Project Reality Forums

I think as a whole.....it is a good effect and it has a place in the game.

Here is my .02....

The current effect is far too exaggerated and lasts too long.

A single shot passing me by, should not blur my vision so bad that I cant see at all.
The effect would have a better place in play if it were shortened.
The effect would maintain its current status from an AR from the shear rate of fire, keeping folks pinned and suppressed.

RCMoonPie wrote:I think as a whole.....it is a good effect and it has a place in the game.

Here is my .02....

The current effect is far too exaggerated and lasts too long.

A single shot passing me by, should not blur my vision so bad that I cant see at all.
The effect would have a better place in play if it were shortened.
The effect would maintain its current status from an AR from the shear rate of fire, keeping folks pinned and suppressed.

problem is , shorting it will practically remove it for alot off ppl

Yea I dont mind the duration at all. If you think about the duration than yea, sure it lasts to long. But what I do mostly when I get blurred out I run to cover or duck. I think it needs to be this long to actually work on people like the above poster said.

Maybe.....but what I run into is that vision is so severely blurred that i cant find cover!

RCMoonPie wrote:Maybe.....but what I run into is that vision is so severely blurred that i cant find cover!

really ?? mines quite clear, i can still shoot semi-accurate with it

Hmm thats surprising! I cant shoot shit when blurred I just keep firing in the general direction.

As for finding cover: You cant really see it, you need to remember where you came from. Usualy in an urban setting you get fired upon when going round the corner. Just step back behind it. In a forest theres lots of hills and trees you came by. Jump behind those!

I believe the blur is the simulate blinking, right?

pvt.nouri wrote:I believe the blur is the simulate blinking, right?

nope;


right, this is why the blur is here .

in real life;

fire ------- fear of death ------- suppressed.

now, in game there is no fear of death to force cover, so.....

ingame;

fire ---- visual impairment ------ suppressed.

the means is not realistic, the effect is

bigwookie wrote:wanders in....

...not realistic...

...wanders out

And neither is the ability to respawn after you die. Or to spawn at a bunch of backpacks. But we make do, because otherwise the game would be unbearable. So, we need to put back a little of that fear of dieing in player's heads. I remember in late v0.4 early v0.5 we had still the tinnitus effect/bullets whizzing past sound.

You didn't want to die. Even though you could still spawn relatively close to the battle, you didn't want to take that risk. And you damn well KNEW when you were being shot at. You also had a good ol' 60 second wait time to respawn, but I wouldn't go that far. Most people can't take waiting a minute doing nothing but waiting to get back in the game.

But it sure made you not want to run out in the middle of a field with no squad.

louder sounds for bullets, plus the new suppression effect changed will = pwnage

M.Warren wrote: A developer commented about having the "suppression effect" trigger while bullets fly overhead as you've already asked. I find this ironic as Project Reality doesn't have that distinctive "whizzing" sound while bullets pass overhead to begin with.

Im pretty sure that the bullet crack is still there.

One of my suggestions long ago was to have the "suppression effect" trigger based upon how many shots land near you in a certain timeframe. Such as 3 shots that land 4 meters near you within 1 second. If 3 shots are landing near you within 1 second, chances are is that you're taking serious concentrated fire from multiple sources or someone is firing deliberately to suppress you. Of course vehicle munitions are of such a high caliber should instantly suppress you.

Why should you get more supressed by vehicles? Even if its a pistol shooting at you, it should be pretty damn scary considering that it will kill you if it hits you.

Personally I hope it is removed one day. Because right now I love shooting at bunched up groups of infantry spraying silly at thier feet so they have no chance to see in order to fire back. This usually results in enabling myself to drop all 3 of them. And you know what? I must admit, It's not fair to them at all. So unless it can finally be fixed, do it. If not... Just trash it. Let's move on, shall we?

Why isnt it fair to them? They made a mistake, and should get punished for it

gazzthompson wrote:nope;


right, this is why the blur is here .

in real life;

fire ------- fear of death ------- suppressed.

now, in game there is no fear of death to force cover, so.....

ingame;

fire ---- visual impairment ------ suppressed.

the means is not realistic, the effect is

This pretty much sums it all up perfectly. Without the visual impairment, PR becomes a standard FPS game with two opposing players making a standoff with no use of cover, tactics or fire superiority. Prior to 7.5, if I came under fire my first goal would be to pinpoint the enemy location possibly while running around in circles or zig-zags (which with tracer rounds is rather easy). Then once found instantly drop to the ground in the prone position and earn an instant headshot.

Where as now, the visual impairment places me at a major disadvantage as I'll have serious trouble locating the hostile target, let alone accurately returning fire. So my first reaction becomes to seek some form of cover in order to eliminate the suppression effect, then proceed with locating the hostile.

_____

Now I still think suppression is underused thanks to deviation. This makes precise, accurate fire a lot more effective than suppression fire. See an opponent on a rooftop and dropping to the floor in prone position to headshot him is still much more preferred than suppressing him. If shots were not so accurate, the player or squad that takes initiative to suppress their opponents during a firefight may be at a greater advantage.

Firefights in general would last longer and become much more interesting as players attempt to maneuver for the best firing position.

^^ Totaly agreed. And like someone else said: What you see is not realistic but the effect is. Thats what I love about PR. Supressing fire actually works! I had a game where we used the frog leap tactic. 2 men ran out. Surpressed the enemy and gave us a chance to run past them and give our squad covering fire. This only works in Project Reality. I dont mind the few steps away from reality as this still needs to be a game!

But with inaccurate weapons, people wouldnt fear bullets as much coz theres little chanse that the guy will actually hit you.

cyberzomby wrote:^^ Totaly agreed. And like someone else said: What you see is not realistic but the effect is.

I agree as well....with this exception....

as I stated before.....the effect from one single round is far too exaggerated.
A single shot from a wannabe sniper (or any single shot from range) should not blur my vision for more than a couple seconds. Instead, it takes a very long time. Only a couple of seconds is needed for me to get the picture that I need to get down and take cover.

Suppressive fire is dfferent. It comes from multiple rounds passing by. Even if the effect was shortened, a barrage of rounds fired would still carry the same effect as currently in game.

RCMoonPie wrote:I agree as well....with this exception....

as I stated before.....the effect from one single round is far too exaggerated.
A single shot from a wannabe sniper (or any single shot from range) should not blur my vision for more than a couple seconds. Instead, it takes a very long time. Only a couple of seconds is needed for me to get the picture that I need to get down and take cover.

Suppressive fire is dfferent. It comes from multiple rounds passing by. Even if the effect was shortened, a barrage of rounds fired would still carry the same effect as currently in game.

any single round coming past you the first thing u would do IRL (i would hope) is seek cover. now with the effect that happens , like some 1 said pre .7 the first thing i did was when i heard a crack was think, ok were is this guy so i can kill him, now its find cover then find were the guy is

'[T wrote:Terranova7;731915']Now I still think suppression is underused thanks to deviation. This makes precise, accurate fire a lot more effective than suppression fire. If shots were not so accurate, the player or squad that takes initiative to suppress their opponents during a firefight may be at a greater advantage.

Firefights in general would last longer and become much more interesting as players attempt to maneuver for the best firing position.

Wow, I have been saying this since v.756 came out.

Plus the suppression effect right now is based on frame rate. So if you have a low fps, then the suppression effect last longer than those with higher-end machines with high fps.

without the effect, how ever inaccurate guns are, people will ALWAYS go for kill shots more than suppression.

gazzthompson wrote:without the effect, how ever inaccurate guns are, people will ALWAYS go for kill shots more than suppression.

True, but with the inaccuracy of the assault rifles, the bullets won't go exactly where they aim, and bullets landing around the intended target will cause them to be surpressed.

ReaperMAC wrote:True, but with the inaccuracy of the assault rifles, the bullets won't go exactly where they aim, and bullets landing around the intended target will cause them to be surpressed.

good point.