@goggenator said in Make Insurgency Great (again) - Part I: Gunplay:

I would also argue that only a small percentage of people are truly warriors. These individuals enter "fight-mode" immediately and are almost seeking combat where as the majority are more prone to flee, run away or taking cover. I would suggest that the elite forces, warriors and successful clutch athletes among us fit into the category of facing their fears and accepting the fact that they have to fight and upon embracing this state of mind enter what is known as flow-state in order to conduct themselves in peak performance to win or in this case, survive.

Modern combat training mostly emphasizes avoiding a fight-or-flight reaction when possible. Combat mindset emphasizes breath control and deliberate action to control heart rate and maintain clear thought. I'm certainly no hardcore SOF guy, but in my experience the best soldiers are those that stay calm under pressure, not embrace an adrenaline-fuel fight response.

Plus, Sandstorm does not depict combat between elite operators. Most are basically militia.

About Suppression:

Getting shot while off-guard sure could throw anyone off and getting shot in general can and will effect you mentally.

However, if you’re in a room, guarding an objective, breaching an objective, watching a hot-spot, a choke-point, etc. where you are expecting to get shot at, the game shouldn’t punish you with added recoil or sway when the combat occurs. There’s no choice of fight or flight, you’re already in the state of fight. Which there’s no way for the game to tell which state of mind you’re currently in, so it punishes you anyways.

The way the game works now supports players who camp all the time and not players who try to play objectives or attackers.

I feel unless you’re making a milsim or warsim type game, suppression should only be visual and audio, not mechanical.

The visual blurs and tunnel vision effect, as well as bullets whizzing by you is more than enough to throw off anyone’s aim. However, since it does effect recoil as well, there’s no counter to the person laying down suppressing fire. You just have to accept your death or not engage at all. It’s a horrible thing to see 1 guy who can’t aim, stop those who can by simply putting shots down range that aren’t hitting any targets but triggering the opponents suppression. It’s essentially sloppiness winning over precision.

@warriorj

Precisely what I am trying to explain. I could've talked about what I said in the video for hours on end. I'm glad you grasped the concept.

Thank you for your feedback.

@maa_bunny said in Make Insurgency Great (again) - Part I: Gunplay:

Modern combat training mostly emphasizes avoiding a fight-or-flight reaction when possible. Combat mindset emphasizes breath control and deliberate action to control heart rate and maintain clear thought. I'm certainly no hardcore SOF guy, but in my experience the best soldiers are those that stay calm under pressure, not embrace an adrenaline-fuel fight response.

Plus, Sandstorm does not depict combat between elite operators. Most are basically militia.

Ok I think we are just arguing for the sake of arguing now. Embracing the adrenaline-fuel fight response and entering flow state is a "relaxed" state of mind during very objectively stressful conditions. The people that can stay calm under pressure are most likely in this state.

Well, Sandstorm also wants to become a competetive game. I don't believe limiting the players skill-ceiling because it should feel like you just came out of basic is the right way to go. Rather make it difficult with the potential to be a god, if skilled enough, among men.

On the topic of suppression; i'll just repeat what I already said in another thread on the topic.

That increase in recoil simulates an important aspect of suppression, the stress and fear of being under continued fire, which makes it virtually impossible for the group or individual being suppressed to fire back.

It's also part of the reason suppression is so important. The purpose of suppression isn't to kill the enemy (which is more of a bonus in such cases), but rather to deny the enemy's ability to return fire (or really do anything else for that matter). If you are capable of returning fire under suppression just as easily as if you were not suppressed, then the very reason for using suppression is lost.

There's no such thing as breaking out of suppression. You'll virtually never hear of a pinned down group or person getting out of suppression on their own; the source of the suppression has to either be removed by someone who isn't suppressed, or has to be circumvented by finding a covered path out of the suppressed area.

The only actual method for a suppressed group to somehow break the suppression on their own is the (horribly impractical and largely wasteful) human wave. Something that is eminently unsuited for modern combat and a practical impossibility within the game (since you require numbers at least in the triple digits to even think of pulling that off).

tl;dr: Demanding that you be able to fire back effectively when suppressed pretty much ignores and invalidates the whole point of suppression. The removal of recoil from suppression simply inflates the value of the wrong kind of skill (ability to aim quickly and accurately) in a situation where the ability should not be relevant.

This ability to fire back also, rather conveniently, removes the entire purpose of the gunner class; since the major reason for the use of Machine Guns in modern warfare is to provide suppression fire. This is pretty much pointless if the person under suppression can simply pop off accurate shots regardless of suppression. Contrary to popular imagination, the MG in modern warfare is not a weapon meant to do most of the killing; it's role is largely to provide suppression fire for the rest of the squad to work around; something that is pointless if the person being suppressed can still fire back and kill with the same ease as before.

Great input and approach on how to fix things! Forum moderators please make this post important (sticky/highlight it) so everyone can read this and respond to it and get them their feedback

@cool_lad said in Make Insurgency Great (again) - Part I: Gunplay:

On the topic of suppression; i'll just repeat what I already said in another thread on the topic.

That increase in recoil simulates an important aspect of suppression, the stress and fear of being under continued fire, which makes it virtually impossible for the group or individual being suppressed to fire back.

It's also part of the reason suppression is so important. The purpose of suppression isn't to kill the enemy (which is more of a bonus in such cases), but rather to deny the enemy's ability to return fire (or really do anything else for that matter). If you are capable of returning fire under suppression just as easily as if you were not suppressed, then the very reason for using suppression is lost.

There's no such thing as breaking out of suppression. You'll virtually never hear of a pinned down group or person getting out of suppression on their own; the source of the suppression has to either be removed by someone who isn't suppressed, or has to be circumvented by finding a covered path out of the suppressed area.

The only actual method for a suppressed group to somehow break the suppression on their own is the (horribly impractical and largely wasteful) human wave. Something that is eminently unsuited for modern combat and a practical impossibility within the game (since you require numbers at least in the triple digits to even think of pulling that off).

tl;dr: Demanding that you be able to fire back effectively when suppressed pretty much ignores and invalidates the whole point of suppression. The removal of recoil from suppression simply inflates the value of the wrong kind of skill (ability to aim quickly and accurately) in a situation where the ability should not be relevant.

This ability to fire back also, rather conveniently, removes the entire purpose of the gunner class; since the major reason for the use of Machine Guns in modern warfare is to provide suppression fire. This is pretty much pointless if the person under suppression can simply pop off accurate shots regardless of suppression. Contrary to popular imagination, the MG in modern warfare is not a weapon meant to do most of the killing; it's role is largely to provide suppression fire for the rest of the squad to work around; something that is pointless if the person being suppressed can still fire back and kill with the same ease as before.

There is a big difference between getting overpowered by machine gun fire during an ambush designed by a horde of taliban when you are walking along a barren path eating a snickers and in a duelsituation when you find yourself against one foe in CQB, ready for action at any given moment. There is also a big difference between realism and this video game. There is another very big difference between competetive shooters and milsim shooters. This game wants to combine it all.
However, to have mechanics that hinder or lower the skillceiling of the players are not appropriate for competetive play (as the majority, if not all, of the current competetive players have complained about). I believe we have to find a middle-ground and I believe my idea is just that. It combines the immersion of visual- and hearing impairment that in most cases will scare and put you behind cover due to the fact of how hard it will be for you to spot your enemy during these circumstances. But if you happen to know where he is shooting from or you are in a situation where you see eachother at the same time, you will be perfectly able to land your shot. I have also suggested in the equivalent reddit post that if said suppression effect reaches a certain volume that sway would occur. For example by a bipod machinegunner really blasting away at your position or directly by sniper fire.

I also believe that there is different training and mindset among nations and units. I am for example trained to shoot back first to "create" cover for me and my unit, if I am the pointman. But my MOS isn't infantry warfare against vast hordes of enemies, an neither is this games MOS either.

tl;dr

Competetive play is desperate for a change. My idea combines immersion with skill. Sway could occur during heavy volume of suppression by machine gun- and sniper rifle fire. As discussed here: reddit

I have an idea of a hybrid suppression system but

1. I don’t think it can be fully functional.
2. I want to get my thoughts in order to give the best possible explanation.

I’ll be working on it during the week.

This is very well put together and mentions very good points. Completely agree with it.

DEVs please do take time to sit through it.

@cool_lad said in Make Insurgency Great (again) - Part I: Gunplay:

Demanding that you be able to fire back effectively when suppressed pretty much ignores and invalidates the whole point of suppression. The removal of recoil from suppression simply inflates the value of the wrong kind of skill (ability to aim quickly and accurately) in a situation where the ability should not be relevant.

Maybe the "whole point of suppression" is not suited for this game, then. What is the "right kind of skill" that you want to value? Holding down left click? Keep in mind that suppression mechanics also apply in a direct gunfight, so whoever fires the first shot gets a huge advantage even if their aim is garbage.

Here's my video about the suppression system and what I think can be done.

Youtube Video

Everything written here is the same as what's in the video:

1. The first solution and probably the more obvious one, is to make suppression work the way it does in Insurgency 2014.
Make that suppression blur effect more intense in Sandstorm just so it would still effect your visuals more but your weapon will still act the same way as if you were not suppressed.

The main problem with that is it throws out everyone who loves the idea of suppression actively shaking your gun around in a uncontrollable manner.
As much as I highly disagree with that type of suppression system for Sandstorm specifically, perhaps there's an alternative?

2. The other solution I was thinking about is a hybrid suppression system. One where it will not effect close-to-mid range combat, but will effect mid-to-long range combat.
The idea is for suppression to effect visual and audio only for up to 30 - 35 meters. While any suppression shot further than 35 meters (36+ meters), will then trigger the added sway and recoil. There may need to be some testing and tweaking to see if the range needs to be further.

This would make the game feel a lot more like the original Insurgency, while also buffing and nerfing long range combat at the same time.
You'll still want to be precise for long range combat, but even if you miss, or didn't kill your target, that target will not be able to fire his weapon accurately for that short suppression period.
(It also still gives LMG's and snipers a role that only they can fulfill which is that long range suppression system.)

Just so this type of system doesn't get abused, I believe suppression should only trigger if you're actively in the line of those shots.
If you're hiding behind cover or a wall, those shots should give you visual/audio suppression only.
However, if you're in the open or staring out a window and a bullet whizzes by you, then you would be feeling those suppression effects.

@cyoce said in Make Insurgency Great (again) - Part I: Gunplay:

@cool_lad said in Make Insurgency Great (again) - Part I: Gunplay:

Demanding that you be able to fire back effectively when suppressed pretty much ignores and invalidates the whole point of suppression. The removal of recoil from suppression simply inflates the value of the wrong kind of skill (ability to aim quickly and accurately) in a situation where the ability should not be relevant.

Maybe the "whole point of suppression" is not suited for this game, then. What is the "right kind of skill" that you want to value? Holding down left click? Keep in mind that suppression mechanics also apply in a direct gunfight, so whoever fires the first shot gets a huge advantage even if their aim is garbage.

I think that marksmanship should not be the be all and end all skill in the game. The primacy of marksmanship would be appropriate for an arena shooter like Doom, but for a game that seeks to at least have a facsimile of modern combat, things such as teamwork, coordination, the proper use of suppression, supports and ordinance should be far more important. One of the biggest realities of modern war is that marksmanship actually counts for very little, especially when compared to these other skills; it's the reason automatic weapons are dominant and why semi auto and bolt action rifles fell out of favour as standard issue weapons with armies. Entire wars have been lost in part because armies didn't face this reality and insisted on continuing to emphasize marksmanship above all.

If you are suppressed, the answer would be to either counter suppression with fire from your team (which is one of the reasons the gunner exists), use smoke or call in fire support. The answer is not to pop out and just shoot the person who has you pinned (which again places an excessive premium on personal marksmanship over all other skills and over teamwork). Also bear in mind that the team that ouflanked you or got you pinned has indeed displayed better skill than you in terms of situational awareness and positioning, both of which are more important as skills than any amount of marksmanship.

If indeed marksmanship were to be made the be all and end all of the game, then we should really do away with the classes altogether, since the Gunner is absolutely worthless (since providing suppression fire is the main role of MGs) and all just fight with sniper rifles and semi automatic weapons (since those are much better for marksmanship). Indeed, with such a setup, we could do away with teams altogether and just have a free for all in an arena instead of bothering with things such as maps, ordinance and supports.

@cool_lad said in Make Insurgency Great (again) - Part I: Gunplay:

I think that marksmanship should not be the be all and end all skill in the game. The primacy of marksmanship would be appropriate for an arena shooter like Doom, but for a game that seeks to at least have a facsimile of modern combat, things such as teamwork, coordination, the proper use of suppression, supports and ordinance should be far more important.

I disagree, but I can respect that position. However, there are ways to emphasize those skills (besides tactical missing) without lessening the impact of aim. It's not mutually exclusive.

If you are suppressed, the answer would be to either counter suppression with fire from your team (which is one of the reasons the gunner exists), use smoke or call in fire support. The answer is not to pop out and just shoot the person who has you pinned (which again places an excessive premium on personal marksmanship over all other skills and over teamwork).

If an enemy has a shot on you but you don't know where they are, trying to peek and duel them is suicide regardless of any suppression mechanics. The real answer would be to counter with a teammate who has a better angle on the shooter (which is one of the reasons the marksman exists), use smoke or call in fire support. You don't need an RNG debuff that takes control away from the player to make suppression a valuable tactical option. The difference is that a debuff to gun handling affects direct fights, whereas the ins2 visual effects only reward a player with a positional advantage.

Also bear in mind that the team that ouflanked you or got you pinned has indeed displayed better skill than you in terms of situational awareness and positioning, both of which are more important as skills than any amount of marksmanship.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to shoot over someone's cover when they're trying to push up. If the map design were better, I might agree with you here. In Sandstorm's current state, however, it's possible to find a spot on a hill, bipod with an MG or precise rifle, and never move until an objective is captured.

If indeed marksmanship were to be made the be all and end all of the game, then we should really do away with the classes altogether

I'm not suggesting that; I'm just opposed to removing aim. I agree that teamwork and positioning should be important. A good flank should give you a heavy advantage, but you still deserve to die if you whiff your shots from behind.

At the end of the day, this is a first person shooter. Who lives and who dies needs to be decided, at least in part, by who is better at shooting.

The main concern I think I’m seeing from those who like the current suppression mechanic is for long range combat.

However, this system also punishes close quarters to mid-range combat when it really shouldn’t.
The blur effect is more than enough to disorient players and discourage them from firing back immediately.

There’s a lot of situations where an enemy is close to mid, and they’re center screen. All I have to do is pop up my ADS and peg the target. Just that if they hipfire first and miss, my ADS and recoil are now effected by suppression, I can’t line up my shot anymore and effectively return fire, they stop firing for half a second and kill me while I’m still under the effect of suppression.

So they get a free kill because they panic fired while I get punished for aiming.
Instead of, they get punished for panic fire while I get rewarded with the kill for tap firing my shots on target.

Either system rewards the person who shoots first, just that the current suppression system rewards mag-dumping more than tap-firing and precision.

My hybrid system (mentioned in my previous post above) is intended so that close to mid range combat won’t be effected by this uncontrollable RNG, while mid-to-long range combat will have that full suppression effect.
This would nerf panic firing and reward those who actually aim in close to mid range while allowing the LMG/Sniper classes to rain down suppression fire that effects their targets.
Which means you’ll probably won’t be able to counter a sniper with an SMG unless you’re in mid-to-close range, allowing each class to be more useful within their proper ranges.

@mr-rain That's better, but I'd still argue it's unnecessary. At long range, impaired vision is easily enough to prevent someone from effectively acquiring the target and returning fire. The problem with allowing RNG suppression at long range is the same as allowing it in close range, but worse. If you're having a duel at long range and the other guy misses a shot first, it's going to be nearly impossible for you to compensate for the recoil and sway at that range. You might miss them next, which will turn the fight into two people rolling dice at each other. Might as well play COD at that point.

@cyoce
I agree but I do feel something has to be done. It's too harsh now for how Insurgency should be played, but I don't want to entirely throw out the side of the community that likes the current suppression effect.

It really should be limited to those certain specific circumstances while not getting in the way of the fast-paced gameplay we've come to expect from Insurgency.

If we can't have the suppression effect we had in Insurgency 2014, then I feel a compromised-hybrid type suppression system would be the next best thing.

@mr-rain How about non-visual suppression only applies if the shooter doesn't have LOS to you? That way you can use it "tactically" while not getting rewarded for missing.

@cyoce It’s a good idea but I think having a smaller suppression effect while you’re behind cover would be fine.
It would only amplify if you stick your head out during gunfire.

@mr-rain I mean the suppression effect would apply when you do have cover (or concealment). That way you could use it to suppress people without being rewarded for missing in a straight-up gun duel.