More realistic/depressing feeling

[rye1 21]

"I'm in fear I need to shit gamemode" - Find the nearest toilet.

[Madeon 6]

If you were in cover and under accurate fire that would most likely hit you if you exposed yourself even a little, would the lack of a visual suppression effect make you run out of cover like a derp?

I guarantee if arma 3 pvp lacks a visual suppression effect it will be a derpfest because players won't be afraid to pop out of cover when under accurate fire, they will be inclined to take a risk and often be killed immediately.

The reason we want a visual suppression effect is so that people aren't inclined to take the risk, we want them to know that because of the visual suppression effect penalty popping out of cover when under accurate suppressive fire will almost always result in them being killed. The end result will be prolonged firefights.

We want drawn-out firefights, and with the current system we aren't seeing that in arma. I guess it all boils down to some people here want quick firefights and others would prefer realistic firefights.

[Guess Who 10]

I guarantee if arma 3 pvp lacks a visual suppression effect it will be a derpfest because players won't be afraid to pop out of cover when under accurate fire, they will be inclined to take a risk and often be killed immediately.

The reason we want a visual suppression effect is so that people aren't inclined to take the risk, we want them to know that because of the visual suppression effect penalty popping out of cover when under accurate suppressive fire will almost always result in them being killed. The end result will be prolonged firefights.

We want drawn-out firefights, and with the current system we aren't seeing that in arma. I guess it all boils down to some people here want quick firefights and others would prefer realistic firefights.

So be it. If people under fire pop out their heads kill them. They'll learn from it eventually. You can't teach them anyway, they have to learn from their own experience.

[Madeon 6]

So be it. If people under fire pop out their heads kill them.

I don't find killing derps rewarding, I find it boring.

They'll learn from it eventually.

Ever heard of Call of Duty? They don't learn because they don't care.

Arma 3 pvp will be inundated with players that don't give a damn if there's a 50% chance that they will be killed when popping out of cover. In the real world most people wouldn't take that risk.

If visual suppression effects changed the likelyhood of them being killed when popping out of cover to 99% chance of being killed then I beleive there would be a significant amount of players that would prefer to use realistic tactics to get out of a sticky situation rather than face almost certain death.

[-Coulum- 35]

First and Foremost, any "suppression effects" would be optional. But I still think that alot of people still miss the point of them. On the topic of "suppression with no fire", it is obvious that the game cannot handle this, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be able to handle actual fire. I don't see how one limits the other but feel free to tell me.

So how would it suddenly become smart in Arma? If you were in cover and under accurate fire that would most likely hit you if you exposed yourself even a little, would the lack of a visual suppression effect make you run out of cover like a derp?

Problem is when you come under inaccurate fire. You nonchalantly just pop up and return pinpoint accurate fire because you know your chances of getting hit are low. I doubt many people in reality would take that kind of risk with their life just to try and shoot someone else.

This "fear simulation" stuff would basically make everyone's avatar psychologically identical, which would be grossly unrealistic and redundant considering that players are able to assess their tactical situation and act accordingly already, with individually varying influence from experience and emotional reactions.

Psychological avatar is the same for everyone with or without suppression effects. Similarly, you still always have a choice, with or without suppression effects. Difference is with suppression effects your reactions will more likely be closer to reality than without. Maybe I am misunderstanding you but, its seems like your argument is similarly along the lines of "Everyone in-game handles pain the same, but in reality everyone doesn't handle pain the same, so we should just take all pain effects out of the game."- But maybe I am misinterpreting you? In games, abstractions always need to be made.

The reason why your "suppressive fire" doesn't work in pvp is because you failed to be sincere about it (the enemy sees that you're not even trying to hit him, making it tactically sound to just shoot you)

Like already said several times before, it is far easier to be sincere with real bullets and real lives rather than virtual bullets and virtual lives, therefore abstractions must be made. In arma you make a calculated decision about your odds of dying vs. your odds of killing the other guy and try your luck based on those odds. In reality, most people don't even bother making the calculations, they know that their is a possibility of getting killed so just get the fuck down, even if the odds of getting hit are low. People don't gamble their lives away quite so easily, mainly due to the survival instinct, which I certainly hope nobody has had kick in while playing arma.

Anyhow lets try another tact. Those of you opposed to suppressive effects, please tell me how these effects would have a negative impact on the dynamics of firefight as a whole. And there certainly are some cons. Also, can you honestly tell me there are absolutely zero postiive effects of artificial suppression on the firefight? Do deny that it would make firefight harder, longer, more tactical (yes, both in pvp and coop) and overall more about thinking and cooperation rather than muscle memory and mouse control ie. more realistic? Why?

[batto 17]

Anyhow lets try another tact. Those of you opposed to suppressive effects, please tell me how these effects would have a negative impact on the dynamics of firefight as a whole. And there certainly are some cons. Also, can you honestly tell me there are absolutely zero postiive effects of artificial suppression on the firefight? Do deny that it would make firefight harder, longer, more tactical (yes, both in pvp and coop) and overall more about thinking and cooperation rather than muscle memory and mouse control ie. more realistic? Why?

You play a game! I can do hundreds of stupid things in ArmA that would kill me IRL yet only incoming bullets has to simulate fear in my avatar. You still think that suppression fire is something special. But it is really simple concept: stay in cover or you die in bullet rain. If I want to have good feeling about my gameplay I'll play carefuly and will not pop from cover. I don't want firefights to last longer just for sake of it. I want ArmA to simulate reality and not movies or the portion of US army footage you've seen. More tactical firefights thanks to fear? Stop watching war movies please.

Edited August 30, 2012 by batto

[NoRailgunner 0]

How can a player feel "really suppressed" if he can respawn anytime and perhaps wherever he want? Player: "There too many bullets now, just go for tactical dead or click respawn.... " ;)

[ProfTournesol 956]

How can a player feel "really suppressed" if he can respawn anytime and perhaps wherever he want? Player: "There too many bullets now, just go for tactical dead or click respawn.... " ;)

My thought exactly.

It could create some sort of panic among untrained AI tho.

[dmarkwick 261]

You play a game! I can do hundreds of stupid things in ArmA that would kill me IRL yet only incoming bullets has to simulate fear in my avatar. You still think that suppression fire is something special. But it is really simple concept: stay in cover or you die in bullet rain. If I want to have good feeling about my gameplay I'll play carefuly and will not pop from cover. I don't want firefights to last longer just for sake of it. I want ArmA to simulate reality and not movies or the portion of US army footage you've seen. More tactical firefights thanks to fear? Stop watching war movies please.

We get it, ingame suppression effects is not for everyone. I suggest dropping the whole "should it exist" thing (seeing as it does in fact already exist ingame) and discuss the actual topic: more realistic feeling. As such, saying that it's a game might put you outside the conversation. Personally, I'm OK with just physical effects like aim shake.

[maddogx 13]

US army footage

If that's not a good example of reality, then what is?

[rye1 21]

How can a player feel "really suppressed" if he can respawn anytime and perhaps wherever he want? Player: "There too many bullets now, just go for tactical dead or click respawn.... " ;)

When you have a REALLY long mission, a far away spawn point or no respawn. ACE tanks when they explode and it sets off rounds... That makes me get down!

[-Coulum- 35]

You play a game! I can do hundreds of stupid things in ArmA that would kill me IRL yet only incoming bullets has to simulate fear in my avatar. You still think that suppression fire is something special. But it is really simple concept: stay in cover or you die in bullet rain. If I want to have good feeling about my gameplay I'll play carefuly and will not pop from cover. I don't want firefights to last longer just for sake of it. I want ArmA to simulate reality and not movies or the portion of US army footage you've seen. More tactical firefights thanks to fear? Stop watching war movies please.

Can you please answer the original question more directly. You are always kind of skimming around it. So basically you don't want firefights to be more realistic? Because they are in fact longer in reality and fear does make more of an impact on their outcome.

[Madeon 6]

More tactical firefights thanks to fear? Stop watching war movies please.

I think more can be learned about suppressive fire by watching real word combat footage than by reading comments made by some random civilian guy on a game forum. Just saying...

[batto 17]

How can a player feel "really suppressed" if he can respawn anytime and perhaps wherever he want? Player: "There too many bullets now, just go for tactical dead or click respawn.... "

I thought that serious milimers play only no-respawn games.

Personally, I'm OK with just physical effects like aim shake.

I'm not. It's same unrealistic inadequate PITA as visual effects. And it adds nothing to realistic feeling.

If that's not a good example of reality, then what is?

It's just a tiny little bit portion of reality that shows _only_ US soldiers. One can also say that these footages are fake because there are no visible enemies. Yet I can imagine how someone can find it very cool and think that Taliban is now shitting in pants just beacuse there's marine firing SAW somewhere.

---------- Post added at 03:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 PM ----------

Can you please answer the original question more directly. You are always kind of skimming around it. So basically you don't want firefights to be more realistic? Because they are in fact longer in reality and fear does make more of an impact on their outcome.

No. I want them to be as realistic as possible. But I want to control the brain of my avatar. If newbie enemies pop out from cover my squad will take em down. Simple.

Btw, in reality you are a person without any combat experience sitting behind screen playing ArmA or watching US army videos approved to go public by US army. Just saying...

[dmarkwick 261]

I thought that serious milimers play only no-respawn games.

I'm not. It's same unrealistic inadequate PITA as visual effects. And it adds nothing to realistic feeling.

It's just a tiny little bit portion of reality that shows _only_ US soldiers. One can also say that these footages are fake because there are no visible enemies. Yet I can imagine how someone can find it very cool and think that Taliban is now shitting in pants just beacuse there's marine firing SAW somewhere.

---------- Post added at 03:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 PM ----------

No. I want them to be as realistic as possible. But I want to control the brain of my avatar. If newbie enemies pop out from cover my squad will take em down. Simple.

Btw, in reality you are a person without any combat experience sitting behind screen playing ArmA or watching US army videos approved to go public by US army. Just saying...

Batto, I think you are moving into strange territory :)

[maddogx 13]

It's just a tiny little bit portion of reality that shows _only_ US soldiers. One can also say that these footages are fake because there are no visible enemies. Yet I can imagine how someone can find it very cool and think that Taliban is now shitting in pants just beacuse there's marine firing SAW somewhere.

So the publically available combat footage is inadmissable to you because... what? "It might be fake"? Seriously? :rolleyes:

[Smurf 12]

So, have you guys reached some time of conclusion about ..... anything (that affects the game)?

[batto 17]

So the publically available combat footage is inadmissable to you because... what? "It might be fake"? Seriously? :rolleyes:

Oh c'mon. Don't go OT. I'm just saying that there are no visible enemies in those footages. So one can't judge the efficiency of the MG firing marine. But that doesn't really matter anyway. I've seen some videos where stupid poeple were shot because they were not hiding in cover. And their hands were not shaking. They were just stupid. And it was reality.

[dmarkwick 261]

So, have you guys reached some time of conclusion about ..... anything (that affects the game)?

I think that, individually, we have :)

[Madeon 6]

One can also say that these footages are fake because there are no visible enemies

You have lost any credibility you had with this post. FPDR

[maddogx 13]

Quite frankly, I don't see this discussion going anywhere remotely productive. We'll probably be better off waiting for the alpha, so we can see what BIS has actually implemented in this regard; then we can talk about how it affects gameplay and whether or not it should be changed/added/removed/whatever.

[Madeon 6]

Quite frankly, I don't see this discussion going anywhere remotely productive. We'll probably be better off waiting for the alpha, so we can see what BIS has actually implemented in this regard; then we can talk about how it affects gameplay and whether or not it should be changed/added/removed/whatever.

I think your right mate, nothing productive happening here at the moment but it's been good to learn that I'm not the only guy here that's interested in prolonged/realistic firefights in arma. :)

[celery 8]

I guarantee if arma 3 pvp lacks a visual suppression effect it will be a derpfest because players won't be afraid to pop out of cover when under accurate fire, they will be inclined to take a risk and often be killed immediately.

The reason we want a visual suppression effect is so that people aren't inclined to take the risk, we want them to know that because of the visual suppression effect penalty popping out of cover when under accurate suppressive fire will almost always result in them being killed. The end result will be prolonged firefights.

We want drawn-out firefights, and with the current system we aren't seeing that in arma. I guess it all boils down to some people here want quick firefights and others would prefer realistic firefights.

I think you're giving too much absolute value to the duration of engagements. It all boils down to the dynamics of a situation, and in pvp it would largely depend on the type of mission. In some, it makes tactical sense to take a risk or make a sacrifice for a greater gain, and a visual effect wouldn't change that. Your avatar would have to become borderline combat ineffective in a very concrete way to achieve your ideal end result, and that would be annoying above all else, minimizing the tactical options of the party under fire.

First and Foremost, any "suppression effects" would be optional. But I still think that alot of people still miss the point of them. On the topic of "suppression with no fire", it is obvious that the game cannot handle this, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be able to handle actual fire. I don't see how one limits the other but feel free to tell me.

If the effect is supposed to simulate fear, having it simulate fear only in very specific situations (must have bullets constantly flying near you, otherwise you're not scared) would seem quite artificial and gimmicky.

Problem is when you come under inaccurate fire. You nonchalantly just pop up and return pinpoint accurate fire because you know your chances of getting hit are low. I doubt many people in reality would take that kind of risk with their life just to try and shoot someone else.

It's completely logical that inaccurate incoming fire doesn't disable you if you have any idea what's actually going on. If a single rifleman was "suppressing" a house occupied by a whole infantry squad and clearly concentrated on a single window, would you say that the whole squad would be unable to fight because there are shots hitting within 10 meters of every one of them? This btw is a very important point in the feature's implementation.

Psychological avatar is the same for everyone with or without suppression effects. Similarly, you still always have a choice, with or without suppression effects. Difference is with suppression effects your reactions will more likely be closer to reality than without. Maybe I am misunderstanding you but, its seems like your argument is similarly along the lines of "Everyone in-game handles pain the same, but in reality everyone doesn't handle pain the same, so we should just take all pain effects out of the game."- But maybe I am misinterpreting you? In games, abstractions always need to be made.

People are individuals, and if your goal is to make them behave in the same manner in the same situations, you might just as well make them play a war-themed puzzle game like Brothers in Arms where the dynamics are more or less constant.

Like already said several times before, it is far easier to be sincere with real bullets and real lives rather than virtual bullets and virtual lives, therefore abstractions must be made.

You can very easily be sincere about your suppressive fire in the game by actually shooting at the very spot (or the very edge of the cover) where the enemy would stick out. Like said many times, including in Dslyexci's guide, suppressive fire is first and foremost making the enemy realize that it's totally not smart to leave cover.

In arma you make a calculated decision about your odds of dying vs. your odds of killing the other guy and try your luck based on those odds. In reality, most people don't even bother making the calculations, they know that their is a possibility of getting killed so just get the fuck down, even if the odds of getting hit are low. People don't gamble their lives away quite so easily, mainly due to the survival instinct, which I certainly hope nobody has had kick in while playing arma.

Most pvp game modes have little basis on reality, and they have differing objectives and mechanics that logically alter how players play the game. Decrease the benefits of risk-taking and/or increase its downsides and you will get more careful players. Note that that doesn't mean they become susceptible to textbook (or imagined) tactical actions.

Anyhow lets try another tact. Those of you opposed to suppressive effects, please tell me how these effects would have a negative impact on the dynamics of firefight as a whole. And there certainly are some cons. Also, can you honestly tell me there are absolutely zero postiive effects of artificial suppression on the firefight? Do deny that it would make firefight harder, longer, more tactical (yes, both in pvp and coop) and overall more about thinking and cooperation rather than muscle memory and mouse control ie. more realistic? Why?

A suppression effect like in Arma 2 (shakier hands) combined with a visual effect wouldn't change much anything, it would just be annoying to those who would prefer to decide themselves what is scary.

A suppression effect that further disables your avatar would make fights less tactical the stronger the effect is and the more sensitive it is to trigger. Tactically bad actions such as shooting in the general direction of the enemy without hitting anything would be rewarded by the game mechanics where the party that got under fire first has little tactical choice but to stay still.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Celery

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

So the publically available combat footage is inadmissable to you because... what? "It might be fake"? Seriously? :rolleyes:

Real life footage in this thread is redundant. I can dig up vids of firefights in Chechnya that will put these clowns to shame. You haven't seen a real firefight, till you're in a situation, where you know there won't be A-10 CAS, arty support or whatever else backing you.

What can be seen in those Iraq/Afghan videos is devolution of the individual soldiers, who don't exhibit intuition, or robust psychological integrity to survive ANYWHERE but the confines of their F.O.B. People are asking the Devs to place everyone under a common lowest denominator of performance.

Do you people know why firefights "work" cinematically in games like BF 3?

1) Arbitrary Blur effects;

2) Five shots or more to kill an adversary with regenerative health et cetera;

3) Low muzzle velocity for ammunition, I think it's 600 m/s for most weapons in BF 3, even assault rifles.

Vanilla ArmA II,

ba87Rr-F6os

This person already has trouble making out where the fire coming from, if you want to add some arbitrary effects to the situation, then you're officially a masochist.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[katipo66 94]

No. I want them to be as realistic as possible. But I want to control the brain of my avatar. If newbie enemies pop out from cover my squad will take em down. Simple.

Agreed, everyone handles things differently, why throw everyone in the same basket with a cheesy effect...

In Arma i've experienced awesome (what seemed like) realistic firefights (for a video game) to easy kills to me being the one getting killed from ignoring close rounds... Let the player decide if he's suppressed.

And this from someone who enjoys the whizz mod in sp.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Katipo66