Seems more like the animation needs to be fixed rather than removing the support feature....
"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." — Jefferson Davis
Something has to be done, that's for sure. Getting killed by people who aren't looking at you while you're trying to line up a shot on the little bit of them that's exposed - something that would be tactically unwise if they were looking at you - is pretty annoying.
I too support “supported” What I do not support is the knee jerk, I say this is the problem so do as I say to fix it, attitude. I’ve seen it all too often, (not just on here) where the loudest voices get their way only to discover that the problems still exist.
The complaint here is; getting shot by an NME who was supported but not looking in the direction they fired.
The suggested fix is to remove “supported”. Well, ask the Dev’s to remove crouched and prone while their at it because those animations are also known to be wrong at times.
Don’t believe me? Ask Keebler to confirm. I was prone on the floor in Inner Hospital when I looked up and saw him on the 2nd floor. I quickly took him out with a head shot. He was like, “how’d you do that? You were looking down towards the desk.”
And before some one jumps in with, Oh that was because you had such a high ping that Keebler’s view was lagged... We were in the same room, hard wired into the network and both with pings under 10.
I don’t like that fog drifts thru walls, that gun barrels stick out of strange places and a dozen other things. The best I can do is to report things I think are wrong when I see them and hope they will fix them in due course.
Getting into programming myself it is beyond me how you can keep a feature in your code that isn't working properly. I either dedicate hours of work and nights in it or leave it for now and get back to it later but keeping it in... I don't know.
THIS RIGHT HERE. (underlined in the quote above)
Do you not see that depending on perspective and time line, "Leaving it in for now" can look like "Keeping it in?"
That's what happens when people assume.
Merely think of a priority list for a group of overworked programmers who can't get to that issue yet on the list....
There you have it.
______
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
As to Duke's post above on where player's are looking...we did do some private Open Beta testing with the prone issue. I can't remember the results, but I know we were worried about possible discrepancies.
______
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
I too support “supported” What I do not support is the knee jerk, I say this is the problem so do as I say to fix it, attitude. I’ve seen it all too often, (not just on here) where the loudest voices get their way only to discover that the problems still exist.
The complaint here is; getting shot by an NME who was supported but not looking in the direction they fired.
The suggested fix is to remove “supported”. Well, ask the Dev’s to remove crouched and prone while their at it because those animations are also known to be wrong at times.
Don’t believe me? Ask Keebler to confirm. I was prone on the floor in Inner Hospital when I looked up and saw him on the 2nd floor. I quickly took him out with a head shot. He was like, “how’d you do that? You were looking down towards the desk.”
And before some one jumps in with, Oh that was because you had such a high ping that Keebler’s view was lagged... We were in the same room, hard wired into the network and both with pings under 10.
I don’t like that fog drifts thru walls, that gun barrels stick out of strange places and a dozen other things. The best I can do is to report things I think are wrong when I see them and hope they will fix them in due course.
I miss the like button.
My original nick is -Ner0-
It's now banned after the
latest update.
Supported/hold breath are for the lame and equal cheap kills. At least with prone your mobility is so reduced the the other player has a chance to get an easy hs.
To be clear I want it removed and replaced by a bypod... which could be just one of a few attachments one could select..which has been discussed.. but nope, games perfect
To be clear I want it removed and replaced by a bypod... which could be just one of a few attachments one could select..which has been discussed.. but nope, games perfect
Supported position for reduced recoil in *limited positions specifically chosen by the map's designer for particular angles* is somehow bad, but being able to have reduced recoil nearly anywhere the player wants with a bipod system instead is somehow good? Yet you accuse other people of having no clue about game design?
Anyway, I can see it working with the attachment system Whiplash proposed a couple of times. Bipod would take time to mount and be stationary, no strafing as we have now.
Anyway, I can see it working with the attachment system Whiplash proposed a couple of times. Bipod would take time to mount and be stationary, no strafing as we have now.
You don't explain:
- why a bipod solves the rotation bug we already have with anchoring
- why low recoil with a bipod is better than low recoil with anchoring
- why creating a brand-new weapon attachment system is preferable to altering the anchoring system
- why time needed to mount with anchoring is inferior to time needed to deploy a bipod
They're fundamentally the same game mechanic with slightly different appearances. This wouldn't even require explanation if it weren't for nostalgia over AA2's system.
To be clear I want it removed and replaced by a bypod... which could be just one of a few attachments one could select..which has been discussed.. but nope, games perfect
Supported position for reduced recoil in *limited positions specifically chosen by the map's designer for particular angles* is somehow bad, but being able to have reduced recoil nearly anywhere the player wants with a bipod system instead is somehow good? Yet you accuse other people of having no clue about game design?
Anyway, I can see it working with the attachment system Whiplash proposed a couple of times. Bipod would take time to mount and be stationary, no strafing as we have now.
You don't explain:
- why a bipod solves the rotation bug we already have with anchoring
- why low recoil with a bipod is better than low recoil with anchoring
- why creating a brand-new weapon attachment system is preferable to altering the anchoring system
- why time needed to mount with anchoring is inferior to time needed to deploy a bipod
They're fundamentally the same game mechanic with slightly different appearances. This wouldn't even require explanation if it weren't for nostalgia over AA2's system.
1. Well, you are also assuming they are gonna fix supported position so why can't I assume they fix the rotation bug if it's essentially the same.
2. Low recoil with a bipod is better because if there are other attachments to choose from not everyone is gonna be able to mount.
3. Because I don't like the supported position (personal believe that proposed system would make the game better as there is more variety and map/tactic specific loadouts).
4. For epic realism.
I'm not familiar with AA2 system as I didn't play it but I like the idea. I would be fine with none of those as well but that's surely not up for discussion.
Anyway, I can see it working with the attachment system Whiplash proposed a couple of times. Bipod would take time to mount and be stationary, no strafing as we have now.
You don't explain:
- why a bipod solves the rotation bug we already have with anchoring
- why low recoil with a bipod is better than low recoil with anchoring
- why creating a brand-new weapon attachment system is preferable to altering the anchoring system
- why time needed to mount with anchoring is inferior to time needed to deploy a bipod
They're fundamentally the same game mechanic with slightly different appearances. This wouldn't even require explanation if it weren't for nostalgia over AA2's system.
1. Well, you are also assuming they are gonna fix supported position so why can't I assume they fix the rotation bug if it's essentially the same.
2. Low recoil with a bipod is better because if there are other attachments to choose from not everyone is gonna be able to mount.
3. Because I don't like the supported position (personal believe that proposed system would make the game better as there is more variety and map/tactic specific loadouts).
4. For epic realism.
I'm not familiar with AA2 system as I didn't play it but I like the idea. I would be fine with none of those as well but that's surely not up for discussion.
1 -- the dev cost for fixing a bug while introducing a new system is higher than just fixing the bug
2 -- these other attachments then are equivalent to buffing weapons in a system where you and others already complain about how easy they are
3 -- fair enough, but there's still the fundamental issue of differentiation in attachments and balance. If bipod allows the powerful supported positions that the forum experts think is so ridiculous and overpowered, what do the other attachments offer that is a compelling alternative without being imbalancing themselves?
4 -- ... k
Anyway, I can see it working with the attachment system Whiplash proposed a couple of times. Bipod would take time to mount and be stationary, no strafing as we have now.
You don't explain:
- why a bipod solves the rotation bug we already have with anchoring
- why low recoil with a bipod is better than low recoil with anchoring
- why creating a brand-new weapon attachment system is preferable to altering the anchoring system
- why time needed to mount with anchoring is inferior to time needed to deploy a bipod
They're fundamentally the same game mechanic with slightly different appearances. This wouldn't even require explanation if it weren't for nostalgia over AA2's system.
1. Well, you are also assuming they are gonna fix supported position so why can't I assume they fix the rotation bug if it's essentially the same.
2. Low recoil with a bipod is better because if there are other attachments to choose from not everyone is gonna be able to mount.
3. Because I don't like the supported position (personal believe that proposed system would make the game better as there is more variety and map/tactic specific loadouts).
4. For epic realism.
I'm not familiar with AA2 system as I didn't play it but I like the idea. I would be fine with none of those as well but that's surely not up for discussion.
1 -- the dev cost for fixing a bug while introducing a new system is higher than just fixing the bug
2 -- these other attachments then are equivalent to buffing weapons in a system where you and others already complain about how easy they are
3 -- fair enough, but there's still the fundamental issue of differentiation in attachments and balance. If bipod allows the powerful supported positions that the forum experts think is so ridiculous and overpowered, what do the other attachments offer that is a compelling alternative without being imbalancing themselves?
4 -- ... k
1. Still scratching my head why a programmer wouldn't comment out something he apprently can't fix (yet). Too much spaghetti code? Honestly wasn't thinking too much about what exactly is causing the bug so I wasn't assuming it'd be the same thing for bipod.
2. Yes, it would require weapon balancing and I also know they don't want to touch them anymore. If you ask me weapons as they are right now aren't balanced as well but maybe they are perfectly fine for the average public play.
3. Whiplash had some good suggestions even bringing the beloved M203 aka savior of the game back.
4. Original comment wasn't about balancing purposes but actually about the realism aspect that it takes some time to unfold.
because a bipod has no movement! or very minimal before you have to dismount and setup in another location (which takes time).. it would also be one of many attachments to chose from that quite honestly I only see being picked on long range out door maps.
I feel you already know this but want to argue for the sake of arguing ..
Just remove supported from the game. Guys that use it are easy kills. In a fire fight if your supported your commited 100% to shooting first and getting the kill. However, if you don't get the jump on a good player, they will kill you before you have time to react were as a non supported player has a better chance to react. And it's already been stated but the issue of being shot at from someone's back or shoulder is to great to ignore. Disable supported until it's fixed or just remove it from the game entirely. AAPG will not miss it.
Comments
"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." — Jefferson Davis
The complaint here is; getting shot by an NME who was supported but not looking in the direction they fired.
The suggested fix is to remove “supported”. Well, ask the Dev’s to remove crouched and prone while their at it because those animations are also known to be wrong at times.
Don’t believe me? Ask Keebler to confirm. I was prone on the floor in Inner Hospital when I looked up and saw him on the 2nd floor. I quickly took him out with a head shot. He was like, “how’d you do that? You were looking down towards the desk.”
And before some one jumps in with, Oh that was because you had such a high ping that Keebler’s view was lagged... We were in the same room, hard wired into the network and both with pings under 10.
I don’t like that fog drifts thru walls, that gun barrels stick out of strange places and a dozen other things. The best I can do is to report things I think are wrong when I see them and hope they will fix them in due course.
THIS RIGHT HERE. (underlined in the quote above)
Do you not see that depending on perspective and time line, "Leaving it in for now" can look like "Keeping it in?"
That's what happens when people assume.
Merely think of a priority list for a group of overworked programmers who can't get to that issue yet on the list....
There you have it.
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
I love this community!
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
I miss the like button.
It's now banned after the
latest update.
#Support Comp Mode
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
Supported position for reduced recoil in *limited positions specifically chosen by the map's designer for particular angles* is somehow bad, but being able to have reduced recoil nearly anywhere the player wants with a bipod system instead is somehow good? Yet you accuse other people of having no clue about game design?
Anyway, I can see it working with the attachment system Whiplash proposed a couple of times. Bipod would take time to mount and be stationary, no strafing as we have now.
I love this community!
- why a bipod solves the rotation bug we already have with anchoring
- why low recoil with a bipod is better than low recoil with anchoring
- why creating a brand-new weapon attachment system is preferable to altering the anchoring system
- why time needed to mount with anchoring is inferior to time needed to deploy a bipod
They're fundamentally the same game mechanic with slightly different appearances. This wouldn't even require explanation if it weren't for nostalgia over AA2's system.
Wouldn't say better.
+1
Over 2k Golden Hawkeyes.
1. Well, you are also assuming they are gonna fix supported position so why can't I assume they fix the rotation bug if it's essentially the same.
2. Low recoil with a bipod is better because if there are other attachments to choose from not everyone is gonna be able to mount.
3. Because I don't like the supported position (personal believe that proposed system would make the game better as there is more variety and map/tactic specific loadouts).
4. For epic realism.
I'm not familiar with AA2 system as I didn't play it but I like the idea. I would be fine with none of those as well but that's surely not up for discussion.
I love this community!
1 -- the dev cost for fixing a bug while introducing a new system is higher than just fixing the bug
2 -- these other attachments then are equivalent to buffing weapons in a system where you and others already complain about how easy they are
3 -- fair enough, but there's still the fundamental issue of differentiation in attachments and balance. If bipod allows the powerful supported positions that the forum experts think is so ridiculous and overpowered, what do the other attachments offer that is a compelling alternative without being imbalancing themselves?
4 -- ... k
1. Still scratching my head why a programmer wouldn't comment out something he apprently can't fix (yet). Too much spaghetti code? Honestly wasn't thinking too much about what exactly is causing the bug so I wasn't assuming it'd be the same thing for bipod.
2. Yes, it would require weapon balancing and I also know they don't want to touch them anymore. If you ask me weapons as they are right now aren't balanced as well but maybe they are perfectly fine for the average public play.
3. Whiplash had some good suggestions even bringing the beloved M203 aka savior of the game back.
4. Original comment wasn't about balancing purposes but actually about the realism aspect that it takes some time to unfold.
I love this community!
I feel you already know this but want to argue for the sake of arguing ..
#Support Comp Mode
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw