thebrute7

I agree with Celestial1. I had this happen to me today twice today ont the TG server. I find it very annoying and not in TG spirit. (it wasn't TG guys doing it, at least I think not)

Mix0lydian

i admit to having used this exploit a lot with the assault rifles when they were laser accurate standing in .6 an .75, and also with the current LMG's in deployed mode.
Because there is no deviation penalty when you stand from a crouch, a player using the jack-in-the-box exploit can move constantly around behind cover, spot a target and lign up the sights on the target, and the simply crouch for 4 seconds without moving the mouse. The player can now stand and expose himself for half a second at a time while having the minimum value of deviation for the standing stance every time.

IRL it would take at least anywhere between 1 and 2 seconds to steady your aim after you stand from a kneeling crouch to the point where it matches your maximum offhand shooting accuracy.

__________________

Mix0lydian

You can effectively use cover without jackin the box shooting...
There isn't a problem with being able to duck/crouch quickly from fire, the problem is being able to stand from crouching or crouch from prone (though there is a very short animation delay between prone and any stance) and have absolutely no deviation penalty-as if you had already been standing/crouching for the max period of time needed for maximum accuracy.

Thus the player who is using cover more realistically i.e. prone behind a small knoll is at a disadvantage against a player who uses jack in the box shooting. the jackinthebox can simply prone out of sight and wait for the deviation to settle, pop up for half a second-->boom headshot, prone and reposition, rinse and repeat...

__________________

WDT_Alpha_s9

But if you're a moving target then they have to adjust after popping back up...

I agree that the crosshair being exactly where you left it could probably be exploited, but I guess i just thought of this as something like the "use cover" option in games like R6 vegas. Use cover being where you essentially just pop up over top/around the side of whatever you're behind to initiate/return fire. As for a deployed MG you could leave the MG in position and still duck for cover... granted you risk the weapon being exposed to incoming fire.

Regardless, I fear that's a BF2 engine restriction we probably can't get around.

Berlancic

I believe when cover is applied in real-life, as a person I met in-game told me, you wait behind cover until friendlies can identify and supress or kill the target. Obviously you wouldn't do that every single time when you are in contact.
This would be good if you didn't know exactly where the person was, in addition to the fact if it was a marksman, sniper or automatic rifleman.

__________________

WDT_Alpha_s9

I think that's called the stay and pray...

Like you said though, there are other situations where the above can apply like defensive fire from fortified postions. If you can get the barrel through the hole you can shoot out of it. Whether you can see what you're shooting at just depends on the size of the hole I guess. There are a lot of "RL situations" that can't really be applied in game though. When you can fire on an enemy in PR you are presenting a target of at least your nugget. That doesn't necessarily apply to well thought out firing positions outside of the game.

*EDIT*

Just wanted to add that with the visual aids we have allowing weapons to be used around corners with digital outputs for the targetting (a screen attached on a swivel for 90 degree angles, like a digital camera) could also be considered. Target presentation for one of those consists of the weapon and part of a hand.

fuzzhead

This is another bad effect of the BF2 deviation system, however its not NEARLY as bad for gameplay as prone diving IMO....

Celestial1

The biggest difference, though, is the fact that a player in Rainbow 6 Vegas that is using corner-firing has to trigger an animation which makes them pop out; this animation is decently sized and pretty much ensures that someone standing and waiting for you could shoot you before you could begin firing.

Also, taking into account their deviation system, quick corner firing is generally only used for short range; mid-long range, they often have to expose themselves for a moment to begin firing, and since the deviation is 'arcadey' in a way, it means that the player has to fire some extra shots, leaving him open to others longer.



Since BF2/PR doesn't have an animation for crouch/stand, and the minimum deviation is greatly decreased in comparison to other games, it allows this jack-in-the-box to rear it's ugly head.

(question for fuzz, or another dev: can it be done so that the 'cannot use weapon' effect when going prone is applied to up-stances? ie just for standing up, but not crouching down? this would fix some of the jack in the box issues, without hindering firefights where the player will use crouch as an advantage)

__________________

A.WICKENS

Imo instaproning is way more detrimental. As regards the jack in the box technique and the ability to 'fix' on a target before popping up and firing, this is in some way realistic. In RL you would not stick your head up and then look for targets. You may just pop up and put rounds where you think the enemy is most likely to be, but generally this is done in conjuction with other squad mates as part of a concerted and organised effort to suppress the enemy.

Otherwise you would perhaps sneak a quick peek and look for giveaways like muzzle flash and then only pop up and take a shot if you had one, i.e. a good fix on your target. Before doing so you would have a mental picture of the shot and would visualise your actions. This creates a kind of short term muscle memory if run through a couple of times that reduces the thought processes to automatic steps thereby speeding them up and limiting your exposure. You would also move, hopefully unseen, to a new location before each attempted shot. Movement penalties make this a slow process in PR so people stay put and basically play russian roulette. To be honest neither party in these shootouts is playing very tactically or realisticaly. The 'jack in the box' should be comms with his squad mates, talking them in on target and simultaneously requesting suppressive support to enable him to safely exfil. His squadmates can then suppress and flank to eliminate the threat if desired. The aggressor should be doing the same and to some degree be more interested in suppressing and pinning the 'jack in the box' . Unfortunately due to player mentality both are generally more interested in the short terrm kill and intead of valuing their lives and tickets and realising that there is an opportunity to possibly wipe out the whole squad if the situation is developed correctly.

As a result of wanting the kill rather than the suppression the aggressor subconsciously pauses a split second when firing, waiting for the 'jack in the box' to pop up, because they want the kill and are going for confimed hits rather than simply keeping their opponents head down. In addition they will probably be working alone instead of suppressing with a squad mate. Suppression is exponentially more effective with more people involved. Extra shooters mean continuous suppression, cover for reloads, cover for shifts of position, multiple angles of fire etc. When it's one on one you're effectively playing out a 50/50 duel, instead of stacking the odds in your favour by being tactical and playing smart.

I think that these situations, if looked at in a different way, are realistic because they should eventually force the player to adapt more realistic tactics if they want to be successful. Forget the reasons or mechanics, look at the outcome, the game is actually telling you not to get involved in lone, roll of the dice shootouts, its saying 'use your squad, suppress, move, flank, eliminate'.

__________________

chrisweb89

Like fuzzhead said this is a problem but I really don't think its something that can be solved within BF2 or make a compromise easily. Sometimes it is annoying but prone diving is much worse and much worse and much more unrealistic.

Really the only way to make this tactic ineffective is like wickens said constantly suppress the area and soon enough when the player pops up one of those rounds will hit him if hes so stubborn to fall back and take him out hopefully.

__________________

Eavy Gunner

I dont mind if they switch between crouch and stand, as this is perfectly reasonable for any human being with kneecaps (unless they lost them in a football accident). It's when prone to stand/crouch is used is what annoys me, as that is unrealistic

__________________

WDT_Alpha_s9

Agreed... although I haven't seen this used effectively to my knowledge. I haven't tried it either, I just assumed the delay between prone and another stance was too long to make it effective.

Crouching for cover and standing for fire though is fast, effective, and in my opinion... realistic.

TheSkudDestroyer

I wonder how many kids could really jack-in-the-box with an M249 anyway....

Someday, realism will be where it needs to be!

I congratulate anyone who can do squats with full gear and an M249 over and over again.

Really?

This is not Ghost Recon or the subject of Future Weapons

__________________
|TG-6th|Skud

ZaBoo

Play fair, keep others in mind, and strive for realism.
If your prone-crouching at every obstacle, for every kill every person you engage, multiple times something is wrong. I could care less if someone goes prone for cover, the BF2 movement system is very limiting, it is almost expected. Get ready to shoot for some legs, or flank entrenched targets. Unfortunately, I it's part of the game. To me, I find it fun sometimes playing wack-a-mole guessing where the soldier will pop his head up next.

__________________

Eavy Gunner

SAW has a bipod, so why can't it be used like the static one?

__________________