Battlefield 3 announced

[Richard]

Absolutely not. The appeal was I could drive a jeep off a cliff parachute to the bottom climb in an airplane fly out to a ship and parachute again since landing was a pain. Then start driving a ship around. That isn't realistic.

Keyword being more. Nobody wants realism, some of us want more realism.

Anyway, FF is always the answer to these problems and the vast majority of servers never turn it on. It's not just suppression fire, pre-patch mortars was especially problematic on rush without FF.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Keyword being more. Nobody wants realism, some of us want more realism.

Yup this. Back when I played BF1942 a lot it wasn't those acrobatic things that Sxotty likes that drew me to Battlefield. It was the fact that projectiles actually had weight and reacted to external forces such as gravity. The first time I hopped into a tank and found out that not only was it not hitscan, but that the shells you fired had to follow a somewhat realistic trajectory, I was hooked. Same went for sniping, etc.

While not as realistic in many cases as the first Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon it was certainly more realistic than almost all other FPS games. And it introduced large team based arena's with team goals.

Balancing realism versus "fun" is a difficult endeavor. It's fairly easy if you are only trying to attract a niche market (original Rainbow Six/Ghost Recon), but much harder as you try to expand your market. For many Realism just isn't all that fun.

Hence, suppression fire while more accurately modeled in BF3 now is certainly more realistic, people are finding that it may not be that fun without some of the real life drawbacks attached to it. And even with those drawbacks, constrained maps like Metro probably still wouldn't be terribly fun with it.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

How do you know ? considering that bf3 does not properly implement suppressive fire

is that what you took from the video "this is suppressive fire done right" while eveyone else and the point of the video was "this is suppressive fire done wrong" ?

Yes, when I watched that video all I saw was that suppressive fire was doing exactly what it does in the real world.

So for real world modeling it is done right (at least compared to almost all previous games that had LMGs). For games with a goal of being fun, that might not be "right".

Suppressive fire in reality isn't something fair or balanced. Reality isn't a game.

Machine guns are designed to be point and shoot weapons. They are designed to be effective even when fired from the hip. The consequence of that design is that you go through significantly more ammunition than with aim and shoot weapons. The Thompson SMG in WW2 was very effective because in confined spaces you can fire from the hip without aiming and still be fairly certain that you would be the one alive while the people in the corridor/room you were shooting into would be dead. And at the very least if they weren't they would be in cover avoiding the hail of bullets and thus present less of a threat to you or your squad.

In the real world that has very important and very serious consequences in combat. Both for the operator of the weapon and for his enemies.

Go into a confined space (like Metro) where enemies have to come at you from a single directly without variance and an LMG on full auto will shred everyone coming at you without aiming in the real world. Even an SMG would have similar results, you'd just run out of ammo in the clip a lot faster.

Regards,
SB

 

[kyleb]

Suppressive fire in reality isn't something fair or balanced. Reality isn't a game.

In reality, getting hit by bullets is far more detrimental to your accuracy than being suppressed by bullets flying near you, but in this game the latter wildly reduces your accuracy while the former has no effect on it at all.

 

[Davros]

In reality, getting hit by bullets is far more detrimental to your accuracy than being suppressed by bullets flying near you,

Exactly, Buddha doesn't seem to believe that

when I watched that video all I saw was that suppressive fire was doing exactly what it does in the real world.

 

[Billy Idol]

perhaps you have the wrong mindset ?
you should do things that aid your team, not because they give you points

Hm, did you even read my post?

Just to make it clear: when i am sniper, i use soflam all the time. Why? Because it helps the team and my buddy
Likes to javelin! But, i am not the only sniper out there...heck, how often di i write soglam please in the team chat! People dont borther, typically no one goes online with soflam. Why? It does not give you points. Heck, as a sniper you only have to place it as it works even automatic without controll but people still dont borther...

At the end...the gamedesign needs to 'force' the gameplay the devs want by rewards...that is reality in online gaming.

 

[Davros]

yes I did read your post

So in other words: to get lots of points as a sniper...you are forced to not play for the team!

your saying you dont play for the team so you can gets lots of individual points for yourself, thats the wrong attitude.
also you seem to be complaining that your gadgets are useless, not because they dont work but they dont give you points

Furthermore, camping in the distance makes it hard to capture flags and help the team out. Hence, the implementation of the sniper class is fundamentally flawed

You are aware the role of a sniper is not to capture flags

 

[Sxotty]

Yup this. Back when I played BF1942 a lot it wasn't those acrobatic things that Sxotty likes that drew me to Battlefield. It was the fact that projectiles actually had weight and reacted to external forces such as gravity. The first time I hopped into a tank and found out that not only was it not hitscan, but that the shells you fired had to follow a somewhat realistic trajectory, I was hooked. Same went for sniping, etc.

While not as realistic in many cases as the first Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon it was certainly more realistic than almost all other FPS games. And it introduced large team based arena's with team goals.

Balancing realism versus "fun" is a difficult endeavor. It's fairly easy if you are only trying to attract a niche market (original Rainbow Six/Ghost Recon), but much harder as you try to expand your market. For many Realism just isn't all that fun.

I am pretty sure Quake3 already did that. Projectiles had weight there too actually

Anyway if it is a team game and FF is off then it is retarded to play IMO. I always believed that regardless of the game.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

In reality, getting hit by bullets is far more detrimental to your accuracy than being suppressed by bullets flying near you, but in this game the latter wildly reduces your accuracy while the former has no effect on it at all.

Sure and I already mentioned that as a consequence of the whole too much realism versus too little fun aspect.

On the battle battlefield a single person shooting an assault rifle at your squad is going to do very little to affect the ability to accurately return fire. It has an effect obviously but not not nearly as much of one as what happens when the squad's LMG person lays down suppressive fire with his weapon.

In a wide open expanse you can manuever around it, mitigating the effects of suppressive fire. In enclosed corridors or alleys, you're either dead or you have virtually no ability to return fire with any accuracy whatsoever.

So yes, the fact that one shot kills aren't very fun for most of the casual audience that likes to play online shooters, it's not terribly surprising that a realistic suppression fire model trumps weapon damage that may not kill with the first shot or shots you put into someone.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I am pretty sure Quake3 already did that. Projectiles had weight there too actually

Anyway if it is a team game and FF is off then it is retarded to play IMO. I always believed that regardless of the game.

IIRC all the "bullet" weapons in Q3 were still hitscan. And the lone sniping weapon where you might actually detect external forces (like gravity) affecting a projectile was for all intents and purposes hitscan as well.

And agreed on FF. If you want a game that attempts to mimic realism but still keep things "fun". FF is essential, IMO. It gets rid of a lot of cheese, like shooting through your teammates with or without suppression fire weapons.

Regards,
SB

 

[kyleb]

Sure and I already mentioned that

No, you didn't, and still haven't.

 

[Billy Idol]

yes I did read your post
your saying you dont play for the team so you can gets lots of individual points for yourself, thats the wrong attitude.

no and no (that is reality).

also you seem to be complaining that your gadgets are useless, not because they dont work but they dont give you points

i use them. most of the people dont use em. that is the problem: they dont give points.

You are aware the role of a sniper is not to capture flags

ever played a round with more than 5 snipers in your team. it is really difficult to capture flags alone. ever got into a squad with only snipers? spawning out in the nowhere, away from battle all the time makes it difficult to capture flags. and camper snipers in the distance dont help that much that you can capture flags. you have to experience to know what I mean. but it is not only about sniper...snipers are just an example.


hm, again...it seems to me that you are trying hard to misunderstand me. furthermore you turning everything I say into a personal accusation. I think at this point, I just let it rest.

But please, if you ever have the chance to play BF3 online...let me know what you think about it.

 

[Sxotty]

IIRC all the "bullet" weapons in Q3 were still hitscan. And the lone sniping weapon where you might actually detect external forces (like gravity) affecting a projectile was for all intents and purposes hitscan as well.

And agreed on FF. If you want a game that attempts to mimic realism but still keep things "fun". FF is essential, IMO. It gets rid of a lot of cheese, like shooting through your teammates with or without suppression fire weapons.

Regards,
SB

So I looked it up and was missing that it was much earlier

In Q1 and Q2, projectiles were actually moved through the world as opposed to their movement being extrapolated from their spawn position at "time x" and "time y". On each server frame, the projectile is moved through the world, Gravity (if any) is applied, and the position is saved and sent to the client. If it touched anything, a touch function was run for both projectile and whatever it contacted. The client simply drew the projectile at the new location (Quake 1) or interpolated the entity model linearly (Quake 2 and later Quake 1 source ports). This means the projectile actually steps through the world in increments of server time. Quake 2 took 100msec to move a projectile, Quake 1 took 25msec.

So they did it in quake 1. Quite some time ago.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Suppressive fire has always been something that hasn't been done well by any game. This appears to come pretty close, but still has some flaws. But that's mostly due to a compromise between gameplay and realism (where one bullet doesn't result in a takedown in most situations regardless of where it hits you).

No, you didn't, and still haven't.

Sure I did, even if I didn't state it exactly so.

Let me explain it to you. In real life in that situation someone mentioned where you get the first shot off on someone with a LMG, you are likely to incapacitate them or mortally wound them. They are then out of combat.

If you don't incapacitate them or mortally wound them, there's a high likelyhood that they will turn and spray your general vicinity with full auto and likely incapacite or mortally wound you. And you will end up the one out of combat.

So, as my statement says. While the suppression fire is more accurately modeled, the fact that bullet damage overall isn't accurately modeled means that in the case that was mentioned a realistic model of suppression fire trumps the handicapped bullet/weapon damage model which is implemented to try to keep the game "fun."

Then again as I touched on earlier in that post. People, even those trained in firearms, don't generally have the pinpoint accuracy they have in FPS games. ESPECIALLY when under fire. Hence combatants are trained to aim for the body and not for the head (as most good FPS players do).

So when a realistic model of suppressive fire is introduced into the game, people that are used to a more "fun" and "gamey" type of shooting experience freak out. Especially when you also do things to reduce or remove all the real life drawbacks of suppression fire. Firing through friendlies with FF off, for example.

So I looked it up and was missing that it was much earlier


So they did it in quake 1. Quite some time ago.

Ah, that's right. I had completely forgotten that they did have some modeling of external forces (gravity) on "bullet" type weapons in the first two. I'm going to guess one of the main reasons it was dropped in the 3rd is due to combat distances generally being so short as to make very little difference between hitscan and their gravity modeling. In the Battlefield games up until 2 (didn't play any after that), it was quite noticeable when sniping at long distances.

Regards,
SB

 

[Sxotty]

I must not be good I always aim for the neck so if they duck it hits their head and if they jump it hits their chest

Anyway I like games to be fun, I don't care about realism. However I believe part of them being fun is being a challenge. That requires ff to be on.

 

[Davros]

Sure I did, even if I didn't state it exactly so.

No you didnt, you totally ignored the fact that being shot should not improve your accuracy and said "this is exactly how suppressive fire works in the real world"

Normally being able to shot first and hit was advantageous but now it seems its actually better to miss first few bullets and deprive your opponent of accuracy.

Now do you see why we are all pulling our hair out and screaming Bhudda why cant you see it, this is not suppressive fire done right.

 

[Richard]

Here's a question (haven't had the opportunity to play yet since the patch), I take it the the anti-suppression perk doesn't solve the problem?

 

[DeF]

Here's a question (haven't had the opportunity to play yet since the patch), I take it the the anti-suppression perk doesn't solve the problem?

Unfortunately it does not. I spent some time using it but with little effect. I am not saying its not working at all but its just not really worth it.

 

[tabs]

I really haven't had a problem with suppression since the patch. I have no clue what the big deal is!

Even played a bit of metro yesterday and it was fine there. Are we playing the same game?

This thread sucks recently btw. I know I'm not helping.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

I tried shooting randomnly in the general direction of enemies in Metro, like in that suppression video and voila !, I ranked up twice by getting suppression points(and resupply points for ammo drops) like crazy by just "shooting"! I had not tried this aimless shooting tactic before < maybe I am not creative enough !