Jump to content

Photo

Suppression Bug

suppression bug

  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#21
ku_mag_99

ku_mag_99
  • 111 posts

i've been following this whole suppression "bug" issue, and from how i see it, realism kills pvp. - or so it seems for the raiders

 

now, i'm no seasoned raider. in fact, i just did my first three raids last week with an alt. but i guess, that's the reason why i see this issue, which you raiders address as a "bug", to be in fact, logical. seeing as you guys have gone accustomed to killing survivors when suppressed, this fix has turned into a "bug" for you guys - at least, that's how it seems to me. 

 

if a guy is under fire and is behind cover, though he wouldn't return fire (maybe he would try but that's suicide), he'll instead hide behind cover (in this case, a barricade) lest he might get hit, and thus, will not get hit. the only way for one to be felled by the other is to wait for the guy to pop up then shoot. though with the game mechanics, i don't think that's possible unlike in games like Counter Strike. i do hear about this "wait-for-the-reload-animation-to-shoot-them" trick but from what i see, it doesn't work too, huh?

 

bottom line: suppression as it is now makes sense but seems to be problematic for seasoned raiders. 

my two cents right there.

 


  • 0

#22
DJfriede

DJfriede
  • 888 posts

i've been following this whole suppression "bug" issue, and from how i see it, realism kills pvp. - or so it seems for the raiders

 

now, i'm no seasoned raider. in fact, i just did my first three raids last week with an alt. but i guess, that's the reason why i see this issue, which you raiders address as a "bug", to be in fact, logical. seeing as you guys have gone accustomed to killing survivors when suppressed, this fix has turned into a "bug" for you guys - at least, that's how it seems to me. 

 

if a guy is under fire and is behind cover, though he wouldn't return fire (maybe he would try but that's suicide), he'll instead hide behind cover (in this case, a barricade) lest he might get hit, and thus, will not get hit. the only way for one to be felled by the other is to wait for the guy to pop up then shoot. though with the game mechanics, i don't think that's possible unlike in games like Counter Strike. i do hear about this "wait-for-the-reload-animation-to-shoot-them" trick but from what i see, it doesn't work too, huh?

 

bottom line: suppression as it is now makes sense but seems to be problematic for seasoned raiders. 

my two cents right there.

 

Like I said before: It might be the realistic option. But I'm certain it will either make some compound layouts almost unraidable or at least frustrate most raiders to the point where they won't bother raiding anymore. Essential parts of the game are built around raiding (all the valuable equipment in trade; clan wars etc.). Make the raiding part more frustration than fun and you will lose the point of playing a game: To have fun.


  • 0

#23
Hezm

Hezm
  • 432 posts

I really understand the point of defender hiding behind the barricade and becoming unhittable. That makes perfect sense.

No matter if that rule is left in game or not it should be fixed. At the moment defender doesn't return fire after got suppreessed during reload. Your guys shoot this one defender and he's just standing there doing nothing. Only way i have noticed i can get around that ''bug'' is that i try to run my survivor to this enemys effective range.

Or is there another point that i haven't taken in count? I think after this situation AI or whatever should ''zero'' everything and start acting normally (i.e. returning fire when shot at) right?

 

DJFriede tried to describe this bug like this:

What is most likely to happen after that is even nastier: The defender won't react to your gunfire anymore, ergo won't shoot back while staying unhittable. You need to move a different fighter closer in to provide the defender with a new target to shoot at. It's not until the defender wakes up from this inactive state that he will take damage again.


Edited by Hezm, 17 November 2013 - 11:27 PM.

  • 0

#24
vyking

vyking
  • 216 posts

by far this is the most frustrating bug i come across, and encounter it repeatedly.  as for the people saying this is realism? seriously sandbags dont stop infinite rounds. and shotguns dont do 1/20th the damage of pistols.   realism is one thing but gameplay is another


Edited by vyking, 26 November 2013 - 05:19 AM.

  • 0

#25
Ayshford

Ayshford
  • 339 posts

Whats the word on this con? do you need more videos/info?

 

Also, ppl talking about realism/possablity of suppressed survivors being invunerable... If this was implemented it would have to apply to both attackers and defenders. If your attacking a compound you could make your tank invincible by letting him get suppressed in cover. Defenders become invincible when suppressed.  All this results in what? PVP becomes a total mess....


  • 0

#26
ku_mag_99

ku_mag_99
  • 111 posts

i just saw an episode of Burn Notice the other day. it started with the main protagonist talking bout knowing what kind of mission you're being sent to without being given the details just by looking at what weapons and gear you have been given. he said something about the type of gun and ammo you have determines whether your mission will be to kill, defend or support, and that's when it dawned on me:

 

the point of suppression is not to kill, but rather to, well, suppress. 

 

my point with this is, that you suppress the enemy, move in your other guys and those other guys finish the job, not the guy suppressing.

 

hopefully, this has given some sort of new insight on suppression. but of course, that's assuming were on the same page. i'm not sure bout these "bugs" you guys been encountering now, as i myself haven't witnessed it for myself. 

 

if the problem you guys are having is, say, player 1(p1) suppresses enemy 1(e1), then you move in player 2(p2) (who may or may not be melee) to kill e1  but can't even deal a single hit no matter what even if you've tried switching to all possible attack angles, and even with melee, then i guess that is a bug.

 


  • 0

#27
DJfriede

DJfriede
  • 888 posts

 but can't even deal a single hit no matter what even if you've tried switching to all possible attack angles, and even with melee, then i guess that is a bug.

 

That is the worst case. And it does happen occasionally, even if I move other survivors completely around the remaing suppressed defender: He cannot be hit, neither by bullet or melee.

 

But even if it were possible to shoot suppressed defenders from the back there are layouts where it isn't feasible to get around defenders, for example inside layouts (pillow forts) with defenders in all corners. Raiding these layouts within 8 minutes would be almost impossible if invulnerability becomes the norm.


  • 0

#28
Ayshford

Ayshford
  • 339 posts

the suppression bug also occurs when the defender has no cover. As far as i can tell having cover doesnt have anything to do with the reload/suppression bug, it is really a bug and not a feature.


  • 1

#29
oldgamster

oldgamster
  • 1,018 posts

My .02 cents.

 

the questions that come to mind after having read these suppression issues over the past days is:

 

1. what material are these barricades made from? i have noted they are heavy in cloth. is that taking into account there is that much Kevlar and other bullet proofing materials found around to build these kinds of barricades that are bullet proof?

 

2. even now there are what is called cop killers. armor piercing rounds for rifles and hand guns. there has to be a chance of barricade penetration. these are after all build in a dilapidated warehouse with the crudest of equipment.

 

3. have explosive rounds been considered? they are available today. i might have found some. but more to the point of explosiveness is the impact of these bullets could cause fragmentation of the substructure.

 

these are just the top things off my head and i am sure more both ways can be brought into play. i guess the bottom line is there is nowhere safe in a gun fight except to be in a different town, city, state or country. if you're in the fight nothing man made is perfect and flawless. everyone has a chance to be injured or killed.

 

like i said my two pennies. i play. i raid. i've been raided and had my rear handed to me on a paper plate... someone pass the salt and pepper please!


  • 0

#30
Zingman

Zingman
  • 3,179 posts

1) Barricades use a lot of cloth because they're made of sandbags.

 

2 & 3) We're not using armor piercing or explosive rounds.  Even the HHP wouldn't go through metal plates on a wood frame backed by several layers of sandbags.


  • 0

#31
oldgamster

oldgamster
  • 1,018 posts

1) Barricades use a lot of cloth because they're made of sandbags.

 

2 & 3) We're not using armor piercing or explosive rounds.  Even the HHP wouldn't go through metal plates on a wood frame backed by several layers of sandbags.

 

ok. i can buy that. I'm guessing i let the graphic lead me to think they were timbers tied together with some .18 ga. corrugated tin tacked in place. if we're talking 4 or 5 aught or greater then i can see that. half inch mild steel has to be hardened (slow heated then oil quenched) to be able to resist multiple 30-06 shots. and I know i tend to throw a lot of reality in a fantasy apoc game. again the closer to real you get it the more believable and immersive it is. just over look me.


  • 0

#32
Con

Con
  • 4,248 posts

So - we've spent a bit of time looking into this and the way that suppression is working now, is how it's worked from the start.

 

The thing is, it's "broken". It's always been broken. I'm trying to figure out a way to make it work without completely changing it from how it works now.

 

This is how it was intended to work:

 

- Suppressed survivors were never meant to be hit with incoming rounds from the front.

- Flanking suppressed survivors was the only option. 

- Any survivor ducking behind cover should be protected, unless being attacked from the side or rear.

 

The reason reloading survivors who're suppressed don't get hit is because they're "ducking" behind cover. The problem is caused by survivors who are suppressed while standing, the game thinks they're still standing, so they can be hit, which wasn't our intention.

 

It was always our intention for survivors who are behind barricades to be impervious to damage, unless they were being hit from the side or the rear.

 

So as I said, I realise that you guys have become accustom to the broken system, so I don't want to change how that works too dramatically.



#33
Ayshford

Ayshford
  • 339 posts

Thanks for the update con. 


  • 0

#34
DJfriede

DJfriede
  • 888 posts

Thanks for the update, Con. I guess it's the way to go not to make survivors invulnerable -- else some compound layouts would be very hard or almost impossible to beat.

 

What you should really look into, Con, is the second part of the suppression "bug":

 

Once the bug-afflicted (ouch, that mental picture...) defender gets out of suppression he won't react to the guys shooting at him. This is especially prevalent when using the so called tank tactic: Drawing fire with attackers way out of range and moving one fighter closer in to make the kill. If the defender managed to get one shot at the close range fighter BEFORE he gets suppressed he will from that on 1. ONLY react to that particular fighter and 2. will draw no damage whatsoever from any ranged attack. And it doesn't matter if that defender is still under suppression or not -- he's in zombie mode: no reaction, no damage taken. You could walk your other guys in front of him, he won't react. You need to "re-trigger" the bugged defender with the close range fighter to make him become hittable again.


  • 0

#35
Con

Con
  • 4,248 posts

Thanks for the update, Con. I guess it's the way to go not to make survivors invulnerable -- else some compound layouts would be very hard or almost impossible to beat.

 

What you should really look into, Con, is the second part of the suppression "bug":

 

Once the bug-afflicted (ouch, that mental picture...) defender gets out of suppression he won't react to the guys shooting at him. This is especially prevalent when using the so called tank tactic: Drawing fire with attackers way out of range and moving one fighter closer in to make the kill. If the defender managed to get one shot at the close range fighter BEFORE he gets suppressed he will from that on 1. ONLY react to that particular fighter and 2. will draw no damage whatsoever from any ranged attack. And it doesn't matter if that defender is still under suppression or not -- he's in zombie mode: no reaction, no damage taken. You could walk your other guys in front of him, he won't react. You need to "re-trigger" the bugged defender with the close range fighter to make him become hittable again.

 

Yeah, that's another issue I've managed to replicate. Steve will be looking at it soon, he's just finishing up the store re-work. Should be an easy fix to force a target evaluation more often.



#36
DJfriede

DJfriede
  • 888 posts

Yeah, that's another issue I've managed to replicate. Steve will be looking at it soon, he's just finishing up the store re-work. Should be an easy fix to force a target evaluation more often.

 

Cool, thanks. :)


  • 0

#37
Cherry

Cherry
  • 792 posts

I believe there is a new bug now.

 

I spawned out of defenders range, started shooting with 3 at a man in a watchtower.

He got suppressed but 9 returned fire - all fine so far.

Then I moved my recon closer to kill 3 enemies and moved him back to the group, removed all members, so nobody of mine was shooting anymore.

I was really confused because all defenders out of range continued shooting at my men, they reloaded and started shooting again.

Well, I think this behavior is not intended.

 

Maybe you like to take a look at this issue :)


Edited by Cherry, 03 December 2013 - 11:03 AM.

  • 0

#38
Zingman

Zingman
  • 3,179 posts

Seems to me that:

 

High cover = 80% damage reduction

 

Medium cover = 60% damage reduction

 

Low cover =  40% damage reduction

 

Might be a good balance between the existing situation and how the game was intended to work.

 

 

Sure with that, a projectile vest will push it up to 100% resist, but with a projectile vest you're giving up a bonus to range, and with a decent pair of glasses you should be able to out range, supress, and flank like you're supposed to be doing.


  • 0

#39
Ayshford

Ayshford
  • 339 posts

Seems to me that:

 

High cover = 80% damage reduction

 

Medium cover = 60% damage reduction

 

Low cover =  40% damage reduction

 

Might be a good balance between the existing situation and how the game was intended to work.

 

 

Sure with that, a projectile vest will push it up to 100% resist, but with a projectile vest you're giving up a bonus to range, and with a decent pair of glasses you should be able to out range, supress, and flank like you're supposed to be doing.

 

With something along these lines it would be critical to revert back to not allowing barricades inside compounds. Many interior defenses would not allow for flanking and become unbeatable with out the use of LOTS of grenades/satchels. 


  • 0

#40
Zingman

Zingman
  • 3,179 posts

With something along these lines it would be critical to revert back to not allowing barricades inside compounds. Many interior defenses would not allow for flanking and become unbeatable with out the use of LOTS of grenades/satchels. 

 

Honestly, I don't have a problem with that.   The best raiders should not have a 100% success rate (excluding glitches/crashes) if all the defenders are home imho.

 

Of course, what defines a "success"?

 

All defenders downed?

 

All resources looted?

 

All structures knocked down?

 

All three?  or subset of the three? 

 

 

Yes a compound with an interior design should be close to nigh impregnable with all survivors home, at least as far as downing survivors is concerned.   But, a compound so designed leaves just about everything else exposed.   Take the exposed resources and run, or refresh to find an easier target, or yes, use a lot of grenades/charges to take the compound down -- that's what they're there for.   Grenades are not supposed to be minesweepers, which seems to be a popular use for them based on posts in this forum.

 

....

 

Based on the comments in this thread, it sounds like to me that Con designed raiding with one set of rules in his head, and has been using that set of rules to test raiding bugs/exploits, meanwhile the playerbase, who does not know the exact rules, but learns the game from playing it, has developed and used an entirely different set of rules.

 

In other words...

 

The playerbase, through experience know that if you keep shooting at a survivor that is supressed you will down them.  They, not knowing the "rules" accept this as "normal" behavior and their tactics are designed with this in mind.

 

Con on the other hand, knowing that survivors are supposed to be invulnerable from the front, sees no problem when survivors are invulnerable from the front, because that's working as intended within the "rules".  Likewise, since he knows the "rules" he's using tactics which take that into account when he's testing.

 

It's like Con has designed a chess game, but the playerbase has been playing checkers all along.


  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: suppression, bug