Jump to content
Peerun

Suppression - player choice

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

To be suppressed or not to be suppressed, that is the question. But is it a question or is it an answer?

Watched the SquadChat 1 video/podcast and one of the ideas that actually really appealed to me was when SgtRoss talked about suppression and the state a professional gets into when getting shot at - and the incetivizing of certain player behaviour.
Although he didn't spell it out, he did say that all the possible systems of suppression were thought of, so I thought it can't hurt to formulate it and share it - regardless of whether or not OWI has already discussed anything similar. Basically just a free-floating idea like any other post I make. Though I will make an argument.

What I kinda understood from that part
- how you might become more focused/efficient, while under fire, in real life, and how that is something OWI can't put into the game
- that being "bounced around" or "blinded" by suppressive fire isn't a thing in real life and isn't fun in a game
- you can't force the fear of death
- vape nation


The idea: Getting suppressed VS getting suppressed A.K.A Effects of suppression on the player VS Player behaviour alias 1 and 0

The effects of suppressing/shooting at an enemy
Shooting drains Stamina
Low Stamina increases Sway and decreases Sprint speed

The effects of getting suppressed (bullets whizzing PAST you)
Stamina debt - your stamina decreases for every bullet ^  and every action(sprinting, firing), but you don't receive any negative effects from it(sway nor speed), while suppressed.
Current visual effect/abberation

When do you stop being suppressed, ie when does the stamina debt kick in
If you receive damage enough to make you bleed
If you go into -1 Stamina; assuming full Stamina is 1, no Stamina is 0 - that way you can't sprint forever just because someone is shooting at you.
If you reach the Stamina value you had at the moment when you started getting suppressed.

What happens when you recover from suppression?
Unless you recover by regaining your original Stamina value, you receive the penalty of the Stamina debt.
If that puts your Stamina into a negative value you are unable to raise your weapon and can only walk or lie still prone - recharging Stamina mode - until your Stamina is at 0 again. (You can't self deplete your Stamina below 0 by running etc)

When are you (not) getting suppressed?
You are only being put into a suppressed state, if bullets fly or land next to your "spine", "Z axis".
Bullets hitting cover in front of you? Not.
Bullets flying "a head" over your head? Not.
Bullets landing at your feet? Yes.
Etc etc
Suppose having a sort of Michelin man aura/hitbox around you...

Additionally the faster you move the larger the Michelin man gets
The bigger the gun the more Stamina debt each "near hit" imparts


The Balance
The idea is to give a player a simple choice when being engaged - by accurate fire
A) Get into cover and wait it out, not taking any negative effects
B) Engage back and risk losing Stamina if you're overwhelmed - making you a dead man unless you can A) right after

Returning to the original statement: You can't make people sitting in front of computer screens in their homes be afraid of risking their digital life in a videogame, BUT you can reward the risk. It quickly becomes a twofold dilemma.

Option A increases immediate risk, gives you an edge in the fight and presents you with the intermediate risk of being indebted to that bonus, if you make a mistake. In which case an ever more threatening risk of quick death comes soon after. Or in a good case scenario likely leaves you in a state where you're even less likely to succeed, if you have to repeat the process not long after surviving it.

Option B lets the player minimize the immediate risk, but it also ups the intermediate risk of indirect fire. This then leaves the player with a new set of choices. Take option A and try to get rid of the antagonizer or fall back, decreasing the risk of both the intermediate risk of indirect fire aswell as the long term risk of encirclement, while introducing a new immediate risk of being stranded in the open with only option A while moving from cover to cover.


I think this wouldn't be an altogether bad system.
For one, it doesn't take any control from the individual player, but it puts all the power over to teamwork, just as well as an aimpunch system would, whether it's overwhelming suppression making a "rambo" option A player more than likely to get hit - brutally negating the bonus - or covering fire from your own squad, while taking the safest possible option of falling back and avoiding getting suppressed and being put into the situation above.
It also has the benefit, in contrast to an aimpunch system, where a balanced amount of firepower between two or more squads trying to wipe each other out isn't subject to the "who shoots first" domino effect, where once suppressed the player is less and less able to suppress the enemy back. 
The crucial part being that shooting itself depletes stamina - making one player being able to continually suppress multiple players impossible if they manage to increase distance or being a decent distance away from the enemy to begin with.
There's also no possibility of cheesing the system by shooting at an enemy behind cover and sending another person over to shoot him, while he is helplessly being bounced around or blinded by the bullets.

Just my 2 cents

Edited by Peerun
a word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

And clearly there'd need to be a condition so you can't get "stun-locked" in the suppressed state, if you come out of it with less than 0 Stamina.
Something like, your Stamina regeneration is twice as fast, if you aren't currently suppressed, but  your Stamina is less than 0, so that effectively the scale is only from 1 to -0.5, as far as your own actions are concerned, but it also means that if you're exhausted and under 0 Stamina then suppression is only half as effective at eroding it - once in the exhausted state you'd be locked in a suppressed/shock state except the Stamina Debt part, so anyone suppressing you then would affect your Stamina in real time.

Obviously that exhausted state and the condition, that you get out of the suppressed state with -1 Stamina if your stamina debt goes all the way to that value, would have to be balanced so that it only happens in extreme situations. Like hiding behind a tree that only just covers you enough to prevent a machine gun from killing you, while it's suppressing you for a whole minute - or an APC unloading a full mag at you, while you're hiding inside of a corner of a tunnel door. Not something that happens regularly, but something that isn't impossible, if you don't have a friendly there to help you and take that attention away, but you're also lucky enough not to die.

Edited by Peerun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Peerun said:

There's also no possibility of cheesing the system by shooting at an enemy behind cover and sending another person over to shoot him, while he is helplessly being bounced around or blinded by the bullets.

I don't understand the premise of this thread to be honest. I thought the above quote was a legit military strategy (I guess just from movies though... I've never been in the military)...

- Suppress and flank

- Fire and move

 

The above two operate on the premise that when you shoot at people, they're unlikely to stick up their heads due to the high likelihood of copping a bullet to the face. 

 

It sounds like there might as well be no suppression system in game, or just leave it as it is, since either way (proposed system and current one) you can just stick your head out and shoot back without any drama. I've made multiple long range kills with <25% stamina if I have a scope 

 

Please let me know if I have misunderstood!

Edited by Psyrus

Share this post


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

Please let me know if I have misunderstood!


Kinda.

The premise of the thread is, as SgtRoss revealed in the in the Squadchat (theres summary of it here, I can't find the link to the video right now -https://www.reddit.com/r/joinsquad/comments/8acvxf/list_of_discussed_topics_from_the_todays_dev/), that they are toying with the suppression mechanics.

Quote

Suppression mechanics are confirmed to be happening and in active testing, however Ross expressed his dislike over Project Reality’s strategy of completely blinding players screens with every shot and mentioned on how that isn’t realistic to real combat (people become more focused, adrenaline increases, except buffs like that won’t be seen in-game since it would turn everyone into super soldiers).


What I'm getting at is that you kinda could do that as long as you make it a "management minigame".

It's basically the difference between supression stops a player in their tracks when it happens versus if a player stops in his tracks when it happens he stops the suppression and a squad that doesn't stop in their tracks over a period of 10-20 minutes, constantly moving and being engaged, will be forced to stop in their tracks sooner, if that squad is winning against overwhelming odds or later if they have bigger firepower, but definitely sooner the more they run around

So it's like the buff has a cooldown set by the player.
You play slower, you get a smaller cooldown. You play together, you're likely to get a smaller cooldown. You use vehicles for transport, you're offsetting the possibility of a big cooldown.
 You play fast, you get a longer buff, but you're likely to get a longer cooldown too.
 

34 minutes ago, Psyrus said:

when you shoot at people, they're unlikely to stick up their heads due to the high likelihood of copping a bullet to the face. 


It's like if you make the above into this: When you're shot at you stick your head down, if you can, so that when you shoot at people later they stick their heads down, if they can, and so that when people shoot at you later, you can stick your head up and shoot at them, when you can't stick your own head down...

Like if you have an enemy squad moving through your lines and shooting everyone up, even if you can't kill them in that one firefight the fact that you suppressed them counts in the long run. Either it makes them slow down by choice or if they just keep going and going their chances of getting exhausted and/or hit go up. Especially if you are sending a larger force or big guns against that squad.
Or if a squad is dug in somewhere and you are attacking them with a larger force, they can either all put up a fight and you're likely to wear them down, if they are completely isolated or if they try and cycle their men that gives you an option to split your bigger force like them and flank them.
 

52 minutes ago, Psyrus said:

there might as well be no suppression system in game, or just leave it as it is, since either way (proposed system and current one) you can just stick your head out and shoot back without any drama

Imagine as an example, currently:
You get shot at, you run into the fire, you win even though you got hit, you just patch your wound, heal up.
Rinse repeat.

With this system, you get shot at, you choose to stick your head up, you win, but you got hit, you lose stamina from all the suppression and the running aswell as the shooting. Do you now start another firefight? Did you already go through this 2-3 times and now you're hovering somewhere around 25% of stamina and ever closer and closer of ending your "combat adrenaline rush" by going into a full exhaust state, if you pick the wrong fight, unable to then do anything unless you can wait for your stamina to get back? Do you have cover while doing this? Solid and active?

It might seem like it's the same thing as the current system, because the effect doesn't hit you instantly. It works itself up, it feeds off your choices. You can't force an enemy to get suppressed, but he can choose to let the game do it for him, if he doesn't negate the fact(either by getting into cover, killing you or making you get into cover)
It's kinda both happening at a large scale as far as direct effects from the game to the player, aswell as split seconds of decision making. And anything inbetween as far as planning ahead for that eventuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Psyrus said:

I've made multiple long range kills with <25% stamina if I have a scope 


Yeah obviously, but when a player with 100 stamina is shooting at you with 25 stamina, who's more likely to win that fight? Especially when, as you shoot you slowly go down towards 0 stamina, while he goes down towards 75 stamina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand why people believe in some "magic suppression ingame mechanic" 

What is suppression ?  ok .... lets ask Google. And the answer is 

-----

"In military science, suppressive fire (commonly called covering fire) is "fire that degrades the performance of an enemy force below the level needed to fulfill its mission". "Suppression is usually only effective for the duration of the fire".[1] It is one of three types of fire support, which is defined by NATO as "the application of fire, coordinated with the maneuver of forces, to destroy, neutralize or suppress the enemy."

-----

And therefor I believe that general part of community have no idea what does it mean and how to effectively do covering fire. 

Covering fire in Squad works like a charm if its done properly. There is practically nothing what can make it even better. There is no reason to some cluncy, blurry, drainy, stuffy blably blobly. Really. Just understand what the hack mean support someone by covering fire. Its so easy its so natural. Just stop with CoD habits and "Aha effect" will come. 

The biggest problem is that people want give up their responsibilities for their virtual life and get some magic advantage. 

 

And at the end there is couple of official definitions how to suppress. 

1. "Suppressive fire usually achieves its effect by threatening casualties to individuals who expose themselves to it."

Read it twice or ten times to understand what does it mean for you as a shooter. Ooooh its really so easy. Does it work ? Hell yes just try it. You will see. But you have to aim accurate. And not just spray a sky and yell like rambo. If enemy will register that if he is not completely mentally disabled he will think twice if he take a look behind a corner. Isnt that successful suppress ? Does he need some special additional disadvantage ? If he is so stupid that he will try return fire he must pay for it. Thats suppressing fire done properly. 

 

2. "The purpose of suppression is to stop or prevent the enemy from observing, shooting, moving or carrying out other military tasks that interfere (or could interfere) with the activities of friendly forces. An important feature of suppressive fire is that it is only effective while it lasts and that it has sufficient intensity."

Clear like a day isnt it ? If someone in game ignore their "virtual life" which is absolutely understandable and expectable because its stupid game he must pay for it. If he will return fire and you die....you didnt do what you should properly. You have just wasted ammo nothing more noting less. Thats the real true.  

 

3. "In modern warfareoverwatch is a force protection tactic: the state of one small unit or military vehicle supporting another unit, while they are executing fire and movement tactics. An overwatching, or supporting unit has taken a position where it can observe the terrain ahead, especially likely enemy positions. This allows it to provide effective covering fire for advancing friendly units. An ideal overwatch position provides cover for the unit, and unobstructed lines of fire. It may be on a height of ground or at the top of a ridge, where a vehicle may be able to adopt a hull-down position. "

And thats it boys and girls. All the secrets of suppression. And they work. Yes without fear about a life but they work. And they are effective. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fine to write that here, but it isn't true. Even you admit to it in your post and then you backtrack your logic.

44 minutes ago, elerik said:

"fire that degrades the performance of an enemy force below the level needed to fulfill its mission"

 Here google agrees with me.

47 minutes ago, elerik said:

The biggest problem is that people want give up their responsibilities for their virtual life and get some magic advantage. 

Not quite sure what you mean. The exact point of my idea is to offer a risk reward deal, because you can't force people to care about dying in a videogame, did you miss that bit?

49 minutes ago, elerik said:

"Suppressive fire usually achieves its effect by threatening casualties to individuals who expose themselves to it."

No wait, you must've read that bit, because here you go saying exactly that. Except you can't do that in a videogame, which is the whole premise of this post.

51 minutes ago, elerik said:

There is no reason to some cluncy, blurry, drainy, stuffy blably blobly. Really.

Exactly. Yes.

51 minutes ago, elerik said:

"In modern warfareoverwatch is a force protection tactic: the state of one small unit or military vehicle supporting another unit, while they are executing fire and movement tactics."

I don't understand how this changes with my idea. If anything, the "while they are executing fire and movement tactics" and "fire that degrades the performance of an enemy" parts would be more relevant than with the current system.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 I get fed up setting up LMG and reigning fire down on people and getting 1 shot killed by a guy who decides just to stand up and fire.. which is more to do with no fear of death than anything else.  When a 30mm starts pounding the cover your in there is no way your standing up so suppression works with the larger weapons.. there has to be something that creates a 'fear' whether its stamina loss,  ability not to use AR or creating a fear of dying punishment..somehow with the small arms fire...I don't like the idea of the shooter losing stamina,  that sounds like its the wrong way around..the problem lies in the ease by which people suppressed return fire not in those suppressing. 

 

With no fear of death you cant reward risk, because the lack of fear is always going to lead you to take risk which is the whole problem atm ... you need to punish taking that risk if you die doing it and reward in other ways in the game..  500 ticket match people rush into contact because losing tickets at the beginning doesnt matter ..something has to change that mindset, that what you do actually does matter more than just the ticket.

 

I dont think it will matter if you adjust the ability to shoot back/sway/blur people will continue to take risks until the fear factor or the pain factor is too great that they wont do it, and we dont have that right now, but then you have to balance that with the whole ethos of the game, its a shooter after all and people want to shoot stuff!

 

 

Edited by embecmom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×