HoS to be, basically, bullet spamming duels?

"Bullet spamming" or "fire and maneuver" , call it what you will - it's closer to actual WWII combat. That's what most of us do want.

 

[VariousNames]

That's what most of us do want.

Speak for yourself, chip.

"Bullet spamming" or "fire and maneuver" , call it what you will - it's closer to actual WWII combat.

BTW: "it's closer to actual WWII combat." You're begging the question. How do you know that?

By the way, I'll call it "spray and pray." Thanks. I thought Red Orchestra players tended to look down on spray and pray, but I guess if this thread is any indication, I was wrong.

 

[Mormegil]

Speak for yourself, chip.

...

By the way, I'll call it "spray and pray." Thanks. I thought Red Orchestra players tended to look down on spray and pray, but I guess if this thread is any indication, I was wrong.

Yes you apparently are wrong. This thread seems to be a pretty good indication that I am not just speaking for myself, but for "most of us" as evidenced by everybody else disagreeing with you.


Your logical fallacy here is a false analogy between real life combat and video game combat you've experienced until now. You acknowledge that soldiers will flinch and cower under suppressive fire, but suggest they will do so in a video game to the same extent as in real life. I haven't seen you present any evidence that people react the same in real combat as in video game combat. In fact, you're examples of your video game combat tend to show you do not react like you are actually going to die - mentioning letting yourself get killed.


Then you make a false dichotomy argument that either a person has complete control of their faculties and can pop up and shoot (what you feel should be allowed) or will either "curl up in a corner" irrationally waiting to get killed (what you portray our argument to be). The truth is one would get under cover, but be prepared for a flanking maneuver or try to get in a better position.

EDIT: BTW - I think there is a difference between "spray and pray" and "suppressive fire." To me "spray and pray" is mainly unaimed fire in the general direction of the enemy. Suppressive fire is aimed high volume fire to pin an enemy down to keep them from firing back, advancing, and/or fix in place for a flanking maneuver.