montyuno

Jumping the gun..... TOEs, armour, shields n such..

181 posts in this topic

8 minutes ago, Merlin51 said:

They did, or tried.
You know, no one took up the offer? aside from a few green tags that spawned rifles, probably due to being lost.
Perhaps you could have maybe logged in and helped out? Jokur would have probably appreciated it

I had logged in, couldnt find a panzer so went and did something else fun instead. Tried again this afternoon. First drove a fru to the AO, then capped two cps, then it was AB time - we had three links and not a single panzer to spawn, just stugs and 232s. So I logged and went and did something fun instead.

I cant imagine why nobody (other than lost guys desperate to find some action) spawned in to ride a truck for 30mins to a DO? Dont they realise the fun to be had doing nothing except adding to the cap timer penalty riding a truck or driving a tank/panzer from miles away? The fools! :) 

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, madrebel said:

no. make the ballistics correct. make the HE correct. do NOT punish players with otherwise realistic supression effects ... because nobody would be left playing the damn game.

pull your head out - video games a form of escapist entertainment. 

Realistically, long-barrel bullet weapons would be closer to 100% lethal in firefights, because insta-zigzagging while running wouldn't occur and warping of course wouldn't occur. So, in the suppression-or-death-when-under-fire situation, realistically pretty much everyone would be dead. 

Are you fine with continuation of that unrealistic crippling of aimed fire, or do you want warping designed out and zigzag direction changes to be made realistic? That'll make long-barrel weapons much more lethal. Are you OK with basically no survival possibility for running attackers?

Suppression is a key element of weapons having realistic effects, and defense working realistically. If you stay upright in a defensive field of fire, you should die. Suppression is just a way of automating a player decision so that it consistently occurs fast enough to keep attackers alive. 

Being against suppression is being in favor of nerfing defenders and rifles/LMGs, in favor of attackers.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, scotsman said:

If you got real suppression, derived from actual troop tests and including HE, you would complain to the ends of time. You would be forced to go to ground duck and cover against your will - frequently. In reality that's exactly what would happen as there is no respawn...you have but one life...but I'm going to play the community's own words back - 'it's a game, I want fun, and I don't want to be constrained in game play.' 

Im sitting on real world suppression data...

If I ever used it the rage would be enormous...and no...I haven't seen a game yet that does suppression that mirrors the actual test data...anywhere. 

No one said we needed absolute true real life suppression. Other games model suppression and it's actually good. 

Don't take what we say to the absolute extreme example to tell us why we shouldnt have it ingame lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mosizlak said:

No one said we needed absolute true real life suppression. Other games model suppression and it's actually good. 

Don't take what we say to the absolute extreme example to tell us why we shouldnt have it ingame lol

Suppression effects might be helpful in this game. There is no supersonic crack from a bullet going by in game as in real life. Unless a round hit the ground near you in game you may not even know you’re being shot at. Suppression might help a bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, scotsman said:

If you got real suppression, derived from actual troop tests and including HE, you would complain to the ends of time. You would be forced to go to ground duck and cover against your will - frequently. In reality that's exactly what would happen as there is no respawn...you have but one life...but I'm going to play the community's own words back - 'it's a game, I want fun, and I don't want to be constrained in game play.' 

Im sitting on real world suppression data...

If I ever used it the rage would be enormous...and no...I haven't seen a game yet that does suppression that mirrors the actual test data...anywhere. 

Apply suppression but dont force the compliance.
Give debilitating feed back, but if the guy decides he wants to be all John Wayne, and go charging a set up MG or dashing through incoming HE fire, When his vision is going screwy, and his hearing is funny and his ATP is unstable, and he cant hold the rifle steady and he becomes KIA for it, that's on him.

All the feedback was there to let him know he was in a bad way and to seek a better situation and he was free to choose not to.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Merlin51 said:

Apply suppression but dont force the compliance.
Give debilitating feed back, but if the guy decides he wants to be all John Wayne, and go charging a set up MG or dashing through incoming HE fire, When his vision is going screwy, and his hearing is funny and his ATP is unstable, and he cant hold the rifle steady and he becomes KIA for it, that's on him.

All the feedback was there to let him know he was in a bad way and to seek a better situation and he was free to choose not to.

AI towers are the only actual suppression LMG in game.

It shoots at you, and either you run to cover, run out of its field of fire, or "soon" you die.

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, minky said:

There is no supersonic crack from a bullet going by in game as in real life. Unless a round hit the ground near you in game you may not even know you’re being shot at.

There's code for that. It's been in-game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

Apply suppression but dont force the compliance.

The particular approach I suggested in the linked thread above used quantified morale, and allowed high morale infantrymen to choose to not be suppressed...though each instance of near-lethal exposure would take away some of that morale. Average or lower-morale infantrymen would have automatic suppression, which would help keep them alive while the higher-morale guys were getting themselves killed. 

If quantified morale was not going to be added to the game, giving all infantrymen the ability to select not being suppressed would make sense. It however would greatly increase the number of infantrymen playing fearlessly and getting themselves killed. That would tilt the game somewhat toward defense, which would get more kills.

Either way, any suppression system would require fixing both warping and insta-zigzagging, which at present are highly unrealistic bullet avoidance means.

I think suppression would only make sense to the playerbase if it was introduced in the context of more realistic lethality of open field fire, as a faster-than-manual self protection mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jwilly said:

There's code for that. It's been in-game.

Except when it's a sound bug. 

Been in the middle no where when I hear that BS, nothing near me lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jwilly said:

Realistically, long-barrel bullet weapons would be closer to 100% lethal in firefights, because insta-zigzagging while running wouldn't occur and warping of course wouldn't occur. So, in the suppression-or-death-when-under-fire situation, realistically pretty much everyone would be dead. 

Are you fine with continuation of that unrealistic crippling of aimed fire, or do you want warping designed out and zigzag direction changes to be made realistic? That'll make long-barrel weapons much more lethal. Are you OK with basically no survival possibility for running attackers?

Suppression is a key element of weapons having realistic effects, and defense working realistically. If you stay upright in a defensive field of fire, you should die. Suppression is just a way of automating a player decision so that it consistently occurs fast enough to keep attackers alive. 

Being against suppression is being in favor of nerfing defenders and rifles/LMGs, in favor of attackers.

1) realism taken too far isnt fun. Games that go to far with realism are niche. This game was originally intended to be an MMO. The two will never be compatible. If you want more population you need to draw a line as to what ‘realism’ you’re going to attempt to simulate.

2) warping is a by product of the speed of light through fiber optics and the fact that every player, regardless of geo-location, logs into servers in Texas. Infantry play will NEVER be as good as “insert other infantry based games here”. If you want non warpy infantry play we’ll have to convince CRS to test geo-distributed cell hosts.

3) i completely disagree that suppression is part of a weapon system. There is nothing about wood and metal that causes suppression. Fear, the desire to draw breath, and the fight flight or freeze response occurs in the brain based on perceived danger - real or imagined. If this weren’t the case, there would be no shooting ranges as everyone would cower in fear. Further, its subjective. Some humans are in fact wired different - we make movies about them. what then do you model? A range of battle hardness? We can ‘level up’ ... uh huh - you’ll be catering to a tiny population of people that desires that level of fake reality. See point 1, do we want a ‘massive’ multiplayer game or not? The more you cater to niche the smaller the population will be.

4) offense needs tons of love. Defense is too easy. Many things could be done to improve this. However, if you solve the latency issues by dispersing cell hosts across the globe, i think you’d be surprised how well the rifle might work without simulated suppression.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mosizlak said:

No one said we needed absolute true real life suppression. Other games model suppression and it's actually good. 

Don't take what we say to the absolute extreme example to tell us why we shouldnt have it ingame lol

Seriously - i don’t get this. Its seems compromise isn’t well understood. Having something that simulates X but is still enjoyable is skipped past in favor of hard reality ... wtf?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, madrebel said:

1) realism taken too far isnt fun. Games that go to far with realism are niche. This game was originally intended to be an MMO. The two will never be compatible. If you want more population you need to draw a line as to what ‘realism’ you’re going to attempt to simulate.

2) warping is a by product of the speed of light through fiber optics and the fact that every player, regardless of geo-location, logs into servers in Texas. Infantry play will NEVER be as good as “insert other infantry based games here”. If you want non warpy infantry play we’ll have to convince CRS to test geo-distributed cell hosts.

3) i completely disagree that suppression is part of a weapon system. There is nothing about wood and metal that causes suppression. Fear, the desire to draw breath, and the fight flight or freeze response occurs in the brain based on perceived danger - real or imagined. If this weren’t the case, there would be no shooting ranges as everyone would cower in fear. Further, its subjective. Some humans are in fact wired different - we make movies about them. what then do you model? A range of battle hardness? We can ‘level up’ ... uh huh - you’ll be catering to a tiny population of people that desires that level of fake reality. See point 1, do we want a ‘massive’ multiplayer game or not? The more you cater to niche the smaller the population will be.

4) offense needs tons of love. Defense is too easy. Many things could be done to improve this. However, if you solve the latency issues by dispersing cell hosts across the globe, i think you’d be surprised how well the rifle might work without simulated suppression.

Completely agree.

Mind you if they really fixed lag/warp then defence would become even easier.

 

S! ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, madrebel said:

1) realism taken too far isnt fun. Games that go to far with realism are niche. This game was originally intended to be an MMO. The two will never be compatible. If you want more population you need to draw a line as to what ‘realism’ you’re going to attempt to simulate.

2) warping is a by product of the speed of light through fiber optics and the fact that every player, regardless of geo-location, logs into servers in Texas. Infantry play will NEVER be as good as “insert other infantry based games here”. If you want non warpy infantry play we’ll have to convince CRS to test geo-distributed cell hosts.

3) i completely disagree that suppression is part of a weapon system. There is nothing about wood and metal that causes suppression. Fear, the desire to draw breath, and the fight flight or freeze response occurs in the brain based on perceived danger - real or imagined. If this weren’t the case, there would be no shooting ranges as everyone would cower in fear. Further, its subjective. Some humans are in fact wired different - we make movies about them. what then do you model? A range of battle hardness? We can ‘level up’ ... uh huh - you’ll be catering to a tiny population of people that desires that level of fake reality. See point 1, do we want a ‘massive’ multiplayer game or not? The more you cater to niche the smaller the population will be.

4) offense needs tons of love. Defense is too easy. Many things could be done to improve this. However, if you solve the latency issues by dispersing cell hosts across the globe, i think you’d be surprised how well the rifle might work without simulated suppression.

Pretty much nailed it, Mr. Slave. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, madrebel said:

Seriously - i don’t get this. Its seems compromise isn’t well understood. Having something that simulates X but is still enjoyable is skipped past in favor of hard reality ... wtf?

It works well in other games. You can't model fear players, it's just a game.  What you can do is model the proper reaction to someone getting shot at, which has been done to great success and is one of those advancements in FPS that really make the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, knucks said:

It works well in other games. You can't model fear players, it's just a game.  What you can do is model the proper reaction to someone getting shot at, which has been done to great success and is one of those advancements in FPS that really make the difference.

Which game, post scriptum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, madrebel said:

Which game, post scriptum?

Lots of WWII game specifically. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ian77 said:

Completely agree.

Mind you if they really fixed lag/warp then defence would become even easier.

 

S! ian

Indeed, but design is the primary cause of this - specifically static spawns. Others have better ideas on this than ive ever had. My preference, planes, always have static spawns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Suppression was a...maybe the...key feature of (particularly German) small unit attack tactics. The fire team would lay down suppression fire with one or two LMGs plus aimed rifle fire, so that the defenders would keep their heads down, while the maneuver team closed to where they could assault with grenades, SMGs, bayonets, etc. 

If the attacker couldn't suppress the defensive fire, the attack wasn't going to succeed. If the attack jumped off into insufficiently suppressed fire, likely it would be the surviving attackers that would be suppressed, until they fell back to regroup.

The current game's no-suppression design prevents use of realistic attack tactics. 

2. Suppression would aid attackers in surviving by getting them down faster than they could manually when under near-lethal fire.

My guess is that the current game's insta-zigzag capability eventually will be fixed to something more physically plausible. No WWII infantryman could make direction changes like Barry Sanders while lugging a full armament load at a sprint. If attackers need a crutch, a more realistic one will be provided. But, that change will increase running-attacker deaths. Adding auto-suppression would partly offset that. I think both changes would have to be introduced together.

3. As proposed, suppression could be made optional...you choose before your mission whether to be fearless or sensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh so you're going to let players choose whether they're gunna be average or heroes ... why waste the coder time when you know what the default will be? seriously jwilly - you're smarter than this.

people play games to feel like a hero. people dont play games to feel like an average joe - they're already that and know how much it sucks.

we can't even have infantry abide by the laws of physical material phasing through bushes - and you want realistic suppression. good luck with that.

p.s. ultra fake simulated realism isn't fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heroes will die. Suppression will be a life saver.

Yes, some players are here to feel like a hero. They however are not here to feel like a dead hero. The reason real-life soldiers hit the dirt when there's hot metal flying around because the alternative is to die. If you're dead, you don't feel like a hero.

Quite a few players here are squad members and subject to effectiveness expectations, or just are tactical-accomplishment-motivated. A player that wants to be tactically successful isn't going to want to be a dead hero. 

Quote

we can't even have infantry abide by the laws of physical material phasing through bushes 

It's not actually an argument against this proposal to note that other things need fixing/improving, too.

I agree that the game's bushes need better colliders that dramatically slow down infantry while within the bush. That however is a separate issue.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jwilly said:

giving all infantrymen the ability to select not being suppressed would make sense. It however would greatly increase the number of infantrymen playing fearlessly and getting themselves killed. That would tilt the game somewhat toward defense, which would get more kills.

Either way, any suppression system would require fixing both warping and insta-zigzagging, which at present are highly unrealistic bullet avoidance means.

I dont know that i would call it entirely selecting not to be suppressed
You'd suffer all the effects still, so sprinting across the field goes right off the table, hard to zig zag when your legs dont want to run,  you'd have trouble holding a steady aim, hearing, tunnel vision etc.
But yea, it you wanted to stand up and stumble forward into death, guess that's your right.

If you force people to get down, they just aren't going to have it.

The ultimate fear of death in game, would be loss of rank.
Let people death themselves back to rank 1 and have their names turn green again
Now that would be interesting maybe :) 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jwilly said:

3. As proposed, suppression could be made optional...you choose before your mission whether to be fearless or sensible.

If you're really that unconfident in what is now a standard feature for realistic F2P, you might as well throw in the towel. Lol, you already play on fearless mode. EVERYONE DOES, IT'S A GAME.
Stop to think for a second what suppression actually means as a GAMEPLAY mechanic and not just an inconvience to your rambo runs.
For you who play no other games, here's a video to show you what we mean by suppression effects. Tell me you wouldn't want this in game.

 

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ian77 said:

Just another example of someone on these forums who does not play a particular aspect of the game, but they love dictating how others who do play that part of the game should go about doing it - only this guy is a RAT and has the power to change our game.

I have played every aspect of this game, from both sides and from multiple perspectives (CQB assault, squad ops, lonewolfing, recon etc). I don't know about you but I have real life military experience in light infantry and mechanized infantry and 40 years of reading up on WWI-WWII-Korea-Vietnam + the psychology of combat and leadership to back up my own insight and experience in the matter. And of course gaming, not just this title. So I do feel kinda qualified and submit that you don't know jack about what I know or don't know. If you or anyone else feel that you're cut out to have my job, make decisions and affect the game, do please fill in a volunteer form and join the crew.

16 hours ago, ian77 said:

RATS who openly say their "fun" is setting up air missions to Vulch an enemy AF should not be dictating the ground game imho, and telling those who disagree to suck it up and drive from another town.

I think you misread what I wrote because that's not it. I believe I said "get a group together and throw eggs in flight size" or words to that effect. I do prefer BARCAP but I never vulch. I suspect you might not even know what a proper vulch is. Also I'm not "dictating" anything - this is a team effort involving three top managers, Scotsman and myself. That's ten eyeballs on every decision - I just happen to be the one catching the flak. I don't mind that, I'm pretty well armored.

12 hours ago, Mosizlak said:

I wonder if they guy who said that about cutting CPs with an LMG actually plays the game, cause it's ifffy at best

Since November 2017 I've given all my attention to producing content for the game. Before that, and I would suggest that infantry play haven't changed materially since then, my preferred infantry weapon was the LMG, and my preferred use of said weapon was for support and suppressive fire. The trouble here is not the weapon - it works very well for its intended role - but that people who would benefit from support does not understand how to utilize it. They'd rather rush ahead heroically (or otherwise), alone or in ragged gaggles without waiting for a solid base and defilade. I know it's a game and accept that but I think if people were not always in such a hurry to get up there and cap they'd enjoy the fight more, with a bit of patience.

I also don't know about you, but when I see skulls and bodies around me, or see/hear a firefight ahead with or without tanks, I feel pretty suppressed and start acting more circumspectly. If I'm fired upon I go to ground, displace and orient toward the threat. Real suppression, as in screenshake, narrowed vision, ears ringing and inability to move - I don't think it'd be such a smash hit. But we do have suppression in game, albeit you have to immerse yourself in roleplay to get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bmbm said:

But we do have suppression in game, albeit you have to immerse yourself in roleplay to get it.

So you have suppression but it's just headcannon for the real things? Got it. Too bad I can't blur my own vision and give myself a panic attack every time I get shot at.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.