To say that this change is controversial is most likely the understatement of the year, because the community is split in 2 camps since suppression started to more than a visual effect in Battlefield 3, where it began to influence the gun mechanics of a suppressed player.
There are those who like it and those who do not like it - and we don't quite know if its split evenly or if one of these groups is larger. Judged by the noise, the group that is against this very idea of affecting the gun mechanics is the larger one. And I am part of that group that is against it.
In a nutshell, suppression is the same as the "disable" mechanic we have for vehicles. This means once you get disabled, it gets easier for the enemy to finish you off. "Easier", that is a key word in the development or "evolution" of the Battlefield Franchise even since it entered the Frostbite era. But just like with 3d spotting, there are players who argue that all these features make the game "harder".
Obviously I don't agree that suppression and 3d spotting make the game harder - what I think is this:
The basic function of suppression is that:
- your aim is not good enough to hit the player, so you don't reduce his heath -> to not have you fail completely, the game at least lets you damage his suppression state
- the enemy is outside the effective range of your gun, because you use the wrong one for such a distance and so can't damage his health -> to not have you fail completely, the game at least lets you damage his suppression state
- suppressed players are easier to finish off
Suppression was not added for realism, it was not added for more depth - this is why it is here.
What should suppression NOT be about?
- It must not put you out of control of your gun by applying arbitrary handicaps in form of increased spread, recoil ,ect. Yes you might have positioned yourself badly in a situation, but if your reactions are better, if your aim is better and if your gun control is better than the one of the shooter, then you should still be able to get out of this situation. If I win a gunfight just because suppression messed with the gunmechanics of the player that I was shooting, then I do not feel that I won for the right reason.
- It must not reward players for missing, or simply using the wrong gun for a firefight (engaging players outside the effective range of their gun)
What should suppression be about?
Suppression should be something that happens naturally , and not be enforced by changing how your gun works.
This means that if a team wants to hold or lock down a specific area, then they bring the right tool for that. A LMG with a 200 rounds mag and a bipod
So if the enemy enters this area, then the player(s) with the LMG will hold them down, they will suppress them. This means that there are so many bullets flying into the direction of these enemies as soon as they stick their head(s) out, that they don't want to do that because then they get murdered. This will force the enemy to re-position and change their tactics - and all that without messing with their gun mechanics
There should also be a visual effect to indicate that there is quite a big danger present - so that if i peek out, there is a high chance to die very quickly.
You could even discuss the possibility of narrowing the FoV of the player to create tunnel vision (not the Hardline way) to shift the focus of the "suppressed" player to what is infront of him. That would allow your team to flank these players at the location where you are pinning them down to. But they can still fight back as their guns work as they are supposed to.
What is the point of a first person shooter
Stupid question, right?
It's to aim, shoot, hit, and kill the enemy players
This is what you are meant to do, this is what your goal is (besides playing the objective) and that is what you have to get rewarded for.
As long a suppression affects gun mechanics it will reward players for missing, and choosing the wrong gun. It also creates an imbalance in the gunfights because in some cases the only reason for your to win the gunfight was because some random joe "suppressed" that player, by firing at him from outside the effective range of his gun.
This has nothing to do with killing a guy because he positioned himself badly, or because he had bad gun control. You only won the gunfight with 10 health left because of that random suppression thing to happen - without it, you would have not survived the engagement about the better player.
Without this random element called "suppression" you still have to:
- play as a team
- learn the map
- make the right tactical choices
- choose the right gun for every map/engagement/situation
- learn to control your gun
And when you win or loose a gunfight then you know that it was a fair fight (don't drag the netcode into this please ;-) ). Because there was no gamemechanic messing around with how the gun handles when you are under fire.
Since Battlefield 3 there have been a lot of changes to how suppression affects the gun mechanics. But non of these changes appear to make any of the involved parties (gamers and devs) happy.
So DICE (LA), please, the time has finally come to stop beating that dead horse "suppression". Just let the part of DIE that affects the gunmechanics. And stop trying to force and shoehorn this into the game.
The time and energy that is spent on that project would be better used on actually gun handling and creating diversity in how the different weapon types, and firing modes work.
This is what I want as a player who loves first person shooters.
How about you? What do you want?
Submitted April 11, 2015 at 05:22AM by BattleNonSense http://ift.tt/1CDPzCd
No comments:
Post a Comment