Implement more semi fire

[Beblokis]

Implement more semi fire and more realistic gun sounds.

When Police clears rooms they never ever use burst fire or auto fire, always semi fire and the sound of the shooting is also more short and loud.

I think this would add up to the realism of this game and make this a lot more enjoyable.

[oh no]

I do not understand why people think what we have ingame right now is realistic.

When door kickers 2 came out in early access everything (except LMGs) was actually semi fire at all ranges. Then at some point it got changed. People also started asking for full auto, which i do not really understand. Do you want a realistic game or do you want something like call of duty / battlefield?

I would love to know what actual military consultants or people who have served in armed forces think on this matter. Can't imagine any of them saying they would use anything other than semi in room clearing situations.


Just for reference, a lot of footage of SF units look like this (including rangers):
https://www.reddit.com/r/CQB/comments/mw4h2q/10th_sfg_cqb/

This is a training situation, but if the "train as you fight" motto has any validity then it seems safe to assume that semi auto is what these types of soldiers use.

More stuff if anyone is interested:
Green berets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln-z1NwrpcI
Recon marines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzbgloZiYuk

[czech]

It's interesting because the developers seem to tread the line between realism and arcadey gameplay, which is bad ultimately because if they honestly asked their playerbase, the majority would likely prefer them to lean into realism (Doorkicker players usually engage with other games like Ground Branch, Insurgency Sandstorm, etc.)

Because be honest: we play this game to be immersed in a modern tactical battlefield, and the more immersive it is (to a point) the better

[Vulpe Nebuna]

To be honest everyone (including us) thinks they know what the playerbase wants :)

There's also, obviously, a question of what WE think is cool and realistic (within the frame of the game). To that point I think if all that makes our game realistic or not is whether the units fire semi-auto or burst, we must have failed already?

The plan is at some point to give you some control over the automatic fire usage which is in debate here. Wait and see.

[Vault Traveler]

Messaggio originale di Vulpe Nebuna:

To be honest everyone (including us) thinks they know what the playerbase wants :)

There's also, obviously, a question of what WE think is cool and realistic (within the frame of the game). To that point I think if all that makes our game realistic or not is whether the units fire semi-auto or burst, we must have failed already?

The plan is at some point to give you some control over the automatic fire usage which is in debate here. Wait and see.

8/10 times its better when devs stick to their vision, gamers must understand that some ideas are good but not all, you need lots of experience to implement a good idea in a real feature and even then realistic or not it has to fit in the overall gameplay.

[Wub]

...speaking of IFV support, imagine if you had access to a .50cal and an autocannon instead of just a sniper.

[czech]

Messaggio originale di Vulpe Nebuna:

To be honest everyone (including us) thinks they know what the playerbase wants :)

There's also, obviously, a question of what WE think is cool and realistic (within the frame of the game). To that point I think if all that makes our game realistic or not is whether the units fire semi-auto or burst, we must have failed already?

The plan is at some point to give you some control over the automatic fire usage which is in debate here. Wait and see.

If you are so certain of what the playerbase wants then what holds you back? It is objectively known that rangers do not use full-auto often or at all, so just curious why that decision was made

[Gustavo]

You aren't a ranger and rangers aren't police.
Btw the attack-types data file controls everything you need to get them firing in semi, and the audio can be substituted for your tracks from other equipment files.

[Beblokis]

Messaggio originale di Quack:

You aren't a ranger and rangers aren't police.
Btw the attack-types data file controls everything you need to get them firing in semi, and the audio can be substituted for your tracks from other equipment files.

When I opened this thread, I had in mind only two things.

1. Immersion/reality & reality is that military does not really use full-auto fire when clearing buildings. They might fire salves at most, anyone who has done his basic training will confirm this.

2. Sounds/Audio. Some loud and aggressive shot sounds would just increase the immersion as it would also sound more realistic when entering rooms and clearing them, the current sounds aren't bad but still sound too much like an average arcade shooter.

Eventually, developers have decide what they want to implement, change or what not.

Maybe this also helps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouuL-Y5UX-4


Here a real life situation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOvhO9Ki0Uw



In non of these scenes, full auto is used. Just don't see why they implemented full auto in the first place, it's just not realistic. My opinion based on real life.

[Gustavo]

Messaggio originale di ElectricSquid:

When I opened this thread, I had in mind only two things.

1. Immersion/reality & reality is that military does not really use full-auto fire when clearing buildings. They might fire salves at most, anyone who has done his basic training will confirm this.

2. Sounds/Audio. Some loud and aggressive shot sounds would just increase the immersion as it would also sound more realistic when entering rooms and clearing them, the current sounds aren't bad but still sound too much like an average arcade shooter.

Eventually, developers have decide what they want to implement, change or what not.

Maybe this also helps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouuL-Y5UX-4


Here a real life situation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOvhO9Ki0Uw



In non of these scenes, full auto is used. Just don't see why they implemented full auto in the first place, it's just not realistic. My opinion based on real life.

Not realistic? I think that full auto ingame IS realistic o.o

You say militaries don't "really use" full-auto fire, I say that the deployments ingame are the exceptions that justify full-auto use. Were you training to not only attack but room-clear when outnumbered 30:2, 50:4 100:8? With how the odds ingame are, realism is flying out the window, and the need for fire superiority through full-auto to mitigate the number difference is flying in.

This is how numbers tend to be in favor of real room-clearing teams:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden

Meanwhile ingame we deliberately plan to be in the opposite. Modern superpower militaries tend to promote semi because they aren't fighting major conflicts where full-auto would be useful. Ingame they might as well be, so it makes sense they use full-auto beginning with a few teams on the ground, as with their histories in Vietnam, Korean war, and WW2 and even WW1. Plenty of examples in the bigger picture of squads using full-auto.

That's my opinion. based on real life.

Nor would I rule out that full auto is not being used by any doorkicking team anywhere on Earth. Have ambushes and ♥♥♥♥ ups cease to exist?

[IvantheFormidable]

Messaggio originale di Quack:

snip

Semi-auto is more controlled than full auto in almost all situation. A skilled operator, on semi auto, is able to land shots on enemies without risking expending too much ammunition or missing the target.

[Gustavo]

Messaggio originale di IvantheFormidable:

Messaggio originale di Quack:

snip

Semi-auto is more controlled than full auto in almost all situation. A skilled operator, on semi auto, is able to land shots on enemies without risking expending too much ammunition or missing the target.

?

[IvantheFormidable]

Messaggio originale di Quack:

Messaggio originale di IvantheFormidable:

Semi-auto is more controlled than full auto in almost all situation. A skilled operator, on semi auto, is able to land shots on enemies without risking expending too much ammunition or missing the target.

?

I'm simply explaining why most parts of the US military focus on semi-auto instead of full-auto during room clearing exercises. Full auto doesn't provide the same huge advantage IRL that it often does in games. It simply expends too much ammo, which can be a life or death thing in CQB.

[Gustavo]

Messaggio originale di IvantheFormidable:

Messaggio originale di Quack:

?

I'm simply explaining why most parts of the US military focus on semi-auto instead of full-auto during room clearing exercises. Full auto doesn't provide the same huge advantage IRL that it often does in games.

Oh okay.
I'm about why it actually makes sense to fire in full-auto in-game, where you're against desperate odds and stripped of much advantage offered by the US military.

https://www.quora.com/In-what-situation-will-a-soldier-use-his-weapon-on-full-auto/answer/Roland-Bartetzko

[Beblokis]

Messaggio originale di Quack:

Messaggio originale di ElectricSquid:

When I opened this thread, I had in mind only two things.

1. Immersion/reality & reality is that military does not really use full-auto fire when clearing buildings. They might fire salves at most, anyone who has done his basic training will confirm this.

2. Sounds/Audio. Some loud and aggressive shot sounds would just increase the immersion as it would also sound more realistic when entering rooms and clearing them, the current sounds aren't bad but still sound too much like an average arcade shooter.

Eventually, developers have decide what they want to implement, change or what not.

Maybe this also helps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouuL-Y5UX-4


Here a real life situation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOvhO9Ki0Uw



In non of these scenes, full auto is used. Just don't see why they implemented full auto in the first place, it's just not realistic. My opinion based on real life.

Not realistic? I think that full auto ingame IS realistic o.o

You say militaries don't "really use" full-auto fire, I say that the deployments ingame are the exceptions that justify full-auto use. Were you training to not only attack but room-clear when outnumbered 30:2, 50:4 100:8? With how the odds ingame are, realism is flying out the window, and the need for fire superiority through full-auto to mitigate the number difference is flying in.

This is how numbers tend to be in favor of real room-clearing teams:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden

Meanwhile ingame we deliberately plan to be in the opposite. Modern superpower militaries tend to promote semi because they aren't fighting major conflicts where full-auto would be useful. Ingame they might as well be, so it makes sense they use full-auto beginning with a few teams on the ground, as with their histories in Vietnam, Korean war, and WW2 and even WW1. Plenty of examples in the bigger picture of squads using full-auto.

That's my opinion. based on real life.

Nor would I rule out that full auto is not being used by any doorkicking team anywhere on Earth. Have ambushes and ♥♥♥♥ ups cease to exist?

Full-Auto is used for surpressive purposes only, in the military we used LMGs as well as heavy MGs for that purpose as assault rifles would overheat too quickly if full auto is used in an ongoing firefight.

I also have never stated that military does not use full-auto fire, I have said that they do not use it when clearing rooms.

When I was with the military (light infantry) we fired salves during CQB at most, i.e to fire in to rooms to make the bullets bounce off the walls and cause fragmentation and debris to spread through the room and damage or kill hostiles inside as we would not use a grenade for every single room.

I do not understand what major conflicts have to do with the fire mode. I was trained for major conflicts so where the guys in the videos I have linked in my last post. Full auto isn't much of a thing in modern combat and from what I have heard also not a major thing in older conflicts such as the ones you have named.

It is true that during Vietnam soldiers have wasted ammo by using full auto, which was a major problem, but this isn't the work of skilled modern operators who are clearing rooms but quite the opposite situation and a great example of how you should NOT use an assault rifle, vietnam that is.

Messaggio originale di IvantheFormidable:

Messaggio originale di Quack:

?

I'm simply explaining why most parts of the US military focus on semi-auto instead of full-auto during room clearing exercises. Full auto doesn't provide the same huge advantage IRL that it often does in games. It simply expends too much ammo, which can be a life or death thing in CQB.

Full auto does not provide any advantage.

Even the good old AK-47 has it's semi fire mode in the last setting when pushing down the lever. The reason for that is that soldiers would unlock their weapon in panic, they would push the lever down hard, so the guy who made the AK wanted soldiers to fire semi fire.

(Sry for English but I don't know all proper terms in English when it comes to firearm parts).

[IvantheFormidable]

Messaggio originale di Quack:

Oh okay.
I'm about why it actually makes sense to fire in full-auto in-game, where you're against desperate odds and stripped of much advantage offered by the US military.

https://www.quora.com/In-what-situation-will-a-soldier-use-his-weapon-on-full-auto/answer/Roland-Bartetzko

Ok, so you have an example of one soldier who wasn't even in the US army, let alone the US Rangers, who says that he often had his weapon on full auto. But individual choice, that soldier deciding to have his weapon on full auto, doesn't negate that most units don't train room clearing with their weapons on full auto. All you're going to do is dump all your magazine, as the poster said, and then you're a sitting duck.