I feel like Suppression should be more prominent/ have a stronger effect

The title sais it all. In my opinion a hardcore game like Insurgency should have more suppression than what is currently in the game. I got shot by people who were able to peek WHILE I was still shooting at the exact spot they were hiding behind. The system as it is right now, reminds me more of the casual system in BF3 than a true hardcore game where MGs actually do something.

last edited by ronmose

MG's do already do something. Put a large volume of lead into a small area for a long time.

I'm sorry, but I personally disagree with your opinon on the surpression mechanic, and honestly find it's current incarnation quite refreshing. The visual effect is subtle without being easily missed, it's not an outright hinderance like INS2's blurring and it doesn't try to infer some level of "psychological simulation".

I've always firmly been of the opinion that surpression and supressive fire should be elements of a games design, but not it's mechanical design. The psychological effect of being in a high-fire location is easily accurately represented through audio cues, visual effects, and (less often on PC) controller feedback. If Insurgency is trying to take a "hardcore" "realistic" approach to gameplay, then the most authentic way to do so is mimic reality as much as possible. Few accounts from combat veterans involve measurable, visual effects. Hell there have been many reported incidents of people being wounded by shrapnel or fire, and not even noticing through all the noise and commotion of the firefight around them.

Ins2 and Sandstorm, don't have stamina bars. They rely on the sound of your characters own breathing and some mild sweat filters to do the job. For the stressful 'last man standing' scenario, or counterattacks, Ins2 relied simply on music cues - hardly totally authentic from a realism standpoint, but a fitting subtle way to emphasize what should be a stressful situation without relying to UI elements. Surpression is meant to mimic the fear or anxiety of being under a large volume of proximate fire. But both games already do such a great job of audio design and visual bullet impact effects (smoke, sparks etc) that an additional VFX is hardly nessacary. I already jump at gunshots or detonation sounds on the other side of the map in Sandstorm - trying to emulate such a complex idea as "I'm taking a lot of fire I'm gonna piss myself here in a minute, maybe I should leave but I'm shaking so much from fear I dunno if I can even crawl out of here." by way of some kind of filter or animation is just....too much oversimplification. In (my experience) so much oversimplification reduces a complex, immersive, stressful situation to a mere shadow of it's original self.

Insurgency's devs seem to understand this with the current subtle implementation of suppression, and I would urge them to focus on furthering this digetic (to use a cinematography term) expression of surpressive fire, rather than going the common, more acrcadey equivalent of having a narrator shake your character and put vaseline over your screen screaming in your ear "YOU ARE BEING SHOT AT DO YOU FEEL SCARED YET?"

last edited by 11.11.11

I have played Ins2 for more than 1000 hours now, and I've seen many suppression effects, from BF series, red orchestra/rising storm 1&2, squad and arma 3. And I would say Ins2 was my favourite suppression, with squad coming second. When you are suppressed in Ins2, you immediately notice it. Not that you are being suppressed, but it will make you jump and fear. I actually duck into cover, not because the game is telling me to, but it MAKES ME feel that I need to, With Sand storm however, I never get the same effect. I usually don't even notice getting shot sometimes, just because there is so little effect going on. I think currently, there is no reason to suppress your enemies, since it does nothing to them, but give away your position. I think the last game has it pretty spot on, and I'd personally love it to come back with its full glory.

No issues with Sandstorm at all. Love it as is. No issues with INS2, love it as is. If you play the MG right, its very effective. If you don't, it's not. It is a support weapon, blast a room with about 50 rounds before your team goes in, you will find people still unable to fight back effectively. I do LOL each time i see a M249 sniper, way back with the largest magnification he can get firing one bullet at a time. Please don't do this. You would help your team more if you held an anchor at the bottom of the lake.

@rifrafjonesy this doesn't have a lot to do with my original post? People are unable to fight back? I have never seen that in this game. It seems to me that suppression doesn't do anything. Why not just remove the effects? It wouldn't make any difference.

@11-11-11 I respect your opinion. People just have different tastes I guess. To me being suppressed in Sandstorm doesn't do anything. I shoot back and kill the guy, often without problems at all since the weapon handling is exactly the same. Also in my opinion suppression should be an "outright hinderance" as you named it, that's the whole point of it. I liked RO2s system.
I don't care if it's not like that in Real Life, you don't sit infront of a computer in a firefight. In my opinion a game needs prominent suppression visual effect and penalties to weapon handling, otherwise it just wont work.
Sure, I won't peek out a window where an MG is shooting at, (although that happened to me more than a few times) but the second he stops shooting I pop out and shoot him before he can move. And that shouldn't happen.

@ronmose See I totally understand people having different preferences in gameplay mechanisms and visual effects. But that last line: "but the second he stops shooting I pop out and shoot him before he can move. And that shouldn't happen." I take umbridge with.

There isn't anything (other than fear or covering fire) stopping someone poking their head out and taking potshots at an MG crew that's reloading IRL. I feel the same should be true in Sandstorm. Suppression effects while under fire is one thing, and it's intensity is something I can understand debating. But accurate, threatening return fire after an MG stops? That......has to be viable...otherwise suppression effectively becomes a stunlock for whoever initiates it.

I still maintain. Surpression should be part of gameplay strategy and tactics. Not a coded mechanic that affects the mechanics of weapon handling or removes player agency.

On another note. Why is it we see the suppression VFX while sliding? Is it meant to imitate some sort of adrenaline rush? Or is it just a bug.

last edited by 11.11.11

@11-11-11 I know it's not like that in Real Life. I appreciate Sandstorms Realism, but I also know that the suppression mechanics in RO2 and RS2 made the games so much better and those game were also fairly realistic.
I see your point though.
There's a big enough dicussion about suppression going on in other games. Let's just agree to disagree and let the devs decide. 🙂

last edited by ronmose

@ronmose said in I feel like Suppression should be more prominent/ have a stronger effect:

@rifrafjonesy this doesn't have a lot to do with my original post? People are unable to fight back? I have never seen that in this game. It seems to me that suppression doesn't do anything. Why not just remove the effects? It wouldn't make any difference.

Not true. More weapon sway and vision blur, from suppression, makes you less effective at hitting a target. That is absolutely in this game. Just used it with the SAW before logging off. Works much like a flash does.

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.