Project Reality Forums

Well, that isn't good...

sorry for quoting myself from another post ops:

bigwookie wrote:It no secret i hate this effect for many reasons as i point out in many posts here:

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f200-p ... ct-21.html

and here:

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr ... ant-4.html

but if there's going to be one reason which is not just my opinion why suppression should be dropped its this.

Are the Devs really going to hardcode a disadvantage to gamers with lower spec machines in to the game?

Someone running a 120fps will have the effect just over a second and someone running at 25fps will have the effect over 6 seconds, what is the answer too the players with lower spec machines, buy a new pc, live with it or fuck off?

As a example if 2 players, one at 120fps and one at 25fps suppress each other the 120fps guy has time for the suppression effect to finish, deviation to settle and take the kill shot while the other guy is still suffering the effects of suppression, hardly fair? For this now to be implemented and to force a disadvantage on players, this IMO is why many players are disabling it.

Outlawz wrote:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oFOEMSyPw8s[/youtube]

after watching that video i fully agree wookie its sucks big time

Known issue; what more do you want people to say?

Dang that sucks. Maybe instead of blur whenever you are being suppressed it triggers wild inaccuracy in your weapon (to simulate being rattled/shakey/fearful etc)and this would be on a hard timer AKA not fps dependent so it's the same for everyone. Probably not possible but...

Meh, big deal. I have 70-90 fps and I don't care. Take cover it's what it's good for.

Abosolutley rediculous,
I cant believe you guys made it based on FPS for god sake. Why would you do this? You know that there are a wide veriety of machine out there, so why would make the game so unfair? Why cant you guys change it to milliseconds?

Another point.
A bullet hitting the ground next to you is NOT going to BLUR your vision and DEAFEN your hearing. It just doesn't, you know it, I know it. What should be down is that, at the second a bullet hits the ground next to you, your screen will rapidly move. (same thing as when you move the mouse to look around except involuntary as a reaction to imcoming fire) This would be more realistic. Right now the suppression is so unfair, I should know because I get an average of 30 fps and IT SUCKS. Seems like there is not very much commone sense being put into patches these days...

fartknocker12345 wrote:Abosolutley rediculous,
I cant believe you guys made it based on FPS for god sake. Why would you do this? You know that there are a wide veriety of machine out there, so why would make the game so unfair? Why cant you guys change it to milliseconds?

mabye cuzz they cant? or maybe cuzz it was much easier? If you are talking with such big words, DO IT YOUR SELF >_> devs know it and I thnik they will fix it as soon,as it is possible...

i could guarentee the DEVs are working on it guys, in the mean time, relax!

Great.

I knew about it, but didn't know it was that bad...



Proff3ssorXman:
Me, me, me,...
What about the others? Will you donate us some money so we can even your FPS?

fartknocker12345 wrote: Another point.
A bullet hitting the ground next to you is NOT going to BLUR your vision and DEAFEN your hearing. It just doesn't, you know it, I know it.

Nobody have said that it does...

fartknocker12345 wrote:Abosolutley rediculous,
I cant believe you guys made it based on FPS for god sake. Why would you do this? You know that there are a wide veriety of machine out there, so why would make the game so unfair? Why cant you guys change it to milliseconds?

Another point.
A bullet hitting the ground next to you is NOT going to BLUR your vision and DEAFEN your hearing. It just doesn't, you know it, I know it. What should be down is that, at the second a bullet hits the ground next to you, your screen will rapidly move. (same thing as when you move the mouse to look around except involuntary as a reaction to imcoming fire) This would be more realistic. Right now the suppression is so unfair, I should know because I get an average of 30 fps and IT SUCKS. Seems like there is not very much commone sense being put into patches these days...

Nice attitude.

It's based on frames because it is, and there's a good reason for it.

Yes the Devs know there are a wide variety of machines out there. I also know that if your machine isn't capable of playing BF2 at a relatively decent framerate (40FPS+ ) then you should upgrade. £50 is about as much as getting a GPU and another gig of RAM will cost most people. Even if you only work a paperround, saving £50 quid to improve your PC shouldn't be too much hassle - I should know because that's how I funded my gaming in '00 to 01, paperround.


Finally, yes, everyone knows that the shader itself isn't the effect experienced by people having a bullet hit the dirt next to them. However, unless you can explain how the Devs are supposed to flood your body with adrenaline without some kind of weird intravenious device hooked up to your PC, then the shader acts as a pretty good model of supression.

You want people to:
a) be more concerned with finding cover than shooting back when shot at
and
b) interested in shooting at people just to supress them

The current supression system, while not perfect, achieves both of those. This is the first release it's been in, expecting it to be perfect first time around is unreasonable. There's a reason this is 0.756 and not 1.00, yeah?

For we have also one question how long should the suppresion be? 2 Seconds or maybe 6 Seconds. Which variant decided the Devs to want

i recently got a new gfx card, and from playing at max of 20 FPS (and when suppressed, about 15) to 50+ FPS is unreal, the suppression time is tiny !!! i use to be suppressed for like 4/5 seconds with low FPS.

I average on 30 Fps as well.. not really that much of a problem though.

100FPS (max supported by the game by default) sees supression over very very quickly, I have to admit...

'[R-MOD wrote:Masaq;668565']Nice attitude.

It's based on frames because it is, and there's a good reason for it.

Yes the Devs know there are a wide variety of machines out there. I also know that if your machine isn't capable of playing BF2 at a relatively decent framerate (40FPS+ ) then you should upgrade. £50 is about as much as getting a GPU and another gig of RAM will cost most people. Even if you only work a paperround, saving £50 quid to improve your PC shouldn't be too much hassle - I should know because that's how I funded my gaming in '00 to 01, paperround.

I have 7600GS 256MB AGP, 2Gigs of 400MHz DDR RAM and Athlon XP 2600+ @1,9Ghz

The bottleneck is my CPU, I know it. But could you tell me to what CPU I could upgrade, when my socket is socket A?

I could have sworn this was the PR General, not the Hardware....

The suppression effect is a gameplay choice. It is not realistic. We all know that. But ask anyone who's been to Iraq and they can tell you being shot at is not exactly a cake walk.

The human body is amazing, and under extreme amounts of stress you can see distortions and lose hearing/vision focus.

Suppression effects are a great trade off of realism and gameplay.

^^Yep. The effect is not realistic, but the end result is