StellarRat Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Friendly fire suppression effects should be far less than enemy. That's it. I think you should limit the suppression radius of friendly fire to the target tile OR about 1/2 the normal suppression radius. Friendlies expect and recognize where friendly fire is coming from and who it's directed at. Only if they fear they are in "beaten zone" are they going to get scared. Also, do aliens get suppressed by their own friendly fire? I don't recall seeing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TacticalDragon Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Completly agree! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vahilior Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 There's an expression "There's no such thing as friendly fire." In my opinion it shouldn't really matter who's shooting at you, if its getting close and there's enough of it then it should suppress. That said it should work both ways of course, I think I might have seen the aliens suppress their own side but I'm not 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troublechuter Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Have definitely seen the aliens suppress their own side. And outright kill each other, in fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silencer Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Yes please - reduce friendly fire suppression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kabill Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 I wasn't especially convinced b the idea of reducing friendly suppression in another thread that brought this up. But I think the idea of reducing the suppression range of friendly weapons (as opposed to the level of suppression) is actually a reasonable one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max_Caine Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 From a game mechanic PoV, it's tricky to justify the investment in Predator armour if all the weapons you get stuck with are going to be as suppressive towards your own side as the enemy, so from that perspective I wholeheartedly agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Would that also affect things like rockets, flashbangs, and frag grenades? If the suppression radius was reduced it would be possible for your troops to be inside the damage area but outside of the suppression area which just feels wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vahilior Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 From a game mechanic PoV, it's tricky to justify the investment in Predator armour if all the weapons you get stuck with are going to be as suppressive towards your own side as the enemy, so from that perspective I wholeheartedly agree. Perhaps Predator Armour in general should make you immune to suppression, it is a bit like transforming your men into an Andron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max_Caine Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 I agree, it should do. In the suppression mechanics, armour is supposed to be deducted from suppression before suppression "damage" is applied, with an armour rating of 100 suppression should be pretty meaningless, but it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TacticalDragon Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 StellarRat put on the table "REDUCE RADIUS" not reduce suppression per se. In other words you get the same suppression value from friendly fire but only when bullets hit closer to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted April 11, 2014 Author Share Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) Let me give a you a more concrete example of why this should be changed. I've had a guy with an LMG suppress everyone in a light scout including my own guys that were off to the sides of the ship and couldn't possibly be hit by any rounds coming in through the doorway. I've got to assume the Xenonauts are constantly communicating with each other and I'm sure the guys in the UFO might have even REQUESTED the LMG open up to pin down the enemy. So, probably they might take cover knowing what's coming, but also they would be planning on how to take advantage of it, not cowering and losing all initiatve because of it. My belief is that knowing and being warned that someone is going to firing in your general area is way different than having someone fire AT you with little or no warning. When I go to the gun range I don't get suppressed by all the shots being fired around me. The shooters are only an arms length away. Many of shots are impacting within 10 feet of me if the targets are set up for pistol practice. It just doesn't happen because I'm expecting it. Now, if someone started shooting right at me or even within 50 yards of me unexpectedly (or even expectedly) you're damn right I'm going be suppressed and flee for cover too. Edited April 11, 2014 by StellarRat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 What about the explosives question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted April 11, 2014 Author Share Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) Explosives are another story entirely. They cause suppression by shock, sound, dust and flying bits. They should always suppress everyone without regard to friend or foe. There some things you can do if you have advance warning (like cover your ears and eyes), but think explosive suppression is OK to leave as is. If you're caught in the blast radius of explosion you should ALWAYS be suppressed. It shouldn't even be a "roll". I think that only an Androns or Predator armor would be unaffected. I guess I should have specified non-explosive in my title. Feel free to change it if you want. Edited April 11, 2014 by StellarRat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silencer Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Here is a silly example. See where the MG soldier is, see where the dead Alien is, now how on earth did the guy get suppressed by 1 bullet hitting a little of the hay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victorix58 Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Bullets go through hay? Idk, one bullet is enough to suppress me.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Remember that the suppression is not based on the bullets but on the whole burst and centred where you aim, not where you hit. A machine gun burst causes 120 suppression but that doesn't mean that each bullet causes 12. There does seem to be something odd about the way suppression works considering the way it was supposed to be implemented. I have seen a soldier get suppressed when he was well outside of the radius 3 suppression of a machine gun that was firing at an alien in the distance. In that image the soldier who is suppressed looks to be at least 8 tiles from the highlighted alien so if that was the aim point then he should not have been suppressed. Maybe the actual mechanic has changed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silencer Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Yes, the aim point was the alien, but there is flattened hay stack, that one, maybe two bullets cut through and they are way closer to suppressed soldier. The moment the guy went suppressed I had a WTF expression on my face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Safe-Keeper Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 The way I see it, as another poster said, a projectile is a projectile. When a soldier is "suppressed", he is experiencing munitions flying past so close to his head that he's finding it wisest to keep his head down. I suppose I understand the logic of a slight reduction from "friendly fire", but at the same time, I don't have a problem with the current approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusherven Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I disagree that friendly fire should suppress you (much). You're going to take cover, but that's not the same as being suppressed. The idea of suppression is that you put your head down and you're not even willing to peak up because you think it's going to get shot off. It's not just a matter of what happened in the past--suppression is based on my expectation of MORE shots coming at me. I think a lot of people are confusing cover and suppression in their arguments against this proposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted April 14, 2014 Author Share Posted April 14, 2014 Crush...couldn't agree more! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burzmali Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Is there at least a bravery check for suppression? I've had folks inside the desert base buildings suppress from friendly fire when an MG was fired passed the door. In the end it tends to work out in the player's favor though, one crazy over suppression and I learned that MGs fire last on a turn, the AI is not so smart, light drones have won me more than on terror mission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted April 14, 2014 Author Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) The way I see it, as another poster said, a projectile is a projectile. When a soldier is "suppressed", he is experiencing munitions flying past so close to his head that he's finding it wisest to keep his head down. I suppose I understand the logic of a slight reduction from "friendly fire", but at the same time, I don't have a problem with the current approach.Keeping your head down because you know friendly fire is going to go by is WAY different than knowing someone is actively trying to shoot your head off. Soldiers train all the time in situations where they are advancing with friendly fire going by them in support. If soldiers were pinned down constantly by friendly fire they have would be no offensive ability. There's plenty video showing this out on youtube. Edited April 14, 2014 by StellarRat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silencer Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 The way I see it, as another poster said, a projectile is a projectile. When a soldier is "suppressed", he is experiencing munitions flying past so close to his head that he's finding it wisest to keep his head down. I suppose I understand the logic of a slight reduction from "friendly fire", but at the same time, I don't have a problem with the current approach. And what about soldier being suppressed when hiding behind a wall? Since wall protects his head why is he being suppressed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted April 14, 2014 Author Share Posted April 14, 2014 And what about soldier being suppressed when hiding behind a wall? Since wall protects his head why is he being suppressed?Good point. There is a fair chance the soldier wouldn't even know something hit the wall in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.