Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
G4meM0ment

More realistic/depressing feeling

Recommended Posts

Imo blurred vision or some fancy graphic gimmicks or camera shakes are ok from a camera perspective but not from human eyes. Perhaps some very slight hand- or armshaking effects would be enough to signal the player that he is stressed or frightend/scared? Some subtle, no dramatizing effects....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imo blurred vision or some fancy graphic gimmicks or camera shakes are ok from a camera perspective but not from human eyes. Perhaps some very slight hand- or armshaking effects would be enough to signal the player that he is stressed or frightend/scared? Some subtle, no dramatizing effects....

As it is now, isn't it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As it is now, isn't it ?

Yes, with a little desaturation of colors and heavy breathing sounds.

IMO, you could also remove the ability to zoom in while being under heavy fire to avoid killshots from the supressed but its kind of OK now. (at least while playing in pvp, like PR). The new sound system also might help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree there with u celery.

As posted already before, if the situation is scary enough u will get suppressed for real (real life feeling) and you wont stand up.

Depends on the mission. - If its a small arcade style mission, you dont care bout your life and run out if you want to, you die and respawn. Any lousy suppresson effects wouldnt change that.

In a long running mission, with maybe no repsawn you dont want to die. So if the game can handle to give u the feeling that you are supressed, by sound, dirt spraying around, tracers and bullet impacts around you, this would be totally enough.

No or minimal "special" effect on your Avatar itself is needed if the impacts around you are scary enough.

Edited by KrAziKilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A suppression effect like in Arma 2 (shakier hands) combined with a visual effect wouldn't change much anything

I hope the more senior BI devs know better than to cut down the meager suppression effects further. ArmA already has a representative visual effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

So in your opinion suppressive fire is only useful when used in Chechnya, because men fighting in any other conflict are at less risk of being killed during a firefight if they happen to have access to fire support? Weird.

Well just to keep you happy mate here's an example of suppression fire being used in Chechnya. Doesn't look any different to suppression fire used in every other conflict to me, but hey your the expert...

uJn5TqCxdFw&feature=plcp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah thank you Celery for replying directly and not telling me to watch less war movies, play COD etc. Overall it seems that we just have a difference in taste and opinion, but I am glad to see that you at least somewhat take the time to try and understand what I am saying. And by the way when I say "suppression effect" I simply mean something like

Where the intensity of sway and duration depend on caliber and volume of fire. You say that suppression would make people useless, and just wanted to make sure you were clear as to how sever the effects actually are. It would not be like vanilla suppression, which sucks ass.

Here comes mega post.

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.

Meh I guess but thats really a matter of taste. Remember I don't suggest we actually try to simulate fear but try to instead to make the effects of fear more likely to occur in-game - I think you know what I mean but others seem to like misinterpret that. I personally wouldn't find it gimmicky. For example Project Reality and Red Orchestra 2 both have suppressive effects and I don't find them at all gimmicky. For obvious reasons the game simply can't know all the possible reason's to be scared. I don't see that as a reason to cut out what can be done however. I am pretty sure their are many features, not only in arma but in other games that can not be fully completed for everything, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be cut out completely. But that is just my opinion. Yours obviously differs. But even if the computer could detect when you're avatar should be scared at all times, I doubt that you would now suddenly want suppression effects in, so I still don't think that "because its would seem gimmicky" is the real reason your against such a feature - please correct me if I a wrong.

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.

Bolded part. When you are under fire and your "survival instinct" is kicking, logic kind of goes out the window. I know what your saying, but virtual bullets just can't make you make the same decisions as real bullets. You must agree with me there? This is why I suggest some sort of abstraction to compensate and make the players actions a bit more realistic.

Now on to your scenario. In your example of ten men in a building being fired upon by one. The ten men wouldn't be totally useless. Just because their weapons are swaying a bit doesn't mean they can't return fire and suppress/kill that one man outside. Now granted, they can't try to individually take out that guy but rather They must respond as a unit, and overwhelm that sucker with superior fire-power. If they don't kill him (don't know what ranges your talking) it will definitely pin him, and then he's now the one that's totally screwed due too suppression effects. If the unit were a good one they would be able to pin that guy within 10 seconds and be at full effectiveness again - able to now flank and finish him. If the unit were poor they may be pinned for and indefinite amount of time and would most likely take some casualties. Without suppression effects a good unit would have killed the guy almost instantly, and even a poor one would have killed him in no less than a minute (depending on range/cover) while possibly taking light casualties. I personally think that the former situations reflect reality better.

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.

Remember that you still have choice with or without suppression. With suppression, their would be more pros to the defensive type action but, you can still try to go on the offensive. It won't make everyone react in the same manner. There would still be tonnes of variance in decisions. But over all I believe the decision making will tend to be a bit more likely reality than is now. To me, closer to reality is the goal - so if that makes the game a "war-themed puzzle game" then well I guess I like "war-themed puzzle games". What I don't like however is what I consider "gamey" and "arcadish" gameplay. I think Arma should be more like a game of chess than like a typical FPS - but I guess not everyone shares this opinion.

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

You are absolutely right but what I am saying is that in reality I don't really think you have to hit an inch away from the enemy to make him feel like he's in danger. I have read of world war 2 soldiers cringing at just the sound of machinegun fire, let alone actually having it upon them. Granted those soldiers don't have nearly as much training as a modern day soldier, but my point still stands. In reality it is far easier to make someone fear for his life than in a video game. It can be done but the difficulty of it makes it not worth the effort (might as well just let him pop up and kill him instead if you have that level of knowledge about his position). I am sorry but if you are going to tell me that it is as easy to get someone scared in arma as it is in reality... well your wrong. It is possible to get them to feel a bit of fear, via methods like you said, but it loses its efficiency due to the amount of effort required. Thus the need for abstraction in order to maintain realistic game-play.

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.

Wait what? Alters how the player plays the game? Why that's basically the same as what I am suggesting. Really suppression effects would simply be another one of those "mechanics that logically alter how the player plays the game". It would "Decrease the benefits of risk taking" and "will get more careful players". Maybe I am missing something but you pretty much summed up exactly what I want, and seemed to actually be alright with it... am I missing something??

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.

I strongly disagree, but to each his own. I think that what red orchestra has is great for gameplay, and has a very positive effect. Overall I believe it would make firesuperiority much more important, and make planning positioning and caution key to success. Like you say, even a bigger force could get totally destroyed if it doesn't know how to coordinate their fire effectively, and are caught in a bad position by a smaller force who does, and is in a good position.

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.

To bolded - I believe that many armies do actually teach soldiers to perform area fire, even with semi automatic fire. No, not hollywood spray and pray, but they don't teach their soldiers to only shoot to kill. Thus the rounds to kills ratio.

Yeah, granted, with suppression, who wins a firefight will often be based on decisions made before the fight rather than during - but that to me is good. I don't mean any disrepect to any soldiers but firefights aren't won stricty on your individual decisions - sometimes, but more often they are won do to higher level planning/decisions - you'd have to have a pretty dumb bloke to make a well prepared ambush go askew. conversely you would have to have some really really great soldiers to get out of a situation where they are outnumbered and out of cover. The impression I get however is that you want the better individual soldier too win - I guess its just another variance in opinion - I think the better team should win. Suppression would force more team-play. If you don't agree please tell me why so I can try and defend that point.

Anyways, if you got this far, kudos for you. Overall I say that there are some pros and cons to both suppression and vanilla. It will change the play style of the game and I can see that some people wouldn't like the new style it would create. I see it as a change for more realistic firefights, while others see it as a change for less forgiving, less individually controlled firefights(if I am jumping to conclusions please let me know). I guess its just up to the player and how he wants to play. I do think that it would definitely be worth having as an optional feature though.

Edited by -Coulum-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that many armies do actually teach soldiers to perform area fire, even with semi automatic fire. No, not hollywood spray and pray, but they don't teach their soldiers to only shoot to kill.

Dead right. Fire superiority is the key to winning firefights in the real world, but as things are in arma now automatic weapons cannot be used properly to full effectiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, you could also remove the ability to zoom in while being under heavy fire to avoid killshots from the supressed but its kind of OK now.

That's a really good idea. It's also definite that close sonic cracks should be able to suppress in a smaller way.

And the 1m bullet radius for suppressing AI is far too small. They need to run to cover and stay in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO, you could also remove the ability to zoom in while being under heavy fire to avoid killshots from the supressed

I agree with Maturin, this is a really good idea, in fact I think it's the best idea that's been put forward so far in this thread. Perhaps this is the ideal solution, it would prevent players from focusing in on the enemy when under accurate fire so there wouldn't be a need for blurred vision. What do you guys think about Smurf's idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO, you could also remove the ability to zoom in while being under heavy fire to avoid killshots from the supressed but its kind of OK now.

Good idea. Won't stop you from using your acog to kill but for non magnified sights this would work very well. Another idea/compliment to that is to make it so you can't hold breath while under fire - that combined with the new weapon sway may have a good effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another idea/compliment to that is to make it so you can't hold breath while under fire - that combined with the new weapon sway may have a good effect.

Fucking brilliant idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holding your breath for a shorter period > cannot hold your breath at all. You're hyperventilation, dilated bronchi, tachycardic; short bursts of breaths. In BHD whenever an RPG hit near them it literally sucked the air out of them, as do all types of explosive ordnance at close range. I'm about 3/4 of the way through the book! Really recommended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fucking brilliant idea!

Of course holding you're breath would have to actually have a big impact on your aim for it to really sway your decisions... but anything that makes it so the player might think twice about trying to return accurate fire, while under fire.

Holding your breath for a shorter period > cannot hold your breath at all. You're hyperventilation, dilated bronchi, tachycardic; short bursts of breaths. In BHD whenever an RPG hit near them it literally sucked the air out of them, as do all types of explosive ordnance at close range. I'm about 3/4 of the way through the book! Really recommended.

Hmm. Interesting, I never would have guessed. Offtopic, whats BHD, sounds good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holding your breath for a shorter period > cannot hold your breath at all.

I can't argue with that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Depression. The first game, Cold War that is, was very depressing.. Campaign did indeed build a very noire and depressing feeling, especially in the mission where all your friends were dead, Kozlowski, Foley, all these guys you knew were now dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you, that's... unfortunately not the topic of this thread, but it speaks well to campaign design -- I wonder if the ORBAT may to some extent be one way that BI would implement what you described?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm. Interesting, I never would have guessed. Offtopic, whats BHD, sounds good.

Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in your opinion suppressive fire is only useful when used in Chechnya, because men fighting in any other conflict are at less risk of being killed during a firefight if they happen to have access to fire support? Weird.

Well just to keep you happy mate here's an example of suppression fire being used in Chechnya. Doesn't look any different to suppression fire used in every other conflict to me, but hey your the expert...

I'm talking about real firefights, in real wars, not some mercenary occupied 3rd world oil country. Morale makes or breaks the soldier: fighting on foreign soil, eight thousand miles away in asymmetrical guerrilla warfare for fuck-knows-what can obviously bring out the Lord-Jesus-Christ praying crowd when they come under fire.

Post footage of World War I, World War II, where your very concepts of freedom or right to existence were challenged and fighting spirits were high, often recklessly high.

And yes, DMarkwick, a soldier high on morale will be able to listen to his CO and carry out orders effectively even when under fire, or he may keep acting out the mission on his own accord, if no COs are present, or his squad is dead.

Edited by Iroquois Pliskin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt the effectiveness of suppressive fire is influenced by what kind of war this is :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of Depression. The first game, Cold War that is, was very depressing.. Campaign did indeed build a very noire and depressing feeling, especially in the mission where all your friends were dead, Kozlowski, Foley, all these guys you knew were now dead.

Not just that, but it was a system shock in that you could gain footing and then immediately lose it, you go in all cocky "US military oorah" and before you know it you're stomach is in your throat because a tank batallion was sighted closing in on the town you just captured, suddenly you don't feel all that powerful. Then it gets hammered home in "After Montignac"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm talking about real firefights, in real wars, not some mercenary occupied 3rd world oil country. Morale makes or breaks the soldier: fighting on foreign soil, eight thousand miles away in asymmetrical guerrilla warfare for fuck-knows-what can obviously bring out the Lord-Jesus-Christ praying crowd when they come under fire.

Your off-topic remarks smack of a desperate attempt to divert attention from the topic at hand.

Post footage of World War I, World War II

OK back on topic here's some footage of Russian troops suppressing a Panzerjager Tiger (elefant) crew on the Eastern front in World War II , a tactic that's employed by every military force around the globe...

CsdsvyQ9H9o&feature=plcp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK back on topic here's some footage of Russian troops suppressing a Panzerjager Tiger (elefant) crew on the Eastern front in World War II , a tactic that's employed by every military force around the globe...

I don't see any suppression. Just some soldier firing MG somewhere. Will you finally post some video with marines shitting their pants in cover or will you keep posting useless garbage? Find some video with shaking hands of marines in cover.

If you think that every MG firing is a "suppression fire", you've no idea what are you talking about.

Edited by batto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see any suppression. Just some soldier firing MG somewhere. Will you finally post some video with marines shitting their pants in cover or will you keep posting useless garbage? Find some video with shaking hands of marines in cover.

Refer to post #420

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right in an FT you have: TL, Grenadier, AR, Rifleman. AR is 40% of the firepower and their subrole is to provide suppressive fire, as the Grenadiers subrole is to destroy hard targets with explosives (203, grenades).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×