The Bleed-out system

[goryrory93]

Hey everyone

Firstly I want to start by saying that I have played RO/RO2 since launch. Its a great game but (in my opinion) could do with one important tweak. Although the idea behind the bleed out system is fantastic, it's execution at times defies common sense. There's nothing worse than shooting an enemy in the torso with a rifle, to see him then calmly unload his sub machine into you before finally succumbing to his wounds. To me at least, bleeding out at present seems little more than a cheap way to avenge yourself before dying. Does anyone else agree that the time it takes to black out should be further randomised to shake things up a bit? It seems at present that the "black out time" is the same in all cases. Imo close quarter fighting would be far more intense and frantic if you had no idea whether the next second would be your last.

 

[r5cya]

i'm fine with it. pop the guy in the melon or the ticker. he'll fall like a rag doll. or just use your bayonet after that belly shot, to finish him off.

 

[defektive]

Bleeding out is inconsistent even within the game itself whereby the dying man is seen to be staggering around like a zombie yet the player can still aim in an instant and rattle off shots otherwise unimpeded (save for fading sight, which is of no serious impediment at all until total darkness descends). Putting another round into him will end it but why should you both have to take another spin of the Roulette wheel on equal terms when one of you has already lost. Give it a short while and such things will become a thing of the past (if you choose the likely-soon-to-be-more-realistic game mode) and we shall look back upon these moments with amusement.

 

[Nikita]

I've rarely ever gotten a slow-death kill in RO2 despite several hundred hours of play... and I've rarely gotten killed by anyone in slow death.

The only needed tweak is that sway in iron sights needs to be dramatically increased in slow death--sometimes I come awfully close to being able to pull off a medium range shot with good accuracy despite bleeding out. Other people have complained about accuracy in slow death, but for my part I've never been able to take advantage of it.

 

[Cwivey]

Could further reduce how well bleeding-out people can return fire by removing their ability to aim down sights; the third person model depicts staggering about, often one hand on the gun, no aiming or raising of the weapon for accurate shots. This would still leave the abillity to shoot back in close range encounters.

 

[lazerBAR]

Just shoot the dude twice, its very helpful ya know.:IS2:

 

[Andrew Blake]

Could further reduce how well bleeding-out people can return fire by removing their ability to aim down sights; the third person model depicts staggering about, often one hand on the gun, no aiming or raising of the weapon for accurate shots. This would still leave the abillity to shoot back in close range encounters.

yeah currently you are too accurate. I have shot people many times 100m away while bleeding out. Many times I have to duck because the bleeding out enemy could just shoot me, lol.

They need to add just shooting from the hip while bleeding out.

 

[r5cya]

sounds like you all would just be happy with insta-kills for every time you get hit with a bullet?
i think the system is fine now. you get hit and start bleeding out, you can take aim and shoot. just like i would do if you wounded me in real life. kill you first, before you can finish me off, them try and stop the bleeding. the pther scenario, you shoot me. i'm really bleeding out fast. walking like a zombie. i can't really aim at you in real life, nor can i in the game. everything's going black, my motor sklls are shot, i die. if you happen to be foolish enough to be too close, i get lucky and take you with me. your bad.
does someone have an exapmple of a better system in another game they want to implement instead?

 

[Andrew Blake]

sounds like you all would just be happy with insta-kills for every time you get hit with a bullet?
i think the system is fine now. you get hit and start bleeding out, you can take aim and shoot. just like i would do if you wounded me in real life. kill you first, before you can finish me off, them try and stop the bleeding. the pther scenario, you shoot me. i'm really bleeding out fast. walking like a zombie. i can't really aim at you in real life, nor can i in the game. everything's going black, my motor sklls are shot, i die. if you happen to be foolish enough to be too close, i get lucky and take you with me. your bad.
does someone have an exapmple of a better system in another game they want to implement instead?

The thing is, If you were hit in the chest IRL you would get down.
You sure as hell wouldn't start to shoot back as you were standing and Bleeding out, possibly dying. Your thoughts surely won't be: "Ah I'm bleeding out, need to shoot as many enemies as I can before I die."

You would rather get to cover and scream for a medic and hope to live. That's how it was portrayed in ROOST, not dying but being incapacitated.
That's how it should be! Not this arcade, unrealistic mess.

 

[Tak]

yeah currently you are too accurate. I have shot people many times 100m away while bleeding out. Many times I have to duck because the bleeding out enemy could just shoot me, lol.

They need to add just shooting from the hip while bleeding out.

This is the only change the system needs. The bleed out system is pretty dang realistic, as much as people like to throw that word around its funny to never see it applied here. Getting shot simply does not equate to immediate death or incapacitation outside of Hollywood. RO2s bleed system pretty fairly takes that into account.

Bandages as they're represented in game need some work, but that's not what the OP is writing about.

 

[r5cya]

The thing is, If you were hit in the chest IRL you would get down.
You sure as hell wouldn't start to shoot back as you were standing and Bleeding out, possibly dying. Your thoughts surely won't be: "Ah I'm bleeding out, need to shoot as many enemies as I can before I die."

You would rather get to cover and scream for a medic and hope to live. That's how it was portrayed in ROOST, not dying but being incapacitated.
That's how it should be! Not this arcade, unrealistic mess.

hmmm. i was looking at it in a different way. when i said "real life", i meant as a civilian. i wasn't thinking as a soldier. i meant if you shot me in the torso in real life, i'd try and kill you before you could take another shot.
looking at it from your perspective, as a soldier, you're right. i would take cover and cry for a medic. cause i'd know that there were a couple guys at least right there with me to make sure the guy that shot me, wouldn't have the chance to walk up and kill me as i tried to stop the bleeding.

thing is though, whether i'd head for cover or stand and fight, has nothing at all to do with how well i could aim or not. so it's a moot point.

 

[Cwivey]

r5cya, I beleive this thread is pointed at the Slow-Death, not being injured and bleeding.

 

[Golf33]

I love this idea that people routinely fight back after they get shot. Especially when it's phrased as "if I got shot, I'd...."

What a crock. There's a reason people who continue to fight agree receiving wounds (especially serious wounds) get given medals - it's because it's bloody rare. Even minor wounds typically put soldiers out of action. Hell, even being under heavy fire without getting hit usually puts soldiers largely out of action until the fire lifts - that's why the guys who fight back despite heavy incoming also tend to get medals. They are performing an act of heroism out of the ordinary expectation. If what you see in RO2 was realistic, there would be no need for medals for gallantry because it would just be expected of everyone.

 

[Tak]

I love this idea that people routinely fight back after they get shot.

Balls to all that. Fight back or not, it's well documented that people *continue to function after getting shot* sometimes without even realizing they've been shot.

From military to police to every day citizens, people get shot and function well enough to go 'oh ****, I've been shot' without immediately falling to the ground and writhing, or falling over dead, or going into a monologue, or any of the various other very dramatic but very exaggerated effects the movies would have us believe. In the thick of things, people can even get *stabbed* and not realize it until someone points it out.

The simple fact is the seemingly random system we have now (it's not random, but you wouldn't know that to hear some argue it) is far better at representing how a bullet through the torso (non heart/aorta) affects a human being than basically anything other than ArmA2 with its long slow-death, and even ArmA2 lets you hop back in the action if a team mate heals you.

I'm sure that getting shot is a very traumatic experience but the evidence is simply factually NOT there for one-shot-one-kill in the game. Especially given the weapons and equipment involved.


The issue people seem to be screaming about is the bandaging system, or the apparent (at this point I think it's established as actual?) lack of limb damage modeling. Those are both different beasts entirely from the bleed system.

 

[r5cya]

^^^ aggreed!

 

[Golf33]

Balls to all that. Fight back or not, it's well documented that people *continue to function after getting shot* sometimes without even realizing they've been shot.

From military to police to every day citizens, people get shot and function well enough to go 'oh ****, I've been shot' without immediately falling to the ground and writhing, or falling over dead, or going into a monologue, or any of the various other very dramatic but very exaggerated effects the movies would have us believe. In the thick of things, people can even get *stabbed* and not realize it until someone points it out.

I'm not arguing that no-one ever functions after getting shot. I just don't buy that it happens at anything like the rate shown in the game.

If it's well documented, can you point me to some of this documentation where it's noted that people routinely continue to function at full effectiveness when suffering from an arterial bleed?

 

[r5cya]

seems to be some confusion on the whole bleedout thing.
there's two kind in the game. the less than lethal ones, where you can slap a bandage on if you want, to lessen the damage. you can still aim and reload and everything.
then there's the "arterial bleed" you speak of. that one's gonna be fatal. no doubt about it. things start to go black right away. you can't aim, you can't reload you can't do much at all, cept pull the trigger a few times and try and direct the fire.
it all seems fine to me. a wound that you don't even have to bandage to survive lets you aim and a fatal shot doesn't. what's wrong with that?

 

[Golf33]

When I get the unbandageable, fade-to-black bleedout hit - I can still bring the weapon to ironsights and fire it. I can even reload and fire. The only thing I can't do is move or change stance. I frequently manage to kill my attacker in these cases.

I don't have a problem with this happening in the game - just with how often it happens. Once in a hundred hits would be plenty, but my (admittedly unverified) gut feel is that it's at least ten times more common than this.

It gets added in to the other problems with wounding, like the fact that you can sprint on a shattered leg and can aim a weapon using ironsights with a shattered arm or shoulder, to a total system that isn't terribly believable and contributes to the player's lack of fear in the game. This both makes it less realistic (as behaviour diverges further from what you'd see in reality) and less fun (as tactical choices that are present and even effective in reality are ineffective or not present at all in the game).

 

[r5cya]

i was paying more attention to the fade out thing today, i noticed there were times i could aim and others not. i guess it depends on how bad you're hit. never sould i move or even turn around. death is welcomed at that point! lol!