More realistic/depressing feeling

[dmarkwick 261]

The thing is that not every part of cover has to be targeted. And you propose sfx effects if bullets land nearby. So you deny player the ability to stick his head and shoot from part of cover that isn't targeted.

If they're landing close to you, they're targeted.

That's non-sense. Fear from incoming RPGs explosion that can kill you and fear from incoming bullets that can kill you is exactly same thing. The bullets did not hit you but it might happen and hence you feel fear.

OK, so when you wrote:

Not a single shot was fired by the enemies yet

you somehow expect suppression effects from something that has not happened? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. I think the game can provide feedback to something that is happening, i.e. bullets landing close by you, but not something that might happen i.e. some AI waiting with a rocket launcher. I think that would be an unreasonable expectation.

[batto 17]

you somehow expect suppression effects from something that has not happened? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. I think the game can provide feedback to something that is happening, i.e. bullets landing close by you, but not something that might happen i.e. some AI waiting with a rocket launcher. I think that would be an unreasonable expectation.

The problem with your reasoning is that you still think that "suppression effect" is something special that is invoked by bullets landing close by you that needs special gfx and sfx. What should these gfx and sfx simulate?

[dmarkwick 261]

The problem with your reasoning is that you still think that "suppression effect" is something special that is invoked by bullets landing close by you that needs special gfx and sfx. What should these gfx and sfx simulate?

It's been explained over & again, but I'll give it one more shot. The sfx & gfx are not there to make you go "whoo", they're there to give you an ingame reason not to stick your head out unnecessarily. Because real genuine fear cannot be simulated, another reason is needed. If that reason is that you will be less effective, then that's a good analog. It's not simulating fear, just the result of fear i.e. "simply not worth it". Of course, there will be some situations where it WILL be worth it, like in some of the situations you describe. In that case you can still return fire if you need to, it won't actually stop you. It will just make sure you have a really good enough reason to.

[batto 17]

It's been explained over & again, but I'll give it one more shot. The sfx & gfx are not there to make you go "whoo", they're there to give you an ingame reason not to stick your head out unnecessarily. Because real genuine fear cannot be simulated, another reason is needed. If that reason is that you will be less effective, then that's a good analog. It's not simulating fear, just the result of fear i.e. "simply not worth it". Of course, there will be some situations where it WILL be worth it, like in some of the situations you describe. In that case you can still return fire if you need to, it won't actually stop you. It will just make sure you have a really good enough reason to.

Well, then it simulates nothing. It's just like training wheels for new players for ArmA. It should then be possible to turn it off regardless of server enforced settings because I'm sure I and other players don't need such training wheels. I control my character in ArmA and I decide what's worth to do. I don't need enforced sfx & gfx to tell me what's not worth to do. There are hundreds of things that are not worth to do in ArmA but you're reminded only to not pop-up your head if bullets hits nearby.

I've experienced many situations in PR where hand shaking effect of "suppressive fire" cost me life. There was no cover close nor time to move away. In these situation the only thing you can do is lay down and return fire.

In that case you can still return fire if you need to, it won't actually stop you. It will just make sure you have a really good enough reason to.

Sometimes the only reason that will stop me is gfx, sfx and hand shaking. Because sometimes I know that I could win the fight even after several bullets landing nearby. The only thing that stops me in these situations is "suppressive effect".

Edited August 29, 2012 by batto

[rye1 21]

Basically if rounds are kicking up near you, what gfx and sfx is that? Dust kicking up, right? If rounds are hitting walls, what gfx and sfx is that? Rounds hitting walls, causing potmarks or exploding depending on the type of round. The snap of rounds, great sounds make a great experience and one where your heart beats. Sounds can really make or break a game. And you're right, being fragged in game IS a big suppressor and it sure as hell works.

See it doesn't have to be visually changing, it just has to make you think "SHIT GET DOWN!". A firefight where you will have a lot of lead flying your way is a fun one.

Nothing is an inhibitor here, it's just effects and solutions for better AI response; especially if they are the ones doing the suppression. You want them to suppress, you want them to move on you.

What GFX and SFX were you specifically thinking of? This is the problem with these matters, no one clearly states, they just argue and hide their hidden response and bait someone into a 10-page verbal discussion on crap. Be open at the start of conversation and you save a lot of time.

[celery 8]

It's been explained over & again, but I'll give it one more shot. The sfx & gfx are not there to make you go "whoo", they're there to give you an ingame reason not to stick your head out unnecessarily. Because real genuine fear cannot be simulated, another reason is needed. If that reason is that you will be less effective, then that's a good analog. It's not simulating fear, just the result of fear i.e. "simply not worth it". Of course, there will be some situations where it WILL be worth it, like in some of the situations you describe. In that case you can still return fire if you need to, it won't actually stop you. It will just make sure you have a really good enough reason to.

What if you're behind the only solid cover within 50 meters and have seen 12 enemy snipers take aim at you just as you went to cover. They're simply waiting for you to expose yourself and you know it. What kind of effect should the game give you for such an occasion so that you'll know it's not worth it? What would be the technical conditions for the effect to show?

Edited August 29, 2012 by Celery

[batto 17]

Basically if rounds are kicking up near you, what gfx and sfx is that? Dust kicking up, right? If rounds are hitting walls, what gfx and sfx is that? Rounds hitting walls, causing potmarks or exploding depending on the type of round. The snap of rounds, great sounds make a great experience and one where your heart beats. Sounds can really make or break a game. And you're right, being fragged in game IS a big suppressor and it sure as hell works.

See it doesn't have to be visually changing, it just has to make you think "SHIT GET DOWN!". A firefight where you will have a lot of lead flying your way is a fun one.

Exactly! This is the right way to do it. Physical simulation.

Nothing is an inhibitor here, it's just effects and solutions for better AI response; especially if they are the ones doing the suppression. You want them to suppress, you want them to move on you.

Agreed. AI should try to suppress you too.

What GFX and SFX were you specifically thinking of? This is the problem with these matters, no one clearly states, they just argue and hide their hidden response and bait someone into a 10-page verbal discussion on crap. Be open at the start of conversation and you save a lot of time.

OP stated that he wants blurry vision and other crap as effect of "suppression fire". And others (like DMarkwick or Madeon) sees it like a good idea. I see it as CoD crap. This is what I argue against.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Pliskin is passing by.

Exactly! This is the right way to do it. Physical simulation.

I think you mean by physics is: sound, particles and other world/environment simulation.

Good sound, realistic particle modeling provide a better experience, than an arbitrary "fear filter" would. The player needs to be reminded of mortality of his character in, as you've said, a physical way: Screen shake while an M1A2 Abrams is driving by (Already in ArmA), proper dust particles kicking up after a bullet hits that wall behind you, amplified bullet crack sound to a certain audible level, making sure the player knows he is being fired at and that the audible effects themselves are very frightening - even if they are to be amplified to "unrealistic" levels compared to real life. ACE 2 introduced another layer of immersion by having tank cannon fire deafen and disorient the player, when he is standing near a tank - that's physical world simulation in general, which gradually builds up respect for enemy fire, even if you don't experience the same effects when a bullet misses you.

Remind the player in subtle ways: it creep into the psyche in the end, especially if there's a mission objective worth fighting for, or due to the competitive nature of the event of not wanting to let your team down and then people won't be reckless as some of the people in this thread suggest they are.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[dmarkwick 261]

Sometimes the only reason that will stop me is gfx, sfx and hand shaking. Because sometimes I know that I could win the fight even after several bullets landing nearby. The only thing that stops me in these situations is "suppressive effect".

Exactly. I couldn't have asked for a better example. You could have used your awesome gaming skills to get you out of trouble, because you don't truly value your avatar's life as your own.

---------- Post added at 15:30 ---------- Previous post was at 15:26 ----------

What if you're behind the only solid cover within 50 meters and have seen 12 enemy snipers take aim at you just as you went to cover. They're simply waiting for you to expose yourself and you know it. What kind of effect should the game give you for such an occasion so that you'll know it's not worth it? What would be the technical conditions for the effect to show?

I explained that the game cannot act on what might happen, only what is happening. If you're holed in with several snipers watching you, and you know this, it's simply a different situation.

There is no suppressive fire. Suppressive fire is there to prevent you acting efficiently, or even not at all. Simply watching is designed to tempt you out. I don't see the issue :)

[batto 17]

Exactly. Because you don't truly value your avatar life.

Yeah. But that's none of your or BIS's business. I'll buy the game to play it how I like it.

I explained that the game cannot act on what might happen, only what is happening. If you're holed in with several snipers watching you, and you know this, it's simply a different situation.

It's same situation. Nothing is happening in both situations. You're safe in cover and a) bullets hits nearby or b) snipers are watching you. Both situations means you're f*cked up but nothing has actually happened to you yet.

There is no suppressive fire. Suppressive fire is there to prevent you acting efficiently, or even not at all. Simply watching is designed to tempt you out.

It's same. Both will hold you in cover while other troops are approaching.

Edited August 29, 2012 by batto

[dmarkwick 261]

Yeah. But that's non of your or BIS's business. I'll buy the game to play it how I like it.

*shrug* then there's no discussion :) enjoy your game.

---------- Post added at 15:35 ---------- Previous post was at 15:32 ----------

It's same situation. Nothing is happening in both situations. You're safe in cover and a) bullets hits nearby or b) snipers are watching you. Both situations means you're f*cked up but nothing has actually happened to you yet.

Well, the intent is different. One is a deliberate activity to deter you from action, one is a deliberate activity to tempt you into action. One removes your efficiency in action, the other preserves it :)

[batto 17]

Exactly. I couldn't have asked for a better example. You could have used your awesome gaming skills to get you out of trouble, because you don't truly value your avatar's life as your own.

I've experienced many situations in PR where hand shaking effect of "suppressive fire" cost me life. There was no cover close nor time to move away. In these situation the only thing you can do is lay down and return fire.

Whatever. I'm sure I'll pwn you with your suppressive addon in PvP when if we play against each other =).

---------- Post added at 05:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

Well, the intent is different. One is a deliberate activity to deter you from action, one is a deliberate activity to tempt you into action. One removes your efficiency in action, the other preserves it :)

Both are some. One is deliberate activity to kill you when you leave cover, one is deliberate activity to kill you when leave you cover.

[dmarkwick 261]

Whatever. I'm sure I'll pwn you with your suppressive addon in PvP when if we play against each other =).

Oh I have no doubts :)

---------- Post added at 05:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

Both are some. One is deliberate activity to kill you when you leave cover, one is deliberate activity to kill you when leave you cover.

Hmm... perhaps you have misunderstood the term "suppressive fire"? It's an attempt to kill all right, but it's main purpose is to, well, suppress :) machine-gun fire is not really accurate enough to guarantee a kill, it's purpose is to provide a wall of lead.

[-Coulum- 35]

OP stated that he wants blurry vision and other crap as effect of "suppression fire". And others (like DMarkwick or Madeon) sees it like a good idea. I see it as CoD crap. This is what I argue against

I don't think they are really suggesting all the special visual effects but rather the increased weaponsway under fire. Something along the lines

. And not to actually simulate the fear you would feel (for that is impossible in a video game) but rather to get the player to react in a way similar to reality (simulates the results of fear - getting down instead of trying to return pinpoint accurate fire).

That's why game should simulate just physicial stuff to create fear of being fragged in player.

Exactly! This is the right way to do it. Physical simulation.

No matter how picture perfect you make the game, the fear of being fragged in game wouldn't even come near to the fear felt in reality. Thus other methods (abstract methods) must be used to make the player act in a realistic way, in turn increasing the realism of the firefight, even if it decreases the realism of player control.

- Soldier runs in open area. Suddenly he notices 4 enemies with RPK MGs. So he covers behind rock. All enemies go prone and start to brainlessly shoot around the rock. How should he react?

According to you he should shit his pants and do some crazy things until one of the enemies decides to approach the stone and kill him.

In reality I think that he would stay in cover waiting, and ready to try and pop anyone who tries to flank him. He would hope that some squad mates would come and relieve him but if there were none around he would proablably die when the enemy comes within grenade range and tosses one in beside him. Realisms a bitch but what he would not do is try and peak out and shoot, possibly killing one of the assailants in the process. IMHO, that is for movies, or fast paced, nonrealistic, action FPS (which are fun to play too, but don't reflect reality). Logically that is the correct course of action, but the human survival instinct is not exactly logical. It tells you what to do to keep yourself alive at that very instant. Behind a rock, being suppressed by 4 guys, popping out of cover is far more likely to get you killed at that instant than ducking down and waiting it out.

I've experienced many situations in PR where hand shaking effect of "suppressive fire" cost me life. There was no cover close nor time to move away. In these situation the only thing you can do is lay down and return fire.

Sucks for you. Guess next time you'll make sure to stick to cover and/or at least have some buddies backing you up so you can suppress the enemy, giving you time to take cover (because their accuracy would be effected to.) See how this kind of mechanic would promote tactical thinking and preperation + teamplay and dissuade using your awesome twitch reflexes and eye-mouse coordination to win an encounter? I don't know about you, but I see that as a major plus.

What if you're behind the only solid cover within 50 meters and have seen 12 enemy snipers take aim at you just as you went to cover. They're simply waiting for you to expose yourself and you know it. What kind of effect should the game give you for such an occasion so that you'll know it's not worth it? What would be the technical conditions for the effect to show?

Last edited by Celery; Today at 11:15 AM.

Ideally, you would suffer some suppressive effects as well. But clearly this is not possible to do in the game, as their are to many variables the computer can't find out. Ie. if the player hasn't actually seen the snipers how would the computer know not to apply negative effects. It wouldn't. That still doesn't mean that effects should be applied for actual incoming fire.

Edited August 29, 2012 by -Coulum-

[b00ce 160]

Increased weapon sway is how it already works. Like I said earlier, when you're getting shot at/rounds are impacting around you your aim gets shaky.

[batto 17]

Sucks for you. Guess next time you'll make sure to stick to cover and/or at least have some buddies backing you up so you can suppress the enemy, giving you time to take cover (because their accuracy would be effected to.) See how this kind of mechanic would promote tactical thinking and preperation + teamplay and dissuade using your awesome twitch reflexes and eye-mouse coordination to win an encounter? I don't know about you, but I see that as a major plus.

PR is not game against dumb AI. You play against 30+ human players working in squads who do same tactical sh*t against you. So this very bad argument as it's clearly based on gameplay vs AI. Humans can outsmart you compared to current ArmA2 AI.

OK, let's say I follow your advice and outsmart my opponent but I miss all the shots. He can kill me while I reload but he can't aim properly because of shaking hands effect from "suppressive fire" (which isn't really suppressive fire but me being dumb and not hitting my shots). So I finally hit him with next magazine. Would you give him same advice?

You're going around the point by recommending tactics but shaking hands has nothing to do with wrong tactics.

I give up on replying to rest of your post as I'm tired of repeating same over and over. You serious milsimers will never stop suprising me. I thought you want realistic simulation but sometimes it seems you just want the game with harder gameplay even though it has nothing to with realism. I suspect it's beacuse you play only against AI that just can't match brain of human opponent (yet).

Edited August 29, 2012 by batto

[liquidpinky 11]

I give up on replying to rest of your post as I'm tired of repeating same over and over. You serious milsimers will never stop suprising me. I thought you want realistic simulation but sometimes it seems you just want the game with harder gameplay even though it has nothing to with realism. I suspect it's beacuse you play only against AI that just can't match brain of human opponent (yet).

I know how you feel, I do find the miss naming of this topic to be quite topical though.

The more I read here about self proclaimed tactical magicians who require gimmicks to achieve their goal, the more I have to stay away from sharp objects and long drops.

And yes, it deos give me a very realistic depressing feeling thanks.

Another game I could enjoy that has potential to be screwed over by the blurry vision police, reducing skill (a real world statistic BTW) into a luck fest.

[maddogx 13]

I thought you want realistic simulation but sometimes it seems you just want the game with harder gameplay even though it has nothing to with realism.

Sometimes harder gameplay has everything to do with realism. In this case, it's about making sure firefights don't last < 5 seconds because the people sitting at their computer with a keyboard and mouse can pop out of cover and snap off highly accurate shots thanks to muscle memory and years of FPS experience.

If the result of the proposed suppression effects is that suppressive fire ensures that the people on the other end are forced to keep their heads down and perhaps return some inaccurate fire, frankly I couldn't give less of a shit if it's "simulating" some real effect or not. It gets the job done. That's what counts.

Btw. as far as I'm concerned, the existing suppression effects in Arma2 are sufficient for this purpose.

[batto 17]

Sometimes harder gameplay has everything to do with realism. In this case, it's about making sure firefights don't last < 5 seconds because the people sitting at their computer with a keyboard and mouse can pop out of cover and snap off highly accurate shots thanks to muscle memory and years of FPS experience.

This is different issue. In ArmA2 it's sovled by limited turn speed. In ArmA3 it'll be solved by sway during turn AFAIK. But this simulates physicial world (the body). As long as it's physicial simulation I don't care how long firefights take. The side that loses may be more careful in next game/round/... hence longer firefight.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Pliskin passing by again.

I know how you feel, I do find the miss naming of this topic to be quite topical though.

The more I read here about self proclaimed tactical magicians who require gimmicks to achieve their goal, the more I have to stay away from sharp objects and long drops.

And yes, it deos give me a very realistic depressing feeling thanks.

There must be some kind of subliminal indoctrination going on, when one plays arcade COD/BF games, because one can't possibly advocate the introduction of an ADD blur derp effect into ArmA, simply because they don't somehow feel the terror of a gun pointed in their direction, while everybody else appears to be shitting their pants in PvP, myself included.

HuOus-Y5cCM

Everyone, observe how by virtue of the sound mod used, in this case - ACE2_SM, you can feel the facemelting fire happening on the other side of the hill. The OPFOR squad must be pierced by fear.

Vanilla sounds and certain particle effects are lacking in this respect, so advocate for better, "powerful" audio, not blur filters!

[skulldragon 1]

Now, I'm not advocating a blur effect, just improvements to how suppression affects the player in general, but as I said in an earlier post, people are different. What you may consider:

...the terror of a gun pointed in their direction,

someone else may consider "The mildly eyebrow-raising incidence of having a (not real) gun pointed in their direction in a game". I know that's a bit extreme (short of not caring whatsoever) and that most people (myself included) will feel at least some panic when having a gun pointed at them, but please remember that not everybody can get so deeply immersed in the game.

As for the thing about the sounds, I 100% agree with you - the JSRS mod added immeasurably to the 'suppression experience'. I also feel the sway is currently implemented imperfectly, but I lack the RL experience to say.

batto - you say: "...effect from suppressive fire" (which isn't really suppressive fire but me being dumb and not hitting my shots)." (the quote seems a bit out of context like that, sorry).

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you're saying (I do such things quite often, so my apologies if it is the case), but you seem to be implying that the physical/psychological effects of a bullet just missing you is less noticeable because the shot wasn't intended as suppressive fire. Anyway, I may be wrong, but I always thought the idea behind suppressive fire was "Want to kill them, probably won't, but it will keep them down, which is pretty much just as good" and hence not all too different from simple missed shots anyway.

Also, has anyone here been under suppresive fire and can tell us if you do experience any visual (or indeed any sensory) 'anomalies'.

Edited August 29, 2012 by skulldragon
Accidently included reply in quote tags

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Left my hat here.

Now, I'm not advocating a blur effect, just improvements to how suppression affects the player in general

As for the thing about the sounds, I 100% agree with you - the JSRS mod added immeasurably to the 'suppression experience'. I also feel the sway is currently implemented imperfectly, but I lack the RL experience to say.

I could agree to additional "heavy breathing", "aim shake" for every "registered" bullet that whizzes by your character, in say, a bubble of 10 metres. Could the Devs implement that? Bullets landing in your direct proximity already trigger this, but on the other hand, clearly audible bullet cracks, which are fired in your direction, do not, though both are equally "scary".

Nothing else apart from the above.

[rye1 21]

If it's mainly psychological, you're asking BIS to become psychological warfare demi-God's are destroy our mind and sanity in a hail of scary-as-shit firefight features, amaright?

[krazikilla 5]

the suppression effect will come on its own, when you are on a good PVP game, pumped with adrenalin and if there is no respawn.

If an enemy is spraying your cover with a MG and grenades are flying over you, you will have enough troubles to concentrate, stand up and take aimed shots.

Dont use too much virtual effects, when a game like ArmA can create a real feeling for that.

only things which could/should be also "used" for that effect:

if impacting bullets, grenades around you are spraying up dirt in your face. This should NOT be visualized on your face (like the lousy blood effects when beein hit..), but around the bullets themselfs.

AND shaking ground, problems with body handling when there are explosions nearby

Edited August 30, 2012 by KrAziKilla

[maturin 12]

the suppression effect will come on its own, when you are on a good PVP game, pumped with adrenalin and if there is no respawn.

Sooooo... 1% of games played.

That's why we have suppression effects that can be turned off.