Suppression Effect missing in ARMA3

[EDcase 87]

-Deleted-

Edited April 3, 2013 by EDcase

[liquidpinky 11]

As I said, the Ramboesque will complain :)

Anyway, as this convo is destined to go the same way as the others (the Rambos vs the crybabies, or whatever) I guess what will be, will be. :)

Cant be, no M60 yet.

I could counter with the pish shots will complain if they don't add suppression. It could go on for centuries the argument no doubt and judging by the voting so far it a 50/50 split on opinions about it.

So it needs debated and a happy solution for all concerned worked out I think.

If done it needs to be done correct, so far some blurry annoying visuals and random deviation that one game employed is a joke.

It should also come down to volume of incoming fire and how close a radius it is to you.

If you are already lined up to kill the only other person on the map who shoots and misses, then they gain some advantage on you it is wrong. I sure as hell wouldn't run away making myself a larger target, especially if I am already prone, not really great tactics is it?

It would be the single most stupid thing you ever did for the last few moments of your life.

So suppression needs to be contextual and intelligent for it to work and be to fair.

BF3 copied suppression from A2 and stuffed it up, now people want to copy the copy and god only knows how stuffed up it will get then.

You already have extra fatigue to factor in to you tactics, you cant hold your scope steady for long anyway and it makes moving an intelligent choice if you are already out of breathe and in scope sway if you are being shot at. If only to let you recover.

I could personally live with sway without random deviation so I could choose to try and take my target all the while it being more difficult to hit them, but ultimately possible to do if I made the effort or I don't die because I made a bad call first.

I would like to be left with the choice and not railroaded against my will to experience something I wouldn't.

@ Maturin: at no point in my previous post was I being dishonest, I was being completely honest about my feelings towards the suppression mechanic and the fact that I do hike everywhere 90% of the time in A2 and A3 and appreciate staying alive a little better for it.

I can however be a pigheaded ignorant close minded fool but I am always honest and will tell people to their face what I think of them. And on that note, maybe live up to your name and do a little maturin' yourself. ;)

[twisted 128]

totally for suppression effects. both for player. there's a reason tpwas was SO very popular. right now on

arma3 I never fear for my digital guys life. firstly because

ai kill me first shot over huge distances so often. but also there's no other perceived effect from incoming fire. I don't get scared of digital incoming fire and if the guy does then just respawn.

suppression effects also go a long way in mp games. it rewards whoever manuevers best and fires first. it also encourages taking cover to minimize the effects.

to me stimulating some screen blur or twitch makes sense. also increasing breathing rate and weapon sway.

[scrim 1]

Yeah, well then you're just careless, or have put the AI accuracy on something like 0.1. That's not a good case for adding arcade features to make you actually take cover.

[EDcase 87]

totally for suppression effects. both for player. there's a reason tpwas was SO very popular. right now on

arma3 I never fear for my digital guys life. firstly because

ai kill me first shot over huge distances so often. but also there's no other perceived effect from incoming fire. I don't get scared of digital incoming fire and if the guy does then just respawn.

suppression effects also go a long way in mp games. it rewards whoever manuevers best and fires first. it also encourages taking cover to minimize the effects.

to me stimulating some screen blur or twitch makes sense. also increasing breathing rate and weapon sway.

NO, Thats nothing to do with supression effects. Not being concerned about your char's life is simply because its too easy to respawn. That's a problem with the mission.

If it took 60 or more seconds to respawn then you would be a lot more concerned. Hardcore missions have NO respawn. I guarantee that you'll worry then.

Its a matter of consequences. If there are none then there's no danger and no amount of fakery is going to fix that.

I don't want my screen going all funky because shots are going over my head while I wait for the enemy to run out of ammo and reload.

And I certainly don't want my aim being affected so that when I lean around the corner to kill said enemy its artificially waving all over the place.

Edited April 2, 2013 by EDcase

[dayglow 2]

BIS, I'm not kidding, if you implement this rubbish arcade shit, you will have deserved losing just about all serious players.

Seriously, this is not what happens IRL when you're being shot at. If you want to have something that unrealistic, get out of the Arma series and pick up a copy of BF3.

So if rounds are close by and you have a fear for life response here would be no adrenaline response, no narrowing of vision as you focus, no auditory exslusion? You would be calm, cool as a cucumber?

i wouldn't want an arbitrary dispersion of rounds, but to blur peripheral vision as a 'penalty' isn't to over the top. You still have focus at the center, still able to put accurate rounds down range, you simply have an auditory and periphal vision penalty.

[-Coulum- 35]

There's the old saw again. And some people are Olympic sprinters, some run marathons, some have a mental condition that prevents them from feeling fear, some people don't notice bullet wounds and survive impalement or dozens of gunshots.

So we can thoroughly ruin the gameplay for the sake of all you people dishonestly claiming that your ability to scare yourself on behalf of a fake avatar who might face a five minute walk as consquences for death will lengthen firefights and reward proper tactics. If we standardize all the upper reaches of human combat ability, it will just be BF. Except that even BF has suppression effects.

yep, totally agree. Some people have survived for extended periods after having entire magazines emptied into them. Should we now just make it so everyone in game takes a clip to take down in game...? No of course not. Same goes for suppression. Just because some people are fanatical enough to totally ignore incoming fire, doesn't mean that everyone should be able to react that way.

Hands shake when bullets impact close (Just like ArmA 2).

Dirt of camera, possible blinking or involuntary sharp head movements from impact dust, spraying masonry and bullet fragments that would realistically be present.

Brief jolt when close sonic cracks are heard, just enough to throw off a carefully aimed shot momentarily.

Brief and subtle brightness changes. Heavy breathing and heartbeat noises.

Loss of ability to zoom and hold breath.

Everything except for arma 2 hand shake. That shake lasted far to long and got to be far to violent far to quickly. I think an increase in breathing rate and lack of breath control is enough in terms of aiming ability.

Also to add, it could take longer to bring up/line up your sights while under fire.

but adding more artificial effects doesn't help either.

Yes it does. Although no more or no less fear is instilled in the player, with suppression effects he is more likely to seek cover than return accurate fire. That is the goal. Play RO and you will see that it does work. Fire superiority is actually a factor in a fight, and that's at very close ranges where suppression wouldn't actually be as large a factor.

Jesus, its going to be BF3 all over again.

I don't get it. VBS2 also has suppression effects too... is it also BF3 all over again? Did VBS include this just to turn a military simulator into an arcade shooter? Btw I do hate BF3 suppression effects.

Yeah, well then you're just careless, or have put the AI accuracy on something like 0.1. That's not a good case for adding arcade features to make you actually take cover.

Problem is your not really punished for this carelessness. In fact in some cases it helps you.

Its a matter of consequences. If there are none then there's no danger and no amount of fakery is going to fix that.

Please tell me a practical way that BIS can make the consequences of dying ingame as bad as the consequences of dying in reality. There needs to be abstraction in order get players to act more like they would in reality.

I don't want my screen going all funky because shots are going over my head while I wait for the enemy to run out of ammo and reload.

And I certainly don't want my aim being affected so that when I lean around the corner to kill said enemy its artificially waving all over the place.

That's why I would hope its option. And the effects shouldn't last a long time like in arma 2 (making for situations where you can't shoot someone minutes after they shot at you).

[jgbtl292 0]

matter of habit ;) matter of habit ... i have an the fifth firefight no adrenalin more ^^ ok is a thing of the mental health.

for a game a stupid option ^^ not all humans are the same. the one is tearful the other not a little.

by me was only the breath, he was louder then all other. on in the first weeks on tic

will not see this on a game ! when you need it go army or foraign legion ;)

Edited April 2, 2013 by JgBtl292

[scrim 1]

Yes, carelessness is punished, unless you put the AI accuracy to pathetic levels.

And no, if you're up against very slight resistance IRL that can't aim for its life you wont start shaking, getting tunnel vision, etc. If you're up against some real resistance in Arma 3, either you start taking cover, and thus get suppressed to a certain extent, or you act like it's CoD and get shot.

[chrisb 196]

Needs to be in, imo.

Just needs to be switchable to keep everyone happy...

[twisted 128]

interesting to contrast this with the too much recoil argument. there auto centering is being asked for by some as riflemen do that by reflex. here there are people not wanting reflexes being simulated cause they feel enough panic at waiting sixty seconds to respawn.

vive la difference. at least we get all sides explored. though some people should realize it's not a shouting contest or vote.

[-Coulum- 35]

And no, if you're up against very slight resistance IRL that can't aim for its life you wont start shaking, getting tunnel vision, etc. If you're up against some real resistance in Arma 3, either you start taking cover, and thus get suppressed to a certain extent, or you act like it's CoD and get shot.

Well even against properly trained enemies you won't start shaking if you are eperienced enough. But that being said, soldiers don't start going rambo in reality. This is not because it would be an ineffective course of action but rather because there life is not something they want to put at risk, even if it is just a small risk. In arma however risking your life is not nearly as big a deal and so players are more inclined to do things that a soldier in reality wouldn't do (ie go rambo). The shake, tunnel vision blurring etc. isn't to simulate anything (although they aren't exactly far fetched) but simply to encourage the player to act in a more realistic manner. This is essential for getting more realistic overall gameplay.

interesting to contrast this with the too much recoil argument. there auto centering is being asked for by some as riflemen do that by reflex. here there are people not wanting reflexes being simulated cause they feel enough panic at waiting sixty seconds to respawn.

hmm, yes indeed. Though don't twist peoples words - I don't think anyone has said that 60 second re-spawn makes them feel the heat. Rather some do say that no re-spawn in a long match is good enough. I disagree with this.

[mr_centipede 31]

I agree with with -Coulum-

In ARMA2 with TPWCAS, and screen shake enable, I'm more incline to take cover more, because honestly, I usually don't realize there are rounds coming in until it's too late. So screen shake or blur has to be in, though not too over the top. Enough to mess up your aim/concentration for a bit.

But more importantly, the AI really really need to be able to 'feel' suppressed

[froggyluv 2136]

I like pretty much all the TPWCAS type suppression effects and I didn't find it particulary hard to still 1 shot enemies out at 200m even under full effect -in Arma2. Something about the PP effect actually made me see their silhouette more but it was in a haze so I liked that I had to change up my perception a bit to effectively locate.

Running the mod in Arma3 I find it much harder to locate when under the PP effect but i still really enjoy the immersion and added challenge. The only suppression effects that really bothered me were both from SLX (my favorite mod) and that was a forced drop to the ground and a wildly waving crosshair -thats just taking away too much control from player. Anything that I can quickly adjust from but adds an element of forcing me to adjust as well as hopefully avoid situations in which to get suppressed, is fine by me.

[Chocolate 1]

Yes it does. Although no more or no less fear is instilled in the player, with suppression effects he is more likely to seek cover than return accurate fire. That is the goal. Play RO and you will see that it does work. Fire superiority is actually a factor in a fight, and that's at very close ranges where suppression wouldn't actually be as large a factor.

Note, in my original post and now, I am not against having some sort of effect due to suppression, but I am against vision loss or fading. In games such as BF3 you might as well be blind. I love RO a good bit actually, but the extreme grey scale due to suppression is still too much in my opinion. I think Its definitely a balancing act, but forcing a degree of value onto the player isn't a bad thing. I do not want unreasonable - unrealistic effects however. The question is essentially, "To what extent do we standardize the abilities of the avatar in a combat situation?"

That is to say, in almost every modern shooter everyone expects that the player's avatar has mastered the fundamentals of marksmanship, and applying those fundamentals is up to the player. In this thread we are discussing to what degree do we standardize the fear factor/preservation factor of the avatar.

[sqb-sma 66]

Gah, what I really want is JSRS. Those bullet cracks, the weapon sounds. Hearing the bullets around you for once.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Not this shit again.

Battlefield 4 is around the corner for you guys.

[dmarkwick 261]

Using the "Go back to <insert perceived lower quality game here>" argument is a poor one.

The purpose of suppression effects on the player is not that it looks "realistic", because there's a whole lot of anecdotal evidence that suppression effects IRL arre not like ingame.

The purpose is to give a real ingame reason to take & keep cover. "Fear" cannot be induce in a game, maybe annoyance or inconvenience can, but not fear. Annoyance & inconvenience can be induced by long/no respawn times.

Suppression can be induced by making the player be less effective when he's exposed to incoming fire. Why pop your head over for a superb crackshot when it cannot be done? Not saying you cannot pop your head over & return fire - of course you can. And even have that fire be effective. Just... you have some sort of temporary increase in ineffectiveness to give you a real ingame reason to not take risks.

Whether that suppression effect is visual or physical... a matter of taste I suppose, but as long as the mechanic is there, it'll be good.

[max power 21]

I think that the player, without exception, has an extreme lack of regard for his/her own safety. The only reason why he/she would be playing it safe would be due to a tactical choice. Suppression is a real thing, and it can't be just chalked up to the statistical likelihood of being hit by a bullet in x situation vs. the statistical likelihood of you hitting someone else with a bullet. I am not set on a form that suppression effects must come in but I think they should be integrated as some kind of penalty.

[KenshiHH 10]

its the most annoying feature in battlefield,

i dont want this crap anywhere near arma

[dmarkwick 261]

its the most annoying feature in battlefield,

i dont want this crap anywhere near arma

I don't/haven't played Battlefield, but what about it is annoying? You don't like the effect, or you don't like the principle? IMO refusing to acknowledge suppressive fire is tantamount to exploitation. :) we want it for the AI but not the human players?

I know - it's an opinion. And it's deliberately adversarial, but not entirely serious. But if we're playing ArmA for realism, and we have fatigue, stance accuracy parameters, in other words parameters associated with standardising individual capabilities, then we should have suppression as a feature.

[Maxzy 12]

its the most annoying feature in battlefield,

i dont want this crap anywhere near arma

Too late, it's already there. And was there for three fucking years.

[liquidpinky 11]

I don't/haven't played Battlefield, but what about it is annoying? You don't like the effect, or you don't like the principle? IMO refusing to acknowledge suppressive fire is tantamount to exploitation. :) we want it for the AI but not the human players?

I know - it's an opinion. And it's deliberately adversarial, but not entirely serious. But if we're playing ArmA for realism, and we have fatigue, stance accuracy parameters, in other words parameters associated with standardising individual capabilities, then we should have suppression as a feature.

Is reducing someones effectiveness by just firing near them not an exploit then. :P

How can you talk about realism and then apply an effect that doesnt even exist in reality?

Do you want a simulator or not?

[dmarkwick 261]

Is reducing someones effectiveness by just firing near them not an exploit then. :P

How can you talk about realism and then apply an effect that doesnt even exist in reality?

Do you want a simulator or not?

Seriously, I don't think you understood the point I made.

How can you talk about realism and then apply an effect that doesnt even exist in reality?

I did say the effect itself is not "realistic", I did also say that it gives you an ingame reason to take cover, seeing as genuine fear is not simulated or induced. So whether it looks "realistic" or not is NOT the point - whether it makes you decide to take & keep cover for *slightly different, but appropriate* reasons, is.

Do you want a simulator or not?

Do you?

I want a game that is fun to play, is realistic enough to make it worth playing with real tactics and have those tactics be effective. Do you? :)

I wouldn't wish to provide effective suppressive fire with a wide-dispersal machinegun only to have someone decide to sharpshoot me with cool arcade-like precision simply because he's decided he doesn't wish to be suppressed anymore. He made this decision because he knows the dispersal is random enough to ensure a possibility not being hit for 2 seconds.

[jgbtl292 0]

you have a Suppression Effect in the game you hear the near bullets ! go cover or die maby. not more you have in real. breat and all the other effects is differnd from human to human.

is real, in the game and more than enough ! is your opinion, cover or die, when you hear the bullets over you.