A suppression mechanic can work better instead of flinch. Like getting near a artillery strike but no damage your gun would just move around.
1 Like
“role play game” is not real, nor natural
Unless you are living in Chernobyl, then I guess these mutations might be natural for you.
Well in most cases, after getting shot, you either die, or end up in a hospital and get a honorable discharge from the military. VERY VERY rarely would one go back into combat after experiencing a shot to the body, aka the shots that are relevant to flinching.
Last time I checked lord of the rings was not an historic event and it was pure fiction. In fiction, something called “plot armor” exists. People are simply not allowed to die and therefore will not die until they have served their purpose in the story. He could have taken over a 100 arrows and still not die because he didn’t say his lines yet.
Sure, arm shots can disable a shooter, but those would not cause your head/view to flinch, only your gun. But that’s not how it is currently implemented. Even if you shoot someone in the foot, they currently flinch as if it was their shoulder. That at the very least needs to get changed.
Except you cant cover the entire building, and also defenders can stop whole groups of attackers with this mechanic as well.
Agreed
No. It mainly benefits experienced players as they spot earlier and shoot more accurately.
Yup. Defenders cant cover every angle and it’s pretty easy to know where they are and get the drop on them.
Agreed
Most wrong argument I could ever hear to be honest. No weapon should EVER be designed to be OP in a videogame unless the developers plan to ask $50 from the players to let them play the game to then let the game die within a year. Oh wait… darkflow asked for $50
Or just rework them into something that has drawbacks. Like armor/backpacks! Give players the ability to see what kinda “perks” they are fighting against, give more customization, and visual variety.
They do be thicc do 
No. You paid for early access into a beta game that is subject to change at any time. According to the ToS you are not elligible for a refund.
unless
you can sue them for false advertisement, aka consumer fraud, for advertising the game as realistic, but having health perks.
But after a few months, all the older players will have full squads of said five star units with said best perks, there’s nothing preventing them from doing so. So that argument does not work.
Well, judging by queue times and the average ammount of bots on the Russian team, they sure are doing a horrible job at it.
But most players realise it will take 40h+ PER SOLDIER to get them maxed out and simply wont bother and go play something else instead.
Not very much fun to play a game where enemies kill you in one shot but you need two.
Imagine owning those as a new player
And after open beta hits? no more wipes - The “system” sucks.
Gee I wonder where Stalin’s uber squads were during WW2 because I think he sure would have enjoyed soldiers that kept charging after a bullet. Guess those all died at the battle for the osowiec fortress (respect those guys immensely btw)
That’s now how stuff works. Gaming is for fun, not for work. Enjoyment should be your reward, not some OP shit that allows you to stomp on everyone else because they didn’t “work” enough in something that is supposed to be entertainment.
I guess there must be a bug that perks stay applied onto a gun when picked up then, as I never had issues with using the PPK when picking it up on a random soldier.
Yet here there is not.
Not for new players facing the hordes of premium squads, at least.
Then please explain why so many people have 10.000+ hours in TF2, a game where stock weapons are best weapons. Fun is what keeps the players. Not progression. Especially not vertical progression where everyone gets thrown toghetter no matter how high they got up into the progression ladder.
Except based on rough player counts, the game is nowhere near as popular as HLL or PS. And closed beta has nothing to do with that as atm it’s about as expensive as those games are to get into. Sure advertisements could have something to do with it, but player retention is definitely an issue.
Sure they can. If 5 people are in favor and 3 against, go for the change. I see more people hating that loving here.
You mean it is ready to die within a year?
Aka suffer. But why would I if I could… just… play something else?
Please, give honest answer and dont say “then just do so”.
Maybe because it is not fun for the majority of players, and when you take the fun out of a game, it is no longer a game as games are for entertainment?
But it would do so with nothing more than experience. Map knowledge, knowing how to move smoothly, knowing where to aim to get the most damage (in Enlisted and CURSED TOAD, this is the neck, not head), etc. You know, your usual skill-based shooter systems.
This
Pretty sure we do agree on certain stuff like PPDs needing to be a bit better, or the Pz3B needing to get removed. But those are seperate topics for another time.
Removal of perks doesnt have to mean it becomes a regular shooter. It could easily be replaced with something that has drawbacks.
Then you dont even need to hit the guy to stunlock them, can supress the whole squad while shooting them one at a time.
Pretty much simple - this is a shooter with progression, and every progression gives benefits, its the main purpose of progression and the main motivation to go through and suffer - to get better and let others suffer. This is how games based on progression are made.
Saying “Not very much fun to play a game where enemies kill you in one shot but you need two” you only prove that you dont want to play with any kind of progression, its completely your decision, no one took this option from you.
You asking me what exactly should force you change your mind and actually accept game rules? Nothing. The game is just not for you. I’ve told that couple times and i believe its true. Its not like its good or bad, its just not kind of games you like.
Its up to devs to decide if they want to keep going with their initial idea or maybe listen to people who completely dont like the system and remake it hardly.
I myself can only repeat - current play test of normandy is completely borring thing. While playing a match its definitely fun, of course, its same game, its fair, its competitive, but after 2-3 battles im completely loosing any motivation to keep playing, its becomes borring and feels like waste of time. Make this to the ‘core game’ and the game will not even get a chance to grow and get popular.
2 Likes
Stunlock squads? What game are you playing?
Enlisted.
It also helps to not be bad at the game.
Suppression, because automatic weapons need a buff!
There’s a moba called enlisted?
If you don’t play the game, refrain from replying.
This nerd with all numbers for a name stun locks squads in the fps called enlisted?
What im saying is that smgs should not be stun locking other players only machine guns and light machine guns should stun lock
Can you guys post a stun lock video for me? What’s it look like when this super smg stun lock wtf pwns you?
im not take video for random on internet
if you have game you can easy replicate
when i shoot enemy with PPD or any smg really at range where damage very little
with many hits i can see enemy aim spaz out because the jerk is so major
I cant even replicate what you’re saying.
If this factually correct argument is the most wrong you’ve ever heard, I wonder how sheltered you must have been until today. But quite honestly, what else do you expect in a game where realism is the goal ? For Bolt action to be just as viable in close combat as smg’s ? That’s neither realistic, nor makes any sense whatsoever.
EDIT: Also, those Perks are not mutations, they’re simply how the game models the differences in physical, Mental and professional capability between the soldiers. How is that not clear or logical to you ?
-
Less flinch is appropriate for hardened combat veterans who are experiencing an adrenaline rush right now and really feel like killing people and contrasts them against new recruits who are really not used to this entire war thing and would prefer to run at the first sign of trouble anyways.
-
More health from med kits is appropriate for medics and other soldiers who actually received first aid training as they will be able to actually make efficient use of the contents of the med kit by correctly applying tourniquets, sealing and cleaning wounds etc., whereas someone who isn’t trained perhaps barely understands how to wrap a bandage around a wound.
-
All those traits about faster movement or more endurance are just a logical consequence of someone performing hard physical tasks all day, as you oftenly would as a soldier during training and deployment. The same goes for increased carrying capacity.
And you can do this for every single perk in the game, and most of them make perfect sense if you consider that humans usually aren’t clones and should as such not all have the exact same characteristics. I honestly do not understand your issue with the Perk system.
3 Likes
Thank you. These are the same folks who turn potentially great hardcore shooters ,ahem, authentic shooters…into yet another arcadey bs game .
Let’s just hope the devs stick to their guns ( no pun inteded) and keep this game semi realistic.
2 Likes
I dont wont to discuss over and over again pretty the same topic. Looks like everybody here already say a lot about their own vision. I prefer discuss here the topic - flinch, not anything else.
But only for you, if you ask, lets go.
5 stars premiums - they can be upgradeble as anybody else. And doesnt have stats more then simple 5 stars unit. This will save newbies in the very beggining and gives to premiums equal rights compare to “mined” 5 stars units.
Their guns needs to be upgradeble as any else weapon. But it can be done only by special premium lootboxes. It helps newbies to got their smg faster then prems got fully upgade. Once all 4 guns fully upgraded - premium lootbox are forbidden.
Health perks. Mostly it feels ok. But i think - helth + vertical recoil + horizontal recoil = a little bit to much. So my vision is - give only one “VIP” perk be affordable. It can gives advantage to make different builds - for assaulters, snipers, engineers, rifleman etc. We need more perks for different soldiers. And it will make gameplay much more variable. After all that been sad i see only one big problem - two bolt shots 5 stars guys. SO we need a perk for a rifleman which gives more damage via bolt rifle. After you gain it you will shot 5 stars healthy guy by one shot. Bingo!
1 Like
not bingo russian rifles deals 15 damage so they can one shot german premiums if i am not wrong! also what perk will increase bullet damage …RAGE PERK- With this perk the shots delivered by the soldier will do 35% more damage …yes add more fantasy elements in the game pls
What correct facts? you are giving inconclusive “facts” at best, lies at worst.
You do not see people running around with LMGs these days, so why would you see them during WW2, where the LMGs were even heaver? Heavier to the point they required a CREW of TWO to CARRY around with the spare barrels and whatnot? They should be support weapons, not designed “to be overpowered”. They never were. They were designed to provide a high rate of fire, heavier caliber (than SMGs) fire platform that could be setup stationarily on a mount (bipod, tripod, or vehicle).
I expect bolt action rifles to oneshot enemies as they would in real life.
I expect machine guns to have insane recoil and weight and bult as they would in real life, leading to them only being usable with bipods and thus making them only usable when stationary, balancing them that way.
Bolt actions, in real life, would be just as powerful as an LMG and more powerful than an SMG. Note im saying powerful here and not practical. If you hit the first shot, practicality does not matter. If you die before you can shoot back, having higher rate of fire does not help you at all. Meanwhile, bolt action rifles are much lighter than machine guns, and have a more powerful round that SMGs. So they could totally be usable even at close quarters if used correctly. But yes, that is much more difficult than swinging an SMG, as SMGs are more practical in those situations. LMGs though, are not practical in close quarters at all due to their weight.
Physical generally worsens during combat because rations aren’t exaclty ideal food.
Mental also worsens, because trauma.
“Professional” would be the only one - but that is already “modelled” enough through player skill and the fact AI gets better at higher stars.
Nope. Because of the adrenaline they would be less likely to go down entirely on a hit, or recover faster. Just because you are hyped up doesn’t mean you get to ignore physics and just ignore a bullet with a considerable weight hitting you at near speed of sound.
But we don’t have any medics ingame
This part I can somewhat get behind, but that would also mean that soldiers that did not receive such training would not be carrying these medpacks (beyond maybe a single small bandage or something) as those would be carried by a dedicated combat medic. But they do carry them, and they do seem to know how to use the medkits just fine.
Also, correctly applying would take more time, so that could provide an excellent balance factor: They heal more, but take longer to apply.
Indeed, that is why I never complained about those. Actually, those could probably be better as the diffrence between a scout with good stamina and lightweight gear and a normal soldier is more than the 15% that is currently offered. It just shows that the developers, for whatever reason, value movement speed more than being able to tank a second rifle shot (from unupgraded rifles, this doubles your effective health pool.), which is why I want to see the vitality perk be nerfed to be at most as effective as these perks, but preferrably less.
They already dont. Each class already has diffrent “perks” that are actually balanced
- mobility but - stability, etc.
I have no issues with authenticity. I have issues with stuff that clearly is not realistic being implemented and people defending it as if it was.
This would be a decent fix, but it still doesn’t feel quite right for me.
That could be one solution, but I would prefer there to be a downside to them.
There are plenty of ways to do so without having everything be strict upgrades, though. As then there is a clear defined meta: take the best perk, then the second best, etc. If the vitality perk made it so your sprint would run out twice as fast or regenerated half as quickly, people would have to consider what they would want to prioritize, leading to greater customization, rather than everyone picking health.
Why not reduce base health of soldiers? And make bolt action rifles all deal 14-16 damage?
Not consistently. But most bolt actions deal 13-14 damage so Germany as a nation gets shafted and all Soviet new players who don’t have those 15 damage guns yet are also shafted.
Well, the only way to not see people running around with LMG’s today is if you’ve never served in the armed forces and make an effort out of ignoring the coverage of military conflicts on the news. Both of these guys for example seem to have a habit of running around with their LMG’s 
In fact, almost every Infantry squad of every army existing today will require its Machine gunner to run around with their Squad mates all the time, since fire support is very important and stuff. So, again, I don’t understand what your issue is. Not to mention that I was never talking about LMG’s, but SMG’s.
/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/S3HDFA5AH5F7TB427LYVQLQDWU.jpg)
I really don’t get that part in particular. Soldiers running around with LMG’s today is one of the most common things you’ll see in the infantry, right after people being just generally armed and wearing uniform. I guess you just never served and as such don’t have any first hand experience with any of this.
But you don’t even have to go to today to see soldiers running around with LMG’s. Because it’s actually wrong that all LMG’s required a crew of two to operate. Quite a few were specifically developed to be able to be operated by a single person, and were used and carried in the same way modern LMG’s are.
The best example for this is the Bren LMG in British service.
As you can see, both of these guys are perfectly capable of carrying and operating their LMG without the help of a second assistant gunner. And the same is true for many other LMG’s of the war, such as the Madsen, the FM 24/29, the BAR (Which technically counts as an LMG), And of course the Type 96, which was even made with a mount for a bayonet if the operator felt like out right charging an enemy position with his LMG.
This is a picture of an Australian with a captured Japanese Type 99 with bayonet attached.
As with most of the points you’re making, I feel that this one in particular comes from a position of just being willfully uninformed or unfortunately misinformed. The only major nation I know of during the second world war which overwhelmingly required their LMG gunners to have an assistant gunner because of the use of belts was germany. And even they began to issue drums for their light Machine guns later on.
But I feel that this tangent about LMG’s has been long enough by now, and I should perhaps address your less easily debunked misconceptions.
Concerning SMG’s (which, again, were what I was actually talking about,), they are less powerful than rifles, that’s true. But the power difference between SMG’s and Bolt action rifles of the time did not actually matter all that much, as both of these weapons on average had enough power to kill a target in a single shot.
Concerning the perks, physics is something you actually get to ‘ignore’ with pain resistance. Well, sort of. Because by that I don’t mean that you get to ignore newtons Laws, but rather that flinching is usually a reaction to pain, I.e. muscles giving in to something that hurts and trying to move your Body out of the way. If that pain is not registered due to an adrenaline rush, that reaction to it does of course not occur. While rations are not always Ideal food and Traumas do happen, the body is also able to adjust to some degree to these conditions and become more efficient and more physically capable with less input as body fat decreases and muscle mass increases due to constant use of all calories entering the system. The mind is also able to adjust, and while Traumas do indeed happen, another thing that happens just as often is for the soldier in question desensitize, and become a much more capable and unafraid killer. This too will eventually usually transform into a Trauma, but only after deployment. I’m generally operating under the preconceived notion here that since passive Drawbacks are almost never modeled in games, Mental trauma won’t be either
Most full caliber rifle bullets used during this period were also so highly powered that they would just pass through a body without doing much damage to the tissue around their initial path through the body. They were so fast and powerful that they wouldn’t deliver their energy into the body, but use it to just continue flying out of the other side. An exception to this are SMG bullets, which would usually embed themselves in the body and as such translate all their energy into it. As far as killing goes, there is no difference. As far as flinching goes, SMG’s inflicting it on their targets better and as such being more powerful and practically overpowered in urban combat is accurate the desired effect.
finally, we should acknowledge that we practically do have medics in the game. The medic is whomever of your soldiers you specialize in healing others and give most of your med kits to. The Perk also represents being trained in first aid as far as I’m concerned, and that too is only logical. A dedicated medic class would of course be nice, especially if they could revive killed quad mates, but as far as the game currently goes, it makes perfect sense for soldiers to have limited medical equipment on them, and have different proficiencies in healing each other.
In conclusion, I’d like to ask you to please inform yourself because you respond to this post. If I’ll also have to educate you while we’re discussing, we won’t get anywhere. And that’s not helpful, now is it ?
i not know what thread have devolve in to
but is not about issue at hand, which is flinch when shot
the issue with flinch is that it is not a fun mechanic. the agency the player has is taken away from them by another player. valve figured out that this was bad in tf2 and other games
the reason for this is when control is taken away from you, you dont want to play anymore
this mostly only applies to pistols and smgs as
- LMGs and rifles mostly 1 hit to down/kill
- SMGs also have heavy damage drop off at range (can put more than 6 rounds into a guy past certain distance)
- pistols are fairly minor in gameplay terms and do so little damage at so little range they are irrelevent
ok so now knowing that this applies almost wholly to SMGs we can look at the facts and scenarios surrounding the flinch mechanic
-
flinch jerks your entire view around massively and randomly - you cannot prepare for a flinch
1a. generally when being shot at you are either aware of the enemy firing upon you (infront of you, being engaged by you) in which case the deciding factor will be ‘how much flinch is inflicted on me’ and thus leaves the combat up to a random factor. the second scenario is you are caught off guard. in this case, flinch merely makes your death more painful as your view is jerked around before you die. it also removes the ability to fight back effectively as now not only are you in a bad position but you are also unable to even attain your bearings to fight back
1b. Another scenario is defending a point. In this case, the range is so short and the time to kill is so low that a single moment of flinch can completely ruin EITHER attackers or defenders (because let’s be honest, if you’ve gotten your whole squad into a point they’re probably being gunned down while you switch soldiers). Why have flinch if the battle is already decided by who gets rounds on target first? -
flinch is not affected by any soldier perks - i have premium squad and they are jerked around just as much as anyone else
2a. flinch should NOT be affected by any soldier perks - this will just make premium/oldtime players much more powerful than new players and will quickly erase players -
there are better ways to have a ‘penalty’ to getting hit aside from the fact you are losing health. counter-strike forces the player to walk slower when taking damage but otherwise they can still fight back. For me, I believe the only thing that should hinder me is the fact I am losing health. For an example (please do not dwell on tiny points) suppression mechanics in games are bad because instead of ‘bullet are come at me if i go out i die’ it becomes ‘bullets are flying at me and my screen is going blurry and gun is bobbing around and i am effectively useless until the suppression effect has faded’
-
realism must be tempered with balance and game playability. it may be realistic to be jerked around when getting shot, but is it fun? it may be fun for you when you are gunning down people with an smg watching them spaz out, but when it happens to you i betcha you would rather not getting flinched. the russian side has the ppd with a drum, which is a fairly low damage, high firerate, short ranged weapon. I have been able to burst at someone and watch them spaz about as they were shot - i bet it wasnt very fun for them, especially with how long it took for them to finally die!
In conclusion, despite being a semi-realistic game, the flinch mechanic is anti-fun and fights are already won by who can get a shot on target first so there is no reason to add additional penalties. With or without the flinch mechanic, I can still wipe squads with an SMG, rifle, or LMG on a level 1 or level 5 soldier; It is just annoying now to me and others when my view is thrown about before dying instead of how it was before, which was getting shot and dying. It has no place in this game or any game.
3 Likes