Author Topic: FH2 Teamwork theory  (Read 13462 times)

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #120 on: 05-08-2011, 13:08:11 »
Suppression makes people team-play more because... well, frankly, its a bit disturbing that I even HAVE to explain this to you, Natty... as a dev and all. Its quite obvious.

A group stumble across another group and start firing. the more coordinated manage to put enough fire on the other, and the OTHER, gets suppressed i.e, blurry vision with each passing round, camera shake etc. they fire back blindly or take cover and can't return fire - Too scared and disoriented to flee or fire back. The ones firing, then get a section to flank them and finish them off. if that group was made solely out of riflemen, then that's teamplay right there, since a few riflemen will NOT be able to suppress an enemy sufficiently, but at least 3 of them will - and that needs a coordinated goal ie. all three firing close to the enemy.

For 2-speeds, it causes teamplay, because, while you can doube-tap now, it is not ideal. Its like saying that the old way of coordinating in tanks in rl worked, so why change it. Or saying, we could coordinate with flags and flame, so why invent radio communication in rl..... It makes it easier to do and therefore increases the number of people doing it. It doesn't FORCE anyone to Teamplay, but it does give more reason to. And it gives the player the flexibility of tactics to use. Tanks can coordinate with tanks better moving at the same speed, without each and everyone having to double-tap... what are the odds of that happening. Or tanks coordinating with infantry, same thing.

If people have learned to double-tap when that was not initially planned for, then imagine what new tactics they'd employ if they had 2-speeds. People WANT to teamplay. just give them the tools, and they would... and more.



For the commo-rose, well, currently, the most commonly used options are 'take cover', 'charge!', 'arty ready for barrage', and 'cover me', besides the various vehicle-spotted calls. If the commo-rose was designed to be more intuitive with comm-options otherwise performed by VOIP or text i.e. things like 'enemy left/ righ/ infront/ behind', 'Sorry', 'thank you', 'grenade!', 'smoke! smoke' etc... if becomes ALOT easier to communicate all around without having to use the... currently, less convenient VOIP or text options. And for those who wouldn't, it at least gives them the variety.

How does the horizontal spotter view help team-play? Also a bit obvious if given a bit of thought. You see the target as the spotter does. Not live or anything, but you get a sense of where it is, and exactly the perspective the spotter has. Statistically, it allows for moving targets to remain in view longer, especially if they are coming at the spotter or moving away, while remaining realistically hard to hit, so that the arty gunner doesn't benefit unfairly from the perpetuity of the spot.

For teamplay, the spotter can now understand the situation and judge accordingly, given spotters a sense that spotters GET their call for arty better. They are less likely to hit friendlies, since friendlies running into view from the side will give the gunner just as much time as the current view, while friendlies running in from the 3rd wall, or from far away will let the arty gunner advise himself before firing. The Big key word here is, it gives the gunner PERSPECTIVE.

On another note, this view also makes arty firing as accurate as it should be. guaging distance with your eye and seeing no more than the spotter means you get a realistic perspective and chance of hit, and coupled with deviation, you would rely on splash damage more than direct hits, so phenomenons like hitting a tank head-on will be just that, a phenomenon, and not SKILL as it is currently.


I don't get your argument against the commander assets. Did you even read my initial post on it, or are you just trying to muddy my argument? I asked for specific things. If the commander can call in various types of ordinance, then it makes his role more tactical and with spotters and SL calling it in, it works for teamplay, since they can decide, as can he, what is best for the situation. Smoke, scattered arty, creeping barrage, single massive shells, etc. How does THIS make them 'hug themselves' as you put it?

dear Djinn :) your suppression-commrose-2speedTanks-spottercam-commander teamplay agenda is starting to become like a Mantra :)

how would suppression make people teamplay more?
how would an eye-level artycam make people teamplay more?
how is 2-speed tanks making people teamplay more? (plz dont say "slow-moving tanks with infantry marching beside it" I was in a round of Vossenack where I was a Panther, supporting infantry, we did an awesome job without me having to roll slowly, tapping the forward key works just as fine)

CommRose is obviously a teamwork/communication tool, nothing to add there, ours is not great and bf42 voice commands is not working with BF2 very well + isnt the most important things you want to communicate in FH2

Commander: well, as long as the arguments circulate around wish-list features for the commander, it isnt so useful. I agree he could - maybe - help teamplay, but I think it is more important to make him useful, I.E, give him tools that can make him help his team win the battle, not just tools that will make them hug eachother more.
« Last Edit: 05-08-2011, 13:08:49 by djinn »

Offline Archimonday

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.197
  • Sir vis pacem, para bellum!
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #121 on: 05-08-2011, 13:08:31 »
No matter how much interesting this sounds I can't agree with driver + gunner tanks... If we had an AI crew (like in RO 2) for those who just don't feel like talking and/or a decent comm-rose I might consider supporting it.  And I'm afraid this would have to go with the development of 128 player servers because some maps will feel really empty if this is introduced. (Cobra, for example already feels quite empty sometimes.) We must not forget that IRL tank crews are well trained and coordinated and I believe 1 person tanks simulate that really nice.

In that sense though, there are people who take tanks that have absolutely no idea how to use them. Players who say "ou a tank!" and hop in, drive it into the middle of a heavily contested area, and get it killed rather quickly. In my opinion, placing multiple crew members for tanks, would reward those players who are willing to take the time to learn how to properly work together inside of a vehicle, and would give rise for the need to acquire a headset for easier communication. Tank crews in real life were well trained and coordinated, that is a given, but that does not mean that the current system makes tanks effective, that is entirely the fault of the crew. The two-man system creates a learning curve, that would force new players wishing to use tanks to learn quickly from their mistakes, and make the necessary adjustments to be able to work together easily with any number of random crew members and still be effective on the battlefield. It would give rise to the need for specially purposed squads too, where tankers join a squad to utilize the in-game VOIP channels.

I like to command tank squads, especially on maps like supercharge, and while it is nice to have 4 to 5 tanks to influence the battle, it does not necessarily mean that the men driving those tanks are capable of comprehending the battlefield. Some rounds on maps like Supercharge many tankers don't even bother joining squads, they simply drive off into the abyss by themselves while the rest of us try to communicate to survive. If I had three tanks instead of six, all of my squad members would be inside a vehicle, because each of them would have a role, and if each of them was properly coordinated to where each tank could help watch the view of the others, we now have six people communicating in a much tighter sphere of influence. Its like trimming the fat off of a steak.

P.S. And on the topic of AI, there are ways to code the AI so that the vehicle is used properly.
« Last Edit: 05-08-2011, 13:08:51 by Archimonday »

Offline Beaufort

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 405
  • WIP
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #122 on: 05-08-2011, 13:08:26 »
Suppression makes people team-play more because... well, frankly, its a bit disturbing that I even HAVE to explain this to you, Natty... as a dev and all. Its quite obvious.

 ::) lol ... No it is not. Suppression is about hearing gun shots and whizzes around your head and not risking to take a bullet, not about some phoney blurr effect...

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #123 on: 05-08-2011, 13:08:02 »
No matter how much interesting this sounds I can't agree with driver + gunner tanks... If we had an AI crew (like in RO 2) for those who just don't feel like talking and/or a decent comm-rose I might consider supporting it.  And I'm afraid this would have to go with the development of 128 player servers because some maps will feel really empty if this is introduced. (Cobra, for example already feels quite empty sometimes.) We must not forget that IRL tank crews are well trained and coordinated and I believe 1 person tanks simulate that really nice.

In that sense though, there are people who take tanks that have absolutely no idea how to use them. Players who say "ou a tank!" and hop in, drive it into the middle of a heavily contested area, and get it killed rather quickly. In my opinion, placing multiple crew members for tanks, would reward those players who are willing to take the time to learn how to properly work together inside of a vehicle, and would give rise for the need to acquire a headset for easier communication. Tank crews in real life were well trained and coordinated, that is a given, but that does not mean that the current system makes tanks effective, that is entirely the fault of the crew. The two-man system creates a learning curve, that would force new players wishing to use tanks to learn quickly from their mistakes, and make the necessary adjustments to be able to work together easily with any number of random crew members and still be effective on the battlefield. It would give rise to the need for specially purposed squads too, where tankers join a squad to utilize the in-game VOIP channels.

I like to command tank squads, especially on maps like supercharge, and while it is nice to have 4 to 5 tanks to influence the battle, it does not necessarily mean that the men driving those tanks are capable of comprehending the battlefield. Some rounds on maps like Supercharge many tankers don't even bother joining squads, they simply drive off into the abyss by themselves while the rest of us try to communicate to survive. If I had three tanks instead of six, all of my squad members would be inside a vehicle, because each of them would have a role, and if each of them was properly coordinated to where each tank could help watch the view of the others, we now have six people communicating in a much tighter sphere of influence. Its like trimming the fat off of a steak.

Except, again, this FORCES people to teamplay. Now I dont want to bash any other mod, but I dont consider forcing teamplay fun at all. You will always have sessions where teamplay was wonderful and times it wasn't, so with this kind of thing implemented, you will then get frustratingly unplayable rounds versus rounds where poeple simply did what they game allows them to do... You therefore get scarce cases of individual initiative to do things not exactly planned by the system, but things which work for teamplay.

I think FH2s current philosophy of NOT forcing teamplay but providing the tools to do so is perfect, as far as the philosophy goes, because then it creates an ingenious system of free-will that still ends up in good teamwork (I may dare say, better than in competing mods), WWII-style gameplay rather than being saddled on precedural crap that WWII fans really don't care for - and that are immersion-killers.

What I do think the solution is, is MORE team-play ideas that reward teamplayers, without punishing non-teamplayers.

Even BF2 vanilla got this right. You can still play Fh1/BF42 style without a squad, and you'd get similar results. You can still coordinate etc, but with the team-architecture on top, its like layered design, that makes the game robust, layered.

2-positions on tank etc isn't layered. It strips away one form and gives you only ONE option that may or may not fly well with the current system.

God-forbid the devs take this up, since I realize after the removal of crosshair that they can u-turn on aspects that were once noted as written in stone. That may have flown... This, imo, wont. If I want PR, I'd play PR. I want FH2, not PRFH2.

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #124 on: 05-08-2011, 13:08:55 »
Suppression makes people team-play more because... well, frankly, its a bit disturbing that I even HAVE to explain this to you, Natty... as a dev and all. Its quite obvious.

 ::) lol ... No it is not. Suppression is about hearing gun shots and whizzes around your head and not risking to take a bullet, not about some phoney blurr effect...


Ermmm... Ok, where do I start. Its a VIDEO GAME?

You can't simulate real life perfectly, that's why there is a Hud, crosshairs etc...?

The blurr effect is to represent disorientation from near-hits and the effect it has on the mind of a person under such conditions. Some people in a suppressed ground ingame MAY be unblurred, or not blurred enough and can fire back. But with the volume of shots coming their way, they WONT. So they qualify as suppressed also. Some will face the total effect and will be simply too disoriented to fire back anyway... Its called a GAME MECHANIC. Its arbitrary, except when in context to create a certain desired effect, in this case, that of a RL suppression, which would otherwise not be possible.


If you read between the lines, I'm not asking for MORE suppression, I'm asking for suppression by MORE things. In fact, suppression will probably reduce since it wll be bullet per bullet. So even for the mg, the shots that miss the suppression zone will mean you wont get this level of suppression anymore. For rifles, you'd never get this level of suppression.

But couple THAT blurr with the twitches (small camera shakes), and you'd be more suppressed than now.

A NOTE TO EVERYONE BEFORE POSTING - ESPECIALLY WHEN TRYING COUNTER ANOTHER POST:
DONT selectively read it - That's cheap tactics and muddies people's argument. Take the argument AS IT EXISTS, and dissect it that way.
« Last Edit: 05-08-2011, 13:08:19 by djinn »

Offline LuckyOne

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.711
  • Purple Heart Collector
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #125 on: 05-08-2011, 13:08:14 »

In that sense though, there are people who take tanks that have absolutely no idea how to use them. Players who say "ou a tank!" and hop in, drive it into the middle of a heavily contested area, and get it killed rather quickly. In my opinion, placing multiple crew members for tanks, would reward those players who are willing to take the time to learn how to properly work together inside of a vehicle, and would give rise for the need to acquire a headset for easier communication.
Tank crews in real life were well trained and coordinated, that is a given, but that does not mean that the current system makes tanks effective, that is entirely the fault of the crew. The two-man system creates a learning curve, that would force new players wishing to use tanks to learn quickly from their mistakes, and make the necessary adjustments to be able to work together easily with any number of random crew members and still be effective on the battlefield. It would give rise to the need for specially purposed squads too, where tankers join a squad to utilize the in-game VOIP channels.

Of course there are such people, there will always be... Even if we had 2 person tanks there would still be tools that would simply drive away alone and get themselves killed or park on a hill and start shelling spawn points from a distance. The fact that tanks would be harder to master would do almost nothing to help teamplay, except make certain people use VOIP more.

I like to command tank squads, especially on maps like supercharge, and while it is nice to have 4 to 5 tanks to influence the battle, it does not necessarily mean that the men driving those tanks are capable of comprehending the battlefield. Some rounds on maps like Supercharge many tankers don't even bother joining squads, they simply drive off into the abyss by themselves while the rest of us try to communicate to survive. If I had three tanks instead of six, all of my squad members would be inside a vehicle, because each of them would have a role, and if each of them was properly coordinated to where each tank could help watch the view of the others, we now have six people communicating in a much tighter sphere of influence. Its like trimming the fat off of a steak.

They can still all be inside the vehicle as tanks can take more than 1 person. They can be your MG gunners/spotters: the only thing I dislike is that it's hard to spot when sitting in the commanders cupola as your view is quite limited and you can't duck for cover except if the hull MG is empty (presuming that the tank even has it).

P.S. And on the topic of AI, there are ways to code the AI so that the vehicle is used properly.
Yes but can you add it into a multiplayer game with all the proper commands and it being bug-free? That's certainly a lot of work...


 ::) lol ... No it is not. Suppression is about hearing gun shots and whizzes around your head and not risking to take a bullet, not about some phoney blurr effect...

Yes but the fact that this is a video game nullifies that risk... What do you care if you don't manage to shoot that MGer... You'll respawn in 15 seconds anyway. The "phoney blurr effect" would make those shots considerably more impossible thus simulating a real life situation where you would stay down if an MG is firing 1200 rounds per minute in your general direction. I remember watching a documentary last week where some US guys were on patrol in North Africa when an MG nest opened up on them. Some of them were shot and the whole squad had to wait until nightfall, they were too scared to even try to retreat...
« Last Edit: 05-08-2011, 13:08:31 by LuckyOne »
This sentence is intentionally left unfinished...

Offline Beaufort

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 405
  • WIP
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #126 on: 05-08-2011, 14:08:19 »
Suppression makes people team-play more because... well, frankly, its a bit disturbing that I even HAVE to explain this to you, Natty... as a dev and all. Its quite obvious.

 ::) lol ... No it is not. Suppression is about hearing gun shots and whizzes around your head and not risking to take a bullet, not about some phoney blurr effect...


Ermmm... Ok, where do I start. Its a VIDEO GAME?

You can't simulate real life perfectly, that's why there is a Hud, crosshairs etc...?

And we all LOVE the HUD, crosshairs etc. don't we ?... (sarcasm  ::))

The blurr effect is to represent disorientation from near-hits and the effect it has on the mind of a person under such conditions. Some people in a suppressed ground ingame MAY be unblurred, or not blurred enough and can fire back. But with the volume of shots coming their way, they WONT. So they qualify as suppressed also. Some will face the total effect and will be simply too disoriented to fire back anyway... Its called a GAME MECHANIC. Its arbitrary, except when in context to create a certain desired effect, in this case, that of a RL suppression, which would otherwise not be possible.

And LIKE I SAID we don't need this effect  because other effects such are whizzes and gun shots are there for it ! You are dumb enough to get up against three shooters or more ? Well, that's one easy frag for them ...

A NOTE TO EVERYONE BEFORE POSTING - ESPECIALLY WHEN TRYING COUNTER ANOTHER POST:
DONT selectively read it - That's cheap tactics and muddies people's argument. Take the argument AS IT EXISTS, and dissect it that way.

Why you arrogant son of a  :-X  ...

Yes but the fact that this is a video game nullifies that risk... What do you care if you don't manage to shoot that MGer... You'll respawn in 15 seconds anyway. The "phoney blurr effect" would make those shots considerably more impossible thus simulating a real life situation where you would stay down if an MG is firing 1200 rounds per minute in your general direction. I remember watching a documentary last week where some US guys were on patrol in North Africa when an MG nest opened up on them. Some of them were shot and the whole squad had to wait until nightfall, they were too scared to even try to retreat...

Yeah, on the squad leader if you are lucky, but also perhaps in a very distant flag ... I say it isn't such a big deal that we should have more blurr, especially with more players it would be awful.
« Last Edit: 05-08-2011, 14:08:55 by Beaufort »

Offline LuckyOne

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.711
  • Purple Heart Collector
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #127 on: 05-08-2011, 14:08:24 »
Yeah, on the squad leader if you are lucky, but also perhaps in a very distant flag ... I say it isn't such a big deal that we should have more blurr, especially with more players it would be awful.

Okay maybe we don't need "more blur" but certainly more things that could blur your vision would be appreciated. And some camera shake... So that the guy who I am shooting with an MG can't hit me with pinpoint accuracy (in fact he can if he just ignores the shake).
This sentence is intentionally left unfinished...

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #128 on: 05-08-2011, 16:08:15 »
@Beufort.
See how that theory works - Go ahead, remove blurr completely, make the whizzes LOUD and see if that makes people keep their head down. Have you NEVER seen an smg go up against 3 or evne 4 riflemen and kill all of them?

I mention not dissecting partial arguments because my argument had more to do with creating an effect that will make suppressed enemy's keep their heads down than just saying blurr, blurr and more blurr.

If you must counter an argument, is all I am saying, then use the argument total, not a word out of context.
Suppression =/ blurr.
Suppression, according to what I suggest = blurr (As it already exists) scaled DOWN to EACH gun + camera-twitch... Not the same thing
« Last Edit: 05-08-2011, 16:08:01 by djinn »

Offline Beaufort

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 405
  • WIP
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #129 on: 05-08-2011, 16:08:37 »
@Beufort.
See how that theory works - Go ahead, remove blurr completely, make the whizzes LOUD and see if that makes people keep their head down. Have you NEVER seen an smg go up against 3 or evne 4 riflemen and kill all of them?

Well smgs were made to pawn rifles, so yes I have and it's okay.

I mention not dissecting partial arguments because my argument had more to do with creating an effect that will make suppressed enemy's keep their heads down than just saying blurr, blurr and more blurr.

If you must counter an argument, is all I am saying, then use the argument total, not a word out of context.

Suppression =/ blurr.
Suppression, according to what I suggest = blurr (As it already exists) scaled DOWN to EACH gun + camera-twitch... Not the same thing

I'm not using arguments out of context, I'm saying like natty that suppression (i.e. blurr effect) DON'T increase teamwork and I wonder who the f* do you think you are to reply to us with such a condescending attitude ...  >:(
« Last Edit: 05-08-2011, 17:08:18 by Beaufort »

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #130 on: 05-08-2011, 17:08:42 »
LOL! Yer sure, an SMger at any distance takes out a squad of riflemen firing at him alone... I should stop arguing with you really!

I doubt Natty will admit being a 100% right every time.

Natty asked me to explain myself regarding suppression aiding teamplay. Well, if a number of people firing at an enemy and hence suppressing them for another group to flank them and finish them off isn't a good enough example of teamplay, then I really don't know what clearer example of teamplay works for you.

I'm sorry if I came across condescending, but I doubt I give off negative energy except when visited by it myself. We have egos, Beu. You push, I push, ok?

Now that you know I can keep my tone measured,

Rather than simply determing who's right or wrong because of who you THINK or don't think a person is,

READ THE FUCKING ARGUMENTS!

« Last Edit: 05-08-2011, 17:08:12 by djinn »

Offline Beaufort

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 405
  • WIP
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #131 on: 05-08-2011, 17:08:18 »
LOL! Yer sure, an SMger at any distance takes out a squad of riflemen firing at him alone... I should stop arguing with you really!

Yeah you should, because you never said "at any distance", and no I've never seen that happen.

Natty asked me to explain myself regarding suppression aiding teamplay. Well, if a number of people firing at an enemy and hence suppressing them for another group to flank them and finish them off isn't a good enough example of teamplay, then I really don't know what clearer example of teamplay works for you.

Still, we don't need the suppression blurr for that to happen (and if you can't answer respectfully to someone who disagrees with you, you might as well shut up ! >:().

BOT and ignoring Djinn :

I don't like the suppression effect, but I think two speeds for vehicles would avoid a lot of teamkills and so make armors and infantry work a lot better together...
« Last Edit: 05-08-2011, 17:08:58 by Beaufort »

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #132 on: 05-08-2011, 17:08:57 »
Dude, I said 4 or 5 riflemen going up against an SMGer... that should have been enough. Listen, stop talking to me, this is becoming ridiculously illogical. Clearly, we aren't arguing constructively at this point, so I'm going to say 'Ok,  Beufort, YOU ARE SO-O right', take my hat off to you, and stop right here...

LOL! Yer sure, an SMger at any distance takes out a squad of riflemen firing at him alone... I should stop arguing with you really!

Yeah you should, because you never said "at any distance", and no I've never seen that happen.

Natty asked me to explain myself regarding suppression aiding teamplay. Well, if a number of people firing at an enemy and hence suppressing them for another group to flank them and finish them off isn't a good enough example of teamplay, then I really don't know what clearer example of teamplay works for you.

Still, we don't need the suppression blurr for that to happen (and if you can't answer respectfully to someone who disagrees with you, you might as well shut up ! >:().

BOT and ignoring Djinn :

I don't like the suppression effect, but I think two speeds for vehicles would avoid a lot of teamkills and so make armors and infantry work a lot better together...

But wait...

This last comment is just so childish... What are you? 12?! If you don't see me online, that's your problem. I'll continue this thread as though you don't exist.

Offline Natty

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3.170
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #133 on: 05-08-2011, 18:08:29 »
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.

Offline LuckyOne

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.711
  • Purple Heart Collector
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #134 on: 05-08-2011, 19:08:30 »

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.

That's the whole point... You CAN'T run away if you can't see where are you going... And you CAN'T take your chances if you can't see where are you shooting... I know this sounds extreme but it's the only way to make suppression work in this mod... Although I can usually quite easily get suppressed (well not atm as the suppression shader is broken on my installation) when I get shot at, and if somebody is firing at me with an MG I'll stay down or try to crawl out of there. It works, just not for all people (as it should be, actually).

Look all we are asking here is to add (improved) suppression for all weapons to PROMOTE teamwork. It doesn't mean it will work every time but at the times it works it WILL be useful.
« Last Edit: 05-08-2011, 19:08:52 by LuckyOne »
This sentence is intentionally left unfinished...