A Deviation Scenario: OGT

[BloodBane611]

So I am moving in to south bridge on OGT and spot a british rifleman on the east side of the bunker. I go into a crouch, switch to 3 round burst, and begin firing. I see my rounds impacting him and he runs north, away from me. I then notice another brit, also a rifleman, crawling along the east side of the bunker towards me. I shift my fire to him, seeing several rounds pop on/around him, and a tracer heading straight for his body. He calmly starts firing at me, kills me, and is shortly thereafter killed along with his friend by the other nearby members of my team. As far as I know I did not kill either of them, and my suppressing fire was clearly ineffective in either pinning the first soldier or keeping the second soldier from firing on and killing me.

Heres a nice little screenie I took to illustrate it for the visually minded.


I would like people to evaluate this based on whether they think that the Brits should have been suppressed by my fire on them, whether deviation should be affected by being hit/nearly hit by incoming rounds (regardless of the engine workability of that, which I don't know about), and whether you find the outcome reasonable given the circumstances, especially as compared to real life.

[CKneisel]

At that range, you would probably have been a little bit better off with single fire mode. If I have any complaint here it's that burst fire has a bit too much recoil.

Coding in "suppression deviation" seems unnecessary to me, although perhaps it's a good idea. The thing is that anybody who peeks on a corner that's being covered in bullets is crazy, whether in real life or in this version of PR. The action he took was unrealistic but I would call it mostly bad luck that he picked you off. An intelligent player who sees that an enemy has zeroed in on him from a range like that should take cover; that's what the first guy did, apparently. For whatever reason, the other guy decided to take a stupid risk. Most likely because he was prone he figured there was no chance of him running away, so he went for the kill, and because he was in a more accurate position and at a fairly close range he managed to pick you off. If you had been in single, you probably would have killed him first since you had the drop on both of them it seems. At a range like that, deviation is virtually nil and your advantage from being scoped and the first shooter is huge.

Although you died, your teammates did mop them up. It sounds like they were both probably bleeding out by the end of that situation. Not a bad outcome for a 2v1 at 37m, the 1 being crouched and with no cover.

[blud]

Suppression isn't going to work when the accuracy is low. As a soldier in 0.7 you quickly learn that bullets being shot at you, especially at a higher rate, are inaccurate bullets. Pre-0.7 if you were being shot at the fear level was higher (especially if you didn't know where they are coming from) because you knew how accurate the guns were and so the chances of being killed was higher.

If people are tracking you by moving their mouse, their aim goes down, so when you start getting shot at, if you can't immediately shoot back because the enemy's location is unknown or far away, then you should just start running perpendicular to where the shots are coming from (towards cover) and it will be very hard for them to hit you.

As you now know, all your shots by the bridge did was alert the enemy to your location, and then the reason you got killed is probably because there was 2 of them, so while you shot at 1 the other one sat still and aimed at you.

[Sabre_tooth_tigger]

Hard to say exactly without a video but I agree with the single shot comment.
Go full auto or burst if you like but if it doesnt work out then do it single next time.

Yes he should be able to return fire even while under fire, if you were hitting close then I presume his screen was slightly blurry and he was lucky. Your outline still might have been clear enough, seems fair to me

[CKneisel]

BludShoT;579908']Suppression isn't going to work when the accuracy is low.

As long as the bullets are landing roughly in the zone the enemy wishes to occupy, it works. A window, for instance. Even if bullets are landing all around the window, as long as the enemy notices at least a few bullets/tracers flying through it and hitting the ceiling, he isn't going to pop up unless he's dumb. If he sees bullets pelting a corner, its wall, the ground around that corner, he isnt going to come out either. There's always a chance one of those bullets is going to hit you. The enemies in this situation both got hit, even if one of them managed to pick you off. Unfortunately for the star of this situation, crouching targets still have a pretty large, easy to hit profile especially at that range and without cover. As I said, you'd have been better off with single fire shooting 2-3 bullets into them since at that range accurate fire > suppressive fire. That's what the enemy chose to do and that's why he died first. If you had been under partial cover or even prone I daresay you might've not even been hit.

Anyone in this game who ignores decently done suppressive fire is just being dumb, an unrealistic action that coding can't really prevent. Said people are likely to catch a bullet, since there are so many flying in his direction. That's the idea behind it. I didn't fear people in earlier versions because I knew I could pop out, twitch, and shoot them in the head instantly with my DMR.

Here's a situation I've seen firsthand:

At the bumpy base of a desert mountain. Enemy MEC are huddled on the other side of a small but steep (enough to hide behind) mound/hill. US are all hanging out in the mountains, not far away. The MEC are prone, trying to crawl up to the crest of the hill to take shots at the US, who are all taking cover behind various rocks and ditches in the mountainside. SL orders suppressive fire. SAW and M16s open up on the crest of the hill, aiming mostly at the dirt on the crest. The MEC all crawl backwards; peaking the crest is suicidal. The SL, alone (unadvisable but whatever) sprints down to the hill. Throws a grenade over it, waits for it to blow, runs in and guns down the survivors. Caught them completely with their pants down, it was textbook.

[nedlands1]

BludShoT;579908']Suppression isn't going to work when the accuracy is low.

I think one of the large problems with suppression is that people can go crouched or prone, change position to engage and suffer no added deviation penalties whatsoever.

[Sneak Attack]

that is a perfect example of .7 bf2, that happens to me ALL THE TIME in the new .7. what that guy did was not stupid, i do it all the time and often end up alive, with the new super inaccuracy of the guns and lag and hit detection even if he does hit me it often doesnt hurt me so i am able to shoot back and hit him, and he will die, once and a while i will hit him and it wont count but about 50% of the time i can pull it off.

.7 just personifies this type of play and its sad to say but i see it more then ever.

[Razick]

@OP: I see two very good reasons why you lost this perticular firefight. First is you didnt properly survey an area (hence you were caught off guard in the open) and second is bad tactics in general. First off you are in a just slightly elevated terrain shooting in silhouetted posture at a concealed and covered position, first mistake. Second is that you are simultaneously engaging two seperate targets from a featureless and severely exposed position, textbook on exactly what not to do. Theoretically you should never win but there are several variables to account for (aka Noobies). Switch the bold words and that is how its supposed to go not vice versa.

[BloodBane611]

Razick, either I didn't clearly explain myself or you didn't get it. I engaged two targets seperately, one after the other.

Ultimately this is not a question about what I did right or wrong. It's about what you think of the suppression system. Should someone be suppressed by rounds hitting on and around them?

[DirtyHarry88]

From that range surely you'd expect to hit the target I'd say.

I understand the deviation at long range but when you're that close and still can't hit someone, even after being crouched for a while, it is a bit annoying.

[BloodBane611]

I've been thinking the same thing. Given that all BF2 models are 2 meters tall (taller than me, and I'm above average for US men), 37m ingame is more like 35 (or less) irl. At 50 feet I can hit a gatorade bottle 7 or 8 times out of 10 from the hip with a bolt action .22 rifle. I'm gonna go on a limb and say that at 116 feet I can hit a man sized target if I crouch and take careful aim. I am not a very good shot either, groupings are pretty crappy, and I don't shoot regularly.

So shouldn't our PR gun nut soldiers be more accurate than this?

[Jay]

I would like people to evaluate this based on whether they think that the Brits should have been suppressed by my fire on them, whether deviation should be affected by being hit/nearly hit by incoming rounds (regardless of the engine workability of that, which I don't know about), and whether you find the outcome reasonable given the circumstances, especially as compared to real life.

I would have to agree (along with more than a few people here) that the deviation seems a little extreme, but making bullets that hit near you decrease your accuracy would turn a firefight into more of a "roll of the dice"-fight. Think about it, both players would (eventually) land a shot near each other, especially if they're pretty close, and that would just throw any hope of accuracy/skill out the window. I'd imagine it would lead to a lot more "spray 'n' pray" firefights, and a lot more "WTF?!" moments.

My suggestion would simply be a better blur when a bullet hits near you. But I'm sure that's been suggested before.