Author Topic: FH2 Teamwork theory  (Read 14823 times)

Offline Archimonday

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.197
  • Sir vis pacem, para bellum!
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #135 on: 05-08-2011, 20:08:54 »
so this suppression thing is based on the assumption that players who get suppressed will be scared and take cover (like in the BF3 singleplayer trailer on the rooftop with the sniper) so the suppressors can flank them?

That.... is simply not the reality of this game, or our maps designs... If someone hoses me with blur in FH2 I just run and away from there and pop up behind another rock/wall somewhere else, and shoots the MG guy. Or I just take my chances and pop up where I am and shoot him, I get a new guy in 15seconds anyway, and he will be unsuppressed and know exactly where that MG guy is.

I dont believe this would make peope "teamplay" more. I only think it would add a lot of blur and crap on peoples screens.

If we made a mod for ex; BF3 it would be different, where the game has a suppression system designed in it. With the parameters we can tweak in this BF2 mod, it wont have the wished effect.

You've defeated your own argument, by stating that when someone does cause the suppression effect upon you, that you flee and find a new position, which is exactly what suppression is meant to do. The idea of "flanking" a target was just used in an example to demonstrate a scenario where suppression could be used.

Suppression causes many effects, not just the ability of people to flank, it literally creates a visual aid to the reality of warfare. Why if Bf2 had a suppression system implemented in it at release would it be any different than creating it in a mod? If BF3 were modifiable you say that you would gladly implement suppression in it, creating the same "blurr" which you stand against here? That's a double-standard.

Offline Ts4EVER

  • Banner of THeTA0123
  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 7.812
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #136 on: 05-08-2011, 20:08:04 »
His point is that BF3 suppression actually does things other than blurring your screen, like increasing deviation or whatever, all of which is not posible in BF2.

Offline Archimonday

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.197
  • Sir vis pacem, para bellum!
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #137 on: 05-08-2011, 20:08:53 »
Well, I see the point in that, but it shouldn't make any difference. Suppression in bf2 as demonstrated PR can be just as effective at making aiming difficult.

Offline Ts4EVER

  • Banner of THeTA0123
  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 7.812
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #138 on: 05-08-2011, 20:08:37 »
Yeah but in a very intrusive and ham-fisted way. And it only works together with other features like long spawn times and long combat distances.

Offline Natty

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3.170
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #139 on: 05-08-2011, 20:08:49 »
No, I didnt contradict myself. If suppression is supposed to scare you, it fails. What it does is annoy you, and my running-away example was just, an example of what players will do to avoid this annoyance. This will not lead to the goal your pushing: teamplay. It will only lead to players learning how to avoid it, or if not, ignore it.

a game, which is designed by real designers and created for real, can develop a real suppression ofcourse. Then they can look at exactly what they want to achieve, and make it so.
a mod, is merely tweaking on existing design, and therefor cant achieve anything it wants just because it wants it.
Suppression is just an example of where a mod remains a mod. We can add blur and sound, but really.. this isnt suppression. A real suppression would have an impact on your aim, deviation, movement and more. With our suppression, you can pretend to be scared sure, crouch down and fake to be suppressed as you hear the bullets impact on the wall. But you can just also ignore it and pop up and fire away.

Adding more of our fake suppression, only results in an uglier and more annoying game for everyone, it will not put any fear or mechanical fear (aim loss, sway shakiness etc) in to anyone, and it is not a strong enough component to have an impact on team play.

In PR, people role-play the fear. Something which works well when everyone does it. And is a mod where players role-play the team play as well. I still believe most people just ignore that, and play as normally.
« Last Edit: 05-08-2011, 20:08:58 by Natty »

Offline Archimonday

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.197
  • Sir vis pacem, para bellum!
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #140 on: 05-08-2011, 20:08:33 »
Yeah but in a very intrusive and ham-fisted way. And it only works together with other features like long spawn times and long combat distances.

"Intrusive, ham-fisted way"?

I don't see how suppression effect only works when you implement longer spawn times and increased distances to engage. There are plenty of times playing Forgotten Hope 2 Public that suppression would be highly appreciated, especially on maps where the overall flow of the map is directed into areas of intensity. One such example would be Purple Heart Lane, where often the only hope for teams to advance is to luckily get a squad leader behind the enemy lines and slowly, through the process of spawning on him, overwhelm the defensive line. It would be far more beneficial for squads to be able to lay down fire that could visually distract the players returning fire at them, and then use the cover of the visual hindrance to advance on their position by some means and take the defended position. This is not a matter of whether we are engaging at one-hundred yards or a-thousand yards, in-fact there are times where room to room fighting is decided by the lack of reaction to such events, events that suppression helps change.

This has nothing to do with intruding on players, the overall effects of the suppression seem to me, to be highly over-stated on these forums, as if players are having the effects of the feature for minutes on end. Certainly in Singleplayer where the AI has been coded poorly enough to constantly shoot with pinpoint accuracy and from long distances this is true, but in a dynamic game of Multiplayer such a reality does not exist. In-fact if it was so intrusive on a players abilities, why then do light machine guns still retain the ability? The light-machine-guns are certainly effective enough without the suppression, why should they be given an additional aid to their effectiveness?

The fact still remains, that suppression effect helps create the truism, that fire superiority, wins battles.

Offline Archimonday

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.197
  • Sir vis pacem, para bellum!
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #141 on: 05-08-2011, 20:08:42 »
No, I didnt contradict myself. If suppression is supposed to scare you, it fails. What it does is annoy you, and my running-away example was just, an example of what players will do to avoid this annoyance. This will not lead to the goal your pushing: teamplay. It will only lead to players learning how to avoid it, or if not, ignore it.

a game, which is designed by real designers and created for real, can develop a real suppression ofcourse. Then they can look at exactly what they want to achieve, and make it so.
a mod, is merely tweaking on existing design, and therefor cant achieve anything it wants just because it wants it.
Suppression is just an example of where a mod remains a mod. We can add blur and sound, but really.. this isnt suppression. A real suppression would have an impact on your aim, deviation, movement and more. With our suppression, you can pretend to be scared sure, crouch down and fake to be suppressed as you hear the bullets impact on the wall. But you can just also ignore it and pop up and fire away.

Adding more of our fake suppression, only results in an uglier and more annoying game for everyone, it will not put any fear or mechanical fear (aim loss, sway shakiness etc) in to anyone, and it is not a strong enough component to have an impact on team play.

In PR, people role-play the fear. Something which works well when everyone does it. And is a mod where players role-play the team play as well. I still believe most people just ignore that, and play as normally.

Your again talking about peoples reactions to the "suppression" (I'll put this in quotes from now on, since obviously that word is hated). Whether the man being "suppressed" chooses to get down, or to try and return fire in the direction he is being "suppressed" from, sure that is his decision. The simple fact is though, that the visual hindrance helps modify the game-play. If a single man now goes up against a squad of men, he is going to find himself incapable of dealing with that threat, because not only will he be outnumbered, but he will also have an overwhelming amount of visual hindrance, which he cannot possibly hope to match. It literally creates the same situation that would happen in real life, where a man, faced with an attack of overwhelming numbers, and under direct fire, would find himself incapable of standing up to that threat, and would either:

A.) Run away
B.) Hide
C.) Foolishly shoot back
D.) Die

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #142 on: 05-08-2011, 20:08:49 »
Its not just blur, Natty. Firstly, the blur will actually reduce. Look at it this way.

Pistol = x1 blur, lasts 5ms, cam-twitch of 2o
Rifle ?7.67mm = x2 blur, last 10ms, cam-twitch of 5o
SMG = x1 blur, lasts 5ms for EACH round, with a speed of firing of 7ms, cam-twitch of 2o for each round
As rounds overlap, it gets worse, but with 5ms of blur and a slower ROF than 5ms, it is lower than a 4 of 5 riflemen with semi-automatic rifles
MG = x2 blur, lasts 10ms, for EACH round, with a speed of firing dependent on which MG, from 8ms for Bren, 3ms for MG42 for example..., , cam-twitch of 5o for EACH
AT rifle = x4 blur, lasts 25ms, with a ROF at best like a bolt-action rifle, cam-twitch of 10o


With this as a very rough example, as I don't really know the ROF for each and the kind of effect of each round should be tested to get the best fit, you can imagine that a single shot from an MG will do no better than a single rifleman, IF it even hits close. ALOT LESS blur for most people.

Its under suppressive fire, that it gets bad - And even the, the balance between how long the blur lasts for each round with the ROF of the fastest gun will ensure that blur NEVER even gets unreasonably bad. It is NOT about blur alone after all.

What STOPS the person firing back is actually YOUR idea, Natty. Adding a slight camera twitch will mean that although the person's accuracy is not actually thrown off, they can't see straight to aim and fire. The blur is more immersive and to simulate disorientation.

The combined effect is a person who would rather flee before the blur and shakes gets too bad for him to know which direction he should be running (Sometimes causing them to run right into a hail of bullets), or sit tight until it dies away and hope that he can see those flanking as they get close and fight THEM instead. But it will be blind suicide to fire back when properly suppressed. Again NOT because of the blur alone, but because of the shaky camera.

Now if you think of this as as the design, then a squad will know the power they have when they put their fire power together. An LMG gunner will know that he can suppress an enemy for his men to move up, or flank etc...

Offline Beaufort

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 405
  • WIP
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #143 on: 05-08-2011, 21:08:27 »
@ Archimonday

You sound as if now any single man can easily beat up a whole squad, which is simply not true. We don't need an ugly effect on top of six ennemies, give us a break ... :P

Offline Archimonday

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.197
  • Sir vis pacem, para bellum!
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #144 on: 05-08-2011, 21:08:08 »
@ Archimonday

You sound as if now any single man can easily beat up a whole squad, which is simply not true.

I certainly believe it is, considering there are times when I am that man. One man with a chest high cover, can spam his control key, and using the relative powerful accuracy of a rifle, engage a squad by himself and easily come out on top, despite the fact he is being shot at.

Offline Beaufort

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 405
  • WIP
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #145 on: 05-08-2011, 21:08:22 »
Well against a very lousy squad and with some luck perhaps ...  :P

Offline LHeureux

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.350
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #146 on: 05-08-2011, 21:08:03 »
@Beaufort, blur is to simulate the fact that you close your eyes when there's a bullet that land near you, like when somebody claps his hands infront of your face. And also to simulate the fact that dust, branches, rocks and other things bounce around making you close your eyes to avoid those things to hit your eyes.

Quote
You sound as if now any single man can easily beat up a whole squad, which is simply not true. We don't need an ugly effect on top of six ennemies, give us a break ... :P
It's so easy to take out a whole squad with a G43 or a Garand, even if under 3 grease gun fire, sounds like you don't play enough.
Hey, huge ass .gif signatures are totally unnecessary and obnoxious. Not these anymore, thankyouverymany kkbyethx love you, all the homo. -Flippy

Offline Beaufort

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 405
  • WIP
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #147 on: 05-08-2011, 22:08:32 »
@Beaufort, blur is to simulate the fact that you close your eyes when there's a bullet that land near you, like when somebody claps his hands infront of your face. And also to simulate the fact that dust, branches, rocks and other things bounce around making you close your eyes to avoid those things to hit your eyes.

Yes I know what suppression is for but the blur is just too much, so I'd rather have nothing. Increasing deviation or the sway with suppression would be nice but it's simply not possible with bf2 ... :\

Quote
You sound as if now any single man can easily beat up a whole squad, which is simply not true. We don't need an ugly effect on top of six ennemies, give us a break ... :P
It's so easy to take out a whole squad with a G43 or a Garand, even if under 3 grease gun fire, sounds like you don't play enough.

Okay then, screenshots ? ;)

Offline Natty

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3.170
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #148 on: 05-08-2011, 23:08:06 »
To visualize exactly how much more than general forum chat it takes to design a proper feedback like this, Ill keep up the questions.
- Why would players teamplay more, just because they get suppressed by weapons more? It sounds like the goal (for you) is that players hug each other (meaning, they all stand 6 in line like the outlaws in a western movie, firing against the alone sheriff) but on the receiving end, it makes no difference if you are in a squad or not.

I think you actually want less suppression for players who are in a squad, or hugging nearby players. (which again would be possible for a game to design.) That would maybe make them stick together more (I doubt it) but just because the enemy is getting supressed by my teammates MG fire, why would I (as rifle man) care about that?

General game play - the second to second decisions the average players is doing - is mostly, if not all, depending on what he can do himself. Not what his teammates might or might not do.
As MG42 gunman, if my enemies are getting surpressed, I don't gain anything by that, because they won't be supressed long enough for me to storm in with my pistol and finish them off, and Im less likely to get some kills if they just squat behind a wall.
As rifle-man, I cant rely on the constant fire by my teammate, he can stop firing at any second, and if Im advancing over an empty field in for ex; vossenack or St.Lo, Ill be totally exposed and just lol-fragged. So I will still use the map and the designated (designed) cover to get to my goal.

Sure: I can imagine in my head how you want this to play out; MG42 guy shoots at a flag, and all the enemies there are scared and suppressed, so the other guys in the MG42 squad can kind of "circle around them" and take the flag... That sounds cool in a singleplayer game like CoD or BiA, but you forget that those players that are getting suppressed, are humans, and will refuse to let the game take away their controls or pretend to be scared. The idea is based on an ideal of player behaviour, not actual player behaviour. (since we lack proper means to make real suppression)



Offline Archimonday

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.197
  • Sir vis pacem, para bellum!
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #149 on: 06-08-2011, 00:08:12 »
To visualize exactly how much more than general forum chat it takes to design a proper feedback like this, Ill keep up the questions.
- Why would players teamplay more, just because they get suppressed by weapons more? It sounds like the goal (for you) is that players hug each other (meaning, they all stand 6 in line like the outlaws in a western movie, firing against the alone sheriff) but on the receiving end, it makes no difference if you are in a squad or not.


If I'm alone, and suppressed by anything that may be fired at me, I will quickly realize that I am useless by myself, especially against a larger group of enemies, because I cannot possibly, by myself, match the amount of fire power that they are putting on to my position. Think of it as a dodge ball game, if I'm the last player on my dodge ball team, I cannot possibly just charge forward and start throwing dodge balls in a blind hope of winning the game, if I charge forward, the combined strength of the other team throwing dodge balls at me, will overwhelm me and eventually I will get hit and lose. However, if in that same dodge ball game the whistle has just sounded to start, and I have six men with me against six men of theirs, I now have a higher percentage of survivability in the dodge ball game because there are more targets, and we can match the amount of dodge balls coming at us, with our own dodge balls of equal number. People are not stupid, they will realize this.

I think you actually want less suppression for players who are in a squad, or hugging nearby players. (which again would be possible for a game to design.) That would maybe make them stick together more (I doubt it) but just because the enemy is getting supressed by my teammates MG fire, why would I (as rifle man) care about that?

You are misunderstanding the idea of the "suppression." This has nothing to do with some advanced idea like, people who are in squads should be suppressed less than those that are not. What this has to do with is the numbers of people and the type of the weapon being able to compete with each other for superiority. So say my five man rifleman squad comes up on a three man squad that consists of a Mg42 gunner and two Kar98 rifleman, well they have an advantage in the MG42 which as a high rate of fire and can be used to cover an area, plus two K98 rifles to all help suppress us, and keep our squad at a disadvantage by the means of the visual hindrance. To respond to that threat, my five man rifleman squad is complete with five men all carrying Garands. Our Garands are semi-automatic and against their two rifleman prove superior, but against the MG42 we may have a hard time matching the level of suppression coming at us. Say that all the men in the group were firing for a predetermined amount of time, lets say One Minute.

The MG42 in-game fires at nine hundred rounds a minute, and has a two hundred and fifty round ammunition belt. At that rate of fire the ammunition runs out (lets say that there is no overheating) in 16.6  seconds, (900/60 = 15. 250/15 = 16.6) and then a reload takes 5.2 seconds. So in that time period, if the Mg42 started firing at the very first second to the last, the Mg42 would have put down a total of 675 rounds straight at us.

Lets say the K98 Rifleman are firing unzoomed, the K98 gets off a shot every 1.15 seconds in game, and has a five round magazine, reloading takes 4.625 seconds. So the K98 firing away, gets off a total of about 29 rounds in that sixty second time span. The German three man squad has now put down a total of 733 rounds of ammunition in our direction. If each and everyone of those is suppressing us, and lets say that the suppression time was very low (like I think it should be btw), lets say for this example its as quick as one tenth of one second, then we spent a total of 1.2 minutes suppressed.

The Five man Garand squad is firing as quick as they can, the Garand fires at a rate of 450 rounds per minute in-game, with a reload time of 4 seconds. This means that each of the garand rifleman is getting of 94 rounds during that time. So altogether the American squad put down 470 rounds in the one minute time period, suppressing the Germans for a total of forty-seven seconds.

These examples were not to prove who won the firefight, since that is determined by random factors such as who gets hit, where their positions were, and other factors, but this is to demonstrate how the idea of fire superiority works with the suppression effect. The Germans in this case put down a far greater volume of fire with three men than the Americans did with five, despite the Americans best efforts to suppress the Germans. This means that the Germans in this particular case would've had an upper hand in the firefight despite being out numbered because they could keep the Americans blind longer than they could keep them blind. The MG42 alone could compete with the entire American squad and the K98 riflemen would've been free to maneuver around and possibly place enfilade fire on the flanks of the Americans drastically increasing their chances of being killed.

The Suppression effect is all about who has more firepower coming down. In-fact the need for it was demonstrated well on Lebisey as I was just playing with a few friends from WaW. There was only five of us in the server, but with a Bren gun (which is capable of suppression) I was able to sit prone on a stair case for much longer than I should have been allowed to and shoot these poor chaps because they couldn't see as I shot at them, where as their bullets were snapping in-front of me without any effects. This gave me the upper hand because I could see them and they couldn't see me. Now if it had been that their rifles and Mp40s could have suppressed me, they were actually putting down a greater amount of fire than I was with my bren, firing in short bursts. Between the three of them in the enemy squad, there was one sub machine gunner, and two rifleman who could have easily blinded me and prevented me from getting accurate shots off if they worked together. But as it is now, their only hope was to try and go far around me on either side, or zig-zag up the field until they were close enough to hit me, or pray that I didn't notice them long enough for them to get a shot off. If I could've been suppressed, alone I would've been useless.

General game play - the second to second decisions the average players is doing - is mostly, if not all, depending on what he can do himself. Not what his teammates might or might not do.
As MG42 gunman, if my enemies are getting surpressed, I don't gain anything by that, because they won't be supressed long enough for me to storm in with my pistol and finish them off, and Im less likely to get some kills if they just squat behind a wall.
As rifle-man, I cant rely on the constant fire by my teammate, he can stop firing at any second, and if Im advancing over an empty field in for ex; vossenack or St.Lo, Ill be totally exposed and just lol-fragged. So I will still use the map and the designated (designed) cover to get to my goal.

Lets use your MG42 Gunner as an example though. Your saying that they are not suppressed long enough for you to charge in and use your pistol to finish them off, and that is true, they shouldn't be, because if you stop firing your MG42 you are no longer suppressing them. If however your team a mix of rifleman and sub machine gunners could suppress as well, then you could in theory while under the cover of their suppressing fire advance forward and finish him off. The idea is that people work together to keep the rate of fire constant, even if your team mates do stop firing, say to reload or because they get distracted by some other means, any amount of time they can use covering your advance is valuable time to cover distance on foot, or to engage targets that need to be taken out, especially machine guns and other static defenders.

Suppression also allows players to be able to advance across those areas of open ground that may otherwise be impassable due to well entrenched defenders. Because now, if players coordinate well enough within their squads, they will be able to successfully keep the enemy blind, or his head down, long enough for somebody, even if its not their squad, to advance and take out the threat, or for the threat to move on somewhere else.


Sure: I can imagine in my head how you want this to play out; MG42 guy shoots at a flag, and all the enemies there are scared and suppressed, so the other guys in the MG42 squad can kind of "circle around them" and take the flag... That sounds cool in a singleplayer game like CoD or BiA, but you forget that those players that are getting suppressed, are humans, and will refuse to let the game take away their controls or pretend to be scared. The idea is based on an ideal of player behaviour, not actual player behaviour. (since we lack proper means to make real suppression)

Nobody is pretending to be scared. Again, I said not to take my words literally, Suppression of this type will never scare anybody, and certainly nobody is "role-playing" here. The simple fact is though, that the visual hindrance that the effect creates, can be used as a valuable tool to get across open ground, assault fortified positions, to keep squads in place, and even to decrease the accuracy of fire that is destroying teammates else where. It is useful, it has been proven to work in other games, and it needs to be included in FH2.
« Last Edit: 06-08-2011, 00:08:15 by Archimonday »