More realistic/depressing feeling

[Madeon 6]

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.

Here you go batto.

1qPfyu1gS6A&feature=plcp

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

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

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 think you understand what we're talking about: ability to fight under fire, not a demonstration of a soldier firing MG in bursts at whatever targets are down range. Nobody is disputing the validity of the tactic: bring a high ROF, high ammunition count weapon and fire it in bursts at the enemy to prevent him from either moving, or retaliating.

Don't forget the enemy will fuck you up, while you reload, or if he feels that you don't know what you're doing, or he feels that you don't know his exact position and are spraying mindlessly.

In any other scenario, that enemy will get shot by going out of cover, which means your suppressive fire was effective. I don't see a problem.

[Madeon 6]

I don't think you understand what we're talking about: ability to fight under fire

It's you that doesn't understand Iroquois, and to be perfectly honest I doubt you ever will. No disrespect mate but I think these guys have a better understanding about the effects of suppression fire then you do, if an entire platoon can be suppressed then it blows your theories out of the water, wouldn't you say...

OWyKodBLOKc

[NoRailgunner 0]

Suppression is usually only effective for the duration of the fire. No need for more gimmicks if the bullets + impact effects do make the player get their heads down, search for hardcover and stop their current mission/action. One bigger problem (mission related) on public mp is: "if", "how fast" and "where" the player is able to respawn. How many players feel really suppressed if they don't have to care about their ingame character or team?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

It's you that doesn't understand Iroquois, and to be perfectly honest I doubt you ever will. No disrespect mate but I think these guys have a better understanding about the effects of suppression fire then you do, if an entire platoon can be suppressed then it blows your theories out of the water, wouldn't you say...

They're so suppressed, they're smiling. Goes against whatever fear effects simulation you guys want to bring into the game.

Derp?

---------- Post added at 12:02 ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 ----------

1) Don't forget the enemy will fuck you up, while you reload, or if he feels that you don't know what you're doing, or he feels that you don't know his exact position and are spraying mindlessly.

2) In any other scenario, that enemy will get shot by going out of cover, which means your suppressive fire was effective. I don't see a problem.

Yur vidya shows 2), which already happens in ArmA. Derp?

[dmarkwick 261]

They're so suppressed, they're smiling. Goes against whatever fear effects simulation you guys want to bring into the game.

Ah well, at least this post shows that you're not understanding the difference between fear simulation & suppression simulation. Which I sort of knew anyway :)

Yur vidya shows 2), which already happens in ArmA. Derp?

What I see in that video is this: some units listening to very sporadic, distant gunfire. Are you saying that ingame you wouldn't peek out?

[Madeon 6]

They're so suppressed, they're smiling.

Nervous laughter, obviously putting on a brave face for the camera, but their body language speaks volumes. In a similar situation in the armaverse players wouldn't be concerned about leaving cover as it would have little effect on their aiming abilities, but the guys in the video are playing for real, there's no respawns in the real world...

[batto 17]

fear simulation & suppression simulation

There's no such thing as "suppression simulation" except in brain of confused milsimers. Don't try to tell me that it was already explained because it wasn't. You either simulate fear in all possible cases in-game (impossible) or you give training-wheels for newbs ("You may be hurt, get to cover!", possible but it must be possible to opt-out).

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

What I see in that video is this: some units listening to very sporadic, distant gunfire. Are you saying that ingame you wouldn't peek out?

Not if that gunfire is sniper fire, but that's besides the case, I mean what the fuck, they're sitting there, chilling, discussing course of action - why would you need to peek out?

If I was alone in that particular situation with distant gunfire, I'd definitely peek out, since it's not directed at me or my location.

Nervous laughter, obviously putting on a brave face for the camera, but their body language speaks volumes. In a similar situation in the armaverse players wouldn't be concerned about leaving cover as it would have little effect on their aiming abilities, but the guys in the video are playing for real, there's no respawns in the real world...

I'd object about no respawns in the real world, but eh, not that kind of forum. As for nervous laughter, are you kidding me? Go ahead, simulate everything from the psychology encyclopedia, I dare you, I double dare you.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[dmarkwick 261]

There's no such thing as "suppression simulation" except in brain of confused milsimers. Don't try to tell me that it was already explained because it wasn't.

Batto, I wouldn't dream of trying to explain a single thing to you :)

---------- Post added at 12:27 ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 ----------

Not if that gunfire is sniper fire.

Nice dodge :)

[batto 17]

Batto, I wouldn't dream of trying to explain a single thing to you :)[

You didn't explain it to anybody reading this thread :)

[dmarkwick 261]

You didn't explain it to anybody reading this thread :)

Not very well it seems ;)

[batto 17]

Not very well it seems ;)

Not at all. Let's calm down and start again, OK? Please explain what is the difference between "fear simulation" and "suppression simulation"? I realize that suppression is real word tactic used to keep enemy in cover. I think that enemies stays in cover beacuse they fear risking their life. So "suppression simulation" appears to be "fear simulation" to me.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Nice dodge :)

I don't dodge, I win battles before they start. No really, if no accurate fire is put down on my position, why would I be intimidated?

If you're not fighting for fucking money, but the very survival of a Nation, Civilisation et cetera, then you'd take risks well beyond the comfort zone. See World War II.

[-Coulum- 35]

You didn't explain it to anybody reading this thread

Yes he did, very clearly and almost every post therafter supported his original points. I believe I was doing this tooo although I can't comment on the coherency of my writing. You just seem to choose to ignore the parts you don't like. Or maybe you just don't read everything. Or maybe you just can't grasp the idea. I don't know but I will try to simplify it for you as much as possible.

Suppressive fire ingame < suppressvie fire in reality

Above is true because player makes unrealistic decisions (stay's out of cover + returns fire) under fire.

Due to lack of real fear for life.

Weaponsway/loss of breath control/loss of zooming/whatever addition is an abstraction to persuade player to act more realistically (lowers success rate, making risk no longer worth it).

Which line do you disagree with?

No really, if no accurate fire is put down on my position, why would I be intimidated?

maybe because your life is at risk and you don't want to risk that because you think that your are under inaccurate fire. All it takes is one lucky/stray shot. You would be fine to gamble that so easily? I doubt it. (And I don't mean any offense)

If you're not fighting for fucking money, but the very survival of a Nation, Civilisation et cetera, then you'd take risks well beyond the comfort zone. See World War II.

Remind me again, in world war 2, what percentage of soldiers were reported to actually be firing at the enemy?

And believe it or not most wars aren't fought for survival of a civilization. And many people would rather be alive and conquered rather than dead, and still possible conquered.

Edited August 31, 2012 by -Coulum-

[Madeon 6]

Please explain what is the difference between "fear simulation" and "suppression simulation"?

Nobody is suggesting that we should simulate "oh there are enemy troops over there, I should hide" fear, we want to simulate "someone is firing bullets very fucking close to my face" fear. I hope that helps bring you a little closer to understanding what we mean by simulating suppressive fire.

[maddogx 13]

Nobody is suggesting that we should simulate "oh there are enemy troops over there, I should hide" fear, we want to simulate "someone is firing bullets very fucking close to my face" fear. I hope that helps bring you a little closer to understanding what we mean by simulating suppressive fire.

Nicely put, though I would extend it beyond bullets - nearby explosions should have a similar effect. (Easily possible, in theory.)

[Madeon 6]

I would extend it beyond bullets - nearby explosions should have a similar effect. (Easily possible, in theory.)

Yes I totally agree.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

maybe because your life is at risk and you don't want to risk that because you think that your are under inaccurate fire. All it takes is one lucky/stray shot. You would be fine to gamble that so easily? I doubt it. (And I don't mean any offense)

It was a rhetorical question, if I was fighting World War III on my soil, you bet your ass I would peek out, take the motherfucker down, then re-occupy his position and feast on his guts for dinner.

And believe it or not most wars aren't fought for survival of a civilization. And many people would rather be alive and conquered rather than dead, and still possible conquered.

Bullshit, tell that to the Europeans, tell that to me, tell that to the Jews, to the Russians. "Not" for civilisation, go read some history books. I don't care if some mercenaries in Afghanistan have hookers and blow waiting back at home and they don't give a shit about the mission or the ultimate success of the "war".

[rye1 22]

Suppressive fire ingame < suppressvie fire in reality

Above is true because player makes unrealistic decisions (stay's out of cover + returns fire) under fire.

Due to lack of real fear for life.

Weaponsway/loss of breath control/loss of zooming/whatever addition is an abstraction to persuade player to act more realistically (lowers success rate, making risk no longer worth it).

Playing with United Operations (UO) on their ACE server and LOL that just happened....

They're in shell scrapes and stuff right and I'm watching in spectator... Guys jumping out of cover to shoot... Rounds hitting all around dudes and you can see these pings and dust kicking up on the shell scrapes and they keep shooting then go prone to reload. Some guys do feel suppression though and jump down...

[dmarkwick 261]

I suggest that suppression effect is an alternative mechanism to fear. NOT that it simulates fear, which we agree we cannot do.

It gives you an ingame reason to reassess the effectiveness of your actions, and from there you make a decision whether that action is worth attempting. It does not stop you, only makes you reassess.

This added reassessment replaces immediate fear, and changes your behavior to reflect a realistic behavior.

And in fact, this is already in ArmA. The excellent TPW suppression addon expands on this to include suppression effects from bullets that pass nearby to you, as well as impact nearby. Whether you like blur effects is purely subjective, I don't have any kind of post-processing so I'm already outside of that concern. But I do get the aiming shake, which makes me reassess the risk. If the risk is worth it, I take the risk. After all, return fire, even innaccurate return fire, is also suppressive. It extends firefights and produces emergent gameplay, which is what I ask for :)

[maddogx 13]

you bet your ass I would peek out, take the motherfucker down, then re-occupy his position and feast on his guts for dinner.

Good thing this theoretical guy is conveniently alone and completely incompetent. The imagination is a wonderful thing. :D

(On a related note, I think I need to pour myself a drink.)

I suggest that suppression effect is an alternative mechanism to fear. NOT that it simulates fear, which we agree we cannot do.

It gives you an ingame reason to reassess the effectiveness of your actions, and from there you make a decision whether that action is worth attempting. It does not stop you, only makes you reassess.

This added reassessment replaces immediate fear, and changes your behavior to reflect a realistic behavior.

And in fact, this is already in ArmA. The excellent TPW suppression addon expands on this to include suppression effects from bullets that pass nearby to you, as well as impact nearby. Whether you like blur effects is purely subjective, I don't have any kind of post-processing so I'm already outside of that concern. But I do get the aiming shake, which makes me reassess the risk. If the risk is worth it, I take the risk. After all, return fire, even innaccurate return fire, is also suppressive. It extends firefights and produces emergent gameplay, which is what I ask for :)

^^ Absolutely nailed it.

Edited August 31, 2012 by MadDogX

[-Coulum- 35]

Bullshit, tell that to the Europeans, tell that to me, tell that to the Jews, to the Russians. "Not" for civilisation, go read some history books. I don't care if some mercenaries in Afghanistan have hookers and blow waiting back at home and they don't give a shit about the mission or the ultimate success of the "war".

And all the POWs in WW2 were just soldiers who were incapacitated before being taken prisoner right? Because Nobody preferred survival over their country. And remind me, what is motivating the soldier in afghanistan. And you still haven't answered this one for me

Remind me again, in world war 2, what percentage of soldiers were reported to actually be firing at the enemy?

It was a rhetorical question, if I was fighting World War III on my soil, you bet your ass I would peek out, take the motherfucker down, then re-occupy his position and feast on his guts for dinner.

Yeah okay. I guess I am just a pussy. Or maybe I am just more of a realist.

Edited August 31, 2012 by -Coulum-

[Madeon 6]

I suggest that suppression effect is an alternative mechanism to fear. NOT that it simulates fear, which we agree we cannot do.

It gives you an ingame reason to reassess the effectiveness of your actions, and from there you make a decision whether that action is worth attempting. It does not stop you, only makes you reassess.

This added reassessment replaces immediate fear, and changes your behavior to reflect a realistic behavior.

And in fact, this is already in ArmA. The excellent TPW suppression addon expands on this to include suppression effects from bullets that pass nearby to you, as well as impact nearby. Whether you like blur effects is purely subjective, I don't have any kind of post-processing so I'm already outside of that concern. But I do get the aiming shake, which makes me reassess the risk. If the risk is worth it, I take the risk. After all, return fire, even innaccurate return fire, is also suppressive. It extends firefights and produces emergent gameplay, which is what I ask for :)

You nailed it mate, you explained it perfectly!

[maturin 12]

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.

L.M.F.M.A.O.

Now the truth comes out. You're arguing ArmA based on your experience with the Young Indiana Jones movies.