Suppression Effect missing in ARMA3

[liquidpinky 11]

Are you implying it's possible to simulate the experience of being shot at on a computer?

You are asking the wrong person, I design and build control systems for a living. So to make a system that could fire a gun close to myself directly linked to my PC would not be a problem.

I could also make a robotic leg kick me in the face if I wanted true realism during melee combat as well.

Both would be going a little too far with the realism thing though.

[dmarkwick 261]

There isn't any in ArmA II - only a slight hearbeat rate increase and hand shake, when bullets lands within a few meters of the player, and even this effect is capped. There is no blurring of vision, or no other schizo hallucinations that incapacitate the player.

It's more like an adrenalin rush, than anything else.

You see, the people here want to simulate the emotional/human psyche response to a firefight, and not any of the physiological dangers, such as ringing in the ears from a loud explosion, or knocking back of the player from, say, MBT cannon overpressure.

Good luck to them. LOL

No, not true. You just think that because you glossed over posts you already have an opinion on without trying to understand.

[dnk 13]

reward bad aim. You just have to shoot in the vincinity of someone (note : you were initially NOT shooting for suppressing, but for killing, but you have bad aim and simply miss), and magically, you are immune to return fire because your target cannot aim correctly at you... because you missed. This will happen A LOT more than tactical suppressing.

I guess only people with good aim get kills in real-world combat then. Certainly, someone with mediocre aim spamming shots won't:

1. (semi?)unintentionally suppress their target

2. sometimes kill their target by chance

Yes, this is certainly something a sim-game should avoid, simulating such obviously unlikely events. /sarcasm

Hey, if anyone with bad aim is suppressing you on accident, then you know you can start shooting back as their aim isn't that good, and voila! they're suppressed too now, and they suck to begin with, so the field is even and the better man, on the whole, will win. That seems both fair, realistic, and more immersing/"fun" than "good aim guy one-shots under heavy fire, bad aim guy has 0 effect on battles".

Note:

A. A good player-marskman can correct for gun sway

B. Most players ime are sucky marskmen, so they're going to want to have some effect even when they aren't getting quick kills, and this gives it to them.

[max power 21]

This old game from 1993 called SEAL Team had suppression effects, up to and including forcing the character to go prone, and every time you tried to get up, you would get a huge warning, "SUPPRESSED!" This was a simulator game made with a few military consultants, including a former US President's Guard and war historian.

I tried to play it again recently but with the oldschool 3d vector graphics, I found it too hard to judge distances, and kept killing my team calling in rocket strikes from the gunships.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Max Power

[whisper 0]

I guess only people with good aim get kills in real-world combat then. Certainly, someone with mediocre aim spamming shots won't:

1. (semi?)unintentionally suppress their target

2. sometimes kill their target by chance

Yes, this is certainly something a sim-game should avoid, simulating such obviously unlikely events. /sarcasm

Hey, if anyone with bad aim is suppressing you on accident, then you know you can start shooting back as their aim isn't that good, and voila! they're suppressed too now, and they suck to begin with, so the field is even and the better man, on the whole, will win. That seems both fair, realistic, and more immersing/"fun" than "good aim guy one-shots under heavy fire, bad aim guy has 0 effect on battles".

Note:

A. A good player-marskman can correct for gun sway

B. Most players ime are sucky marskmen, so they're going to want to have some effect even when they aren't getting quick kills, and this gives it to them.

And here we go again, IRL and simulation being the ONLY driver for ArmA3 design.

Please, no.

To be clear again : I'm not against it. As long as it is not forced onto anyone

EDIT : btw

Most players ime are sucky marskmen

with a aiming impairing system, the above means you are going to suffer from impairement most of the time in an engagement. Hardly fun if you ask me. Edited April 4, 2013 by whisper

[batto 17]

What exactly is suppression effect? Provide some external links please.

I've tried to google it but all results are either FPS game related or non-military related (like statistics).

Do people in real military even use this term?

-Coulum-, don't quote my name on something I didn't say please.

Edited April 4, 2013 by batto

[dmarkwick 261]

What exactly is suppression effect? Provide some external links please.

I've tried to google it but all results are either FPS game related or non-military related (like statistics).

Do people in real military even use this term?

Well this is the thing - some people are taking that term literally to mean the effect you see when you are being subject to suppression, and others take it to mean the effect it has on gameplay.

Military talk about suppression, not suppression effect. Military also talks about fatigue, but not fatigue effect. So that's the deal there.

Suppression works because of a fear of being hit, by inaccurate & random fire. Real fear cannot be simulated or induced in a game, so an appropriate gameplay analog needs to be in place to give the player an appropriate reason to keep hidden. If your ability to sharpshoot is reduced, you might make different decisions about how long you pop your head up for to return fire, that's the crux of it.

However, how this reduction of performance is manifested seems to be the sticking point for a lot of people who only can think in terms of absolute simulation realism, i.e. if the aim goes shaky & there is some blurring, they'll complain that this doesn't actually happen IRL, without considering that it's only a device to make the player act differently.

[mr_centipede 31]

It's not a military term that I can tell. Suppression is an action, but the effect is missing in the game, whether to AI or human player. This thread originally created to have an effect for the AI like losing some effectiveness to engage the player, but since everyone seems to agree on the AI, now it turns toward effect to the player.

If you played tpwcas, you only got more weapon sway when there is effective suppression, ie, bullets pass very-very close to player. So if it's not effective suppression, there wont be any penalizing effect.

[batto 17]

Suppression works because of a fear of being hit, by inaccurate & random fire. Real fear cannot be simulated or induced in a game, so an appropriate gameplay analog needs to be in place to give the player an appropriate reason to keep hidden. If your ability to sharpshoot is reduced, you might make different decisions about how long you pop your head up for to return fire, that's the crux of it.

In other words you want to simulate fear & stress from incoming bullets by giving the player disadvantage.

I wonder why do you insist so much on other players making good decisions? I assume you've some experience in ArmA and so do your mates so you shouldn't need anything like suppression effect to make good decisions.

I'm fine with it if it's going to be opt-in client side thing.

---------- Post added at 11:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 AM ----------

If you played tpwcas, you only got more weapon sway when there is effective suppression, ie, bullets pass very-very close to player. So if it's not effective suppression, there wont be any penalizing effect.

You can't measure success of suppression like that.

[dmarkwick 261]

In other words you want to simulate fear & stress from incoming bullets by giving the player disadvantage.

I don't wish to simulate fear & stress because then a whole truckload of people show up yelling about the precise nature of this effect, how it doesn't exist, or looks different, or is the opposite etc.

I'm trying to find an ingame reason to make the player make the same decisions, regardless of how roleplay efficient he is.

I wonder why do you insist so much on other players making good decisions? I assume you've some experience in ArmA and so do your mates so you shouldn't need anything like suppression effect to make good decisions.

You might as well say that about stances and their different weapon performances. Or fatigue and it's weapon performance difference. If you can run 300m at full sprint and then immediately fire off a pixel-perfect shot, that sounds gamey to me. Likewise if there are rounds landing all around me but I can make a pixel-perfect shot in 2 seconds, that also sounds gamey to me. Don't tell me that players should act in a role-playing way in these conditions because we both know that doesn't happen consistently, as previous vids have shown.

Kind of similar to the 3rd person argument, saying that players "shouldn't" use 3rd person is different to having a server that has disallowed that possibility yes?

Now, I like playing gamey sometimes, it's refreshing. But to have this all the time with no option to enforce gameplay elements it all becomes gamey all the time.

Edited April 4, 2013 by DMarkwick

[RuecanOnRails 10]

A post processing white vignette that would appear for a second or two if a bullet passes closes enough to you that it would cause a rush of adrenaline and disorientation in real life.

It could be brought a step further where the vignette effect is larger or smaller based on how close the round got to you.

If you divide the vignette effect into eight sections, you could have certain sections be more predominant allowing you to have some sort of reaction to whether the round went above your head or to the side.

I don't think being suppressed should cause a drop in accuracy. People handle fear and being under fire differently. Trying to put some sort of effect of fear and the feel of being under fire could be covered by vignette that lets you know a you are being shot at and should move.

[batto 17]

You might as well say that about stances and their different weapon performances. Or fatigue and it's weapon performance difference. If you can run 300m at full sprint and then immediately fire off a pixel-perfect shot, that sounds gamey to me. Likewise if there are rounds landing all around me but I can make a pixel-perfect shot in 2 seconds, that also sounds gamey to me. Don't tell me that players should act in a role-playing way in these conditions because we both know that doesn't happen consistently, as previous vids have shown.

That's something different. Simulating physiology of your avatar is OK (it's even desired). Simulating emotions of your avatar is NOT OK. Instead adjust gameplay to affect player's emotions so he'll be scared to pop head on suppression fire.

It's NOT OK because it's far far harder to simulate than physiology because there's so much that can affect emotions and you want to simulate only 1 case.

Imagine you're on patrol with 6 mates (close to you according to mission story) and suddenly enemy MG fire kills them all except you and then stops firing. Your avatar is alone surrounded by enemies. Fear and sadness should kick in.

I can make up much more situations where fear, sadness, anger, boredom, ... should kick in. Why do you want to simulate only one emotion only in 1 case?

Kind of similar to the 3rd person argument, saying that players "shouldn't" use 3rd person is different to having a server that has disallowed that possibility yes?

You're comparing apples and oranges.

(NOTE: I'm no medic or psychologist so I may sound lame but I hope you get the point.)

Edited April 4, 2013 by batto

[dmarkwick 261]

A post processing white vignette that would appear for a second or two if a bullet passes closes enough to you that it would cause a rush of adrenaline and disorientation in real life.

It could be brought a step further where the vignette effect is larger or smaller based on how close the round got to you.

If you divide the vignette effect into eight sections, you could have certain sections be more predominant allowing you to have some sort of reaction to whether the round went above your head or to the side.

I don't think being suppressed should cause a drop in accuracy. People handle fear and being under fire differently. Trying to put some sort of effect of fear and the feel of being under fire could be covered by vignette that lets you know a you are being shot at and should move.

Good suggestions, and all valid. But my experience in discussing this topic is that no matter what effect you decide to employ to simulate this suppression, a group of people will show up to explain to you how wrong it is and that in fact fear makes your sight sharper, or more intense, or somesuch thing.

The aiming shake has the benefit that, while also not being applicable to all situations & people, it makes you make the same sort of decisions as genuine suppression does. That's what my main goal would be, not to make something that someone believes how fear should look, but that makes you make the same decisions. Just for a slightly different reason.

---------- Post added at 09:59 ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 ----------

That's something different. Simulating physiology of your avatar is OK (it's even desired). Simulating emotions of your avatar is NOT OK. Instead adjust gameplay to affect player's emotions so he'll be scared to pop head on suppression fire.

It's NOT OK because it's far far harder to simulate than physiology because there's so much that can affect emotions and you want to simulate only 1 case.

Imagine you're on patrol with 6 mates (close to you according to mission story) and suddenly enemy MG fire kills them all except you and then stops firing. Your avatar is alone surrounded by enemies. Fear and sadness should kick in.

I can make up much more situations where fear, sadness, anger, boredom, ... should kick in. Why do you want to simulate only one emotion in only in 1 case?

Well I'm clearly not expressing the idea properly. I'm not trying to simulate an emotion. Being suppressed clearly has a physiological effect, involuntary blinking & twitching etc as well as the fear factor. I've already several time said we cannot simulate emotions. I don't know how to say that any clearer.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Not really, I'm describing player activity in both cases. I might make the same comment about your above example of simulating sadness above, when there is no ingame reason to do so.

Edited April 4, 2013 by DMarkwick

[batto 17]

Well I'm clearly not expressing the idea properly. I'm not trying to simulate an emotion. Being suppressed clearly has a physiological effect, involuntary blinking & twitching etc as well as the fear factor. I've already several time said we cannot simulate emotions. I don't know how to say that any clearer.

You're just using different terms for same thing. You say the game cannot simulate emotions (fear). At the same time you say game needs suppression effect (fear). What exactly should this effect represent if not fear?

Not really, I'm describing player activity in both cases. I might make the same comment about your above example of simulating sadness above, when there is no ingame reason to do so.

3rd person view is not simulation. You see through your eyes. I guess you could say that's physiology simulation.

EDIT:

Being suppressed clearly has a physiological effect, involuntary blinking & twitching etc as well as the fear factor.

Nope, you just made that up. Or you've seen it in games/movies (or have you ever been under fire IRL?). Or you're just describing effects of fear.

Edited April 4, 2013 by batto

[dmarkwick 261]

You're just using different terms for same thing. You say the game cannot simulate emotions (fear). At the same time you say game needs suppression effect (fear). What exactly should this effect represent if not fear?

I told you I wasn't expressing it properly :)

3rd person view is not simulation. You see through your eyes. I guess you could say that's physiology simulation.

You're being conversationally shortsighted, the comment isn't about what 3rd person represents, it's about how players act when they have something they can exploit.

---------- Post added at 10:18 ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 ----------

Nope, you just made that up. Or you've seen it in games/movies (or have you ever been under fire IRL?). Or you're just describing effects of fear.

Are you suggesting you're not subject to involuntary blinking etc when something snaps or cracks loudly nearby? If so then you're in a minority. I've been subject to incoming fire, but only in safe condition of a firing range (waiting in a safe position to change targets when fresh targets are needed) and I blinked and twitched every time. I can only imagine what it's like when I'm actually in some danger of being hit. One thing is for sure - I wouldn't like to stick my head up no matter how good a shot I was.

[batto 17]

You're being conversationally shortsighted, the comment isn't about what 3rd person represents, it's about how players act when they have something they can exploit.

Are trying to say that taking risk and returning fire from cover is gameplay abuse?

Are you suggesting you're not subject to involuntary blinking etc when something snaps or cracks loudly nearby? If so then you're in a minority.

Yes, it's to protect my eyes because I don't know what happened. But after the initial shock you know that's bullet cracking (eg. no explosions that can hurt your eyes). Would you still blink? I guess same happens when you hear huge explosions that you didn't expect and that doesn't actually hurt you.

Such shock simulation is IMO much better than suppression effect but still very hard to simulate as game can't tell what the players expects.

Well, if you hear bullet cracks 1m from you head I agree that you'd still blink but that's rare.

Edited April 4, 2013 by batto

[Jex 1]

I'd like to see anyone here "sharp shoot" when they have bullets shot at them and hitting the ground around them. Absolute nonsense! That's why suppressing the enemy is one of the main tactics of infantry combat. If anyone could stand perfectly calm and sharp shoot whilst being suppressed then those people are total nutters who should be in nut houses.

[batto 17]

I'd like to see anyone here "sharp shoot" when they have bullets shot at them and hitting the ground around them. Absolute nonsense! That's why suppressing the enemy is one of the main tactics of infantry combat. If anyone could stand perfectly calm and sharp shoot whilst being suppressed then those people are total nutters who should be in nut houses.

And even such people play ArmA. How about letting them die in-game from suppression fire instead of forcing audiovisual non-sense to everyone? You shouldn't care how others play the game unless they're your teammates.

[kernriver 4]

I think we should look at suppression effects as a game mechanic, rather then simulation of real emotions.

It would be as if the game is saying to you: "Look buddy, the bullets are flying dangerously close to you, so I've made the colours on the screen a little bit saturated, and in addition I've made you a little bit less effective in returning accurate fire for a few seconds. You can do what ever you want, but if I were you, I'd find some cover and keep my head down."

That should work for AI too, which IMHO is paramount.

Having said that, I think there should be some suppression effect, but it has to be very subtle and as non-intrusive as possible. And of course, bullet cracks should be really loud, as that would be the first indication that you're in danger.

[-Coulum- 35]

-Coulum-, don't quote my name on something I didn't say please.

Sorry mate mixed batto up with boota:)

"If a bullet land a metre away"

No that is specifically not what I am saying. If a bullet lands a metre away you find cover. But not because of that bullet, because of the fact that the guy with the rifle is probably correcting their aim and is likely to hit next time.

In reality are you really going to take the time to calculate how likely you are to be hit and base your decision to move to cover based on that? I doubt it. If a bullet lands nearby that mean a gun is pointed in your direction. Whether it is a carefully aimed gun, a spraying machine gun or a dude blind-firing, I don't like having guns pointed my way while I am out in the open. Thus I get to cover. In arma this is not the thought process though. Like you said, we calculate the risk and accuracy of the enemy and base our decisions by weighing the risk of staying exposed to perhaps kill the enemy with the safety provdied by cover. In reality this is not how most people react.

Are trying to say that taking risk and returning fire from cover is gameplay abuse?

Yeah pretty much. I mean it is a perfectly valid tactic, but only because it is a game. It would not transfer into reality. Thus the people shooting at you like they would shoot at you in reality are actually being penalized and realistic tactics and procedures in game don't have quite the same effect. Some people don't like this and want in game decisions and actions to have a similar effect as those of reality.

I'd like to see anyone here "sharp shoot" when they have bullets shot at them and hitting the ground around them. Absolute nonsense! That's why suppressing the enemy is one of the main tactics of infantry combat. If anyone could stand perfectly calm and sharp shoot whilst being suppressed then those people are total nutters who should be in nut houses.

I am sure some can, but its not even so much about the ability to shoot accurate but rather the decision. Even fewer people would voluntarily expose themselves long enough to line up accurate shots in reality, while under fire. Most "good" arma players do it without a second thought.

I'll probably get some CoD, LOL hipfiring comments, but I'm also playing A3 as a FPS, and in some scenario, I'd like to see FPS skill rewarded, as much as in some other scenarios, I'll be more into immersion and positionning. A3 is about permitting both.

Fair enough. this is really where we disagree. I want to play arma as a realistic strategy game played through the fps perspective. You want it as an FPS, were it is not so much about realistic tactics but rather on more tradtion FPS tactics. This is why if it were implemented I would hope its optional.

with a aiming impairing system, the above means you are going to suffer from impairement most of the time in an engagement. Hardly fun if you ask me.

Not at all. If you have played RO you will see that you are "suppressed" maybe 10% of the game. And this is in confined spaces. In arma's open world, if you play smart, you will have plenty of time to pop off accurate shots at the enemy.

I think we should look at suppression effects as a game mechanic, rather then simulation of real emotions.

Yes. it is a gameplay mechanic not simulating emotions but rather making up for the lack of them. This is in order to reproduce (not simulate) the decisions soldiers make in reality, in game.

[Jex 1]

And even such people play ArmA. How about letting them die in-game from suppression fire instead of forcing audiovisual non-sense to everyone? You shouldn't care how others play the game unless they're your teammates.

What nonsense is this? Of course we should care how other people play the game, we don't want griefers or cheaters do we? What's wrong with having an effect that you would have in the real world that does not exist in a video game. Sorry but you cannot stand there perfectly calm and shoot back. Did you know that in Real life you don't get that option? Why should you in a game?

Suppression effects should be in ALL fps's by now.

---------- Post added at 12:48 ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 ----------

Sorry mate mixed batto up with boota:)

I am sure some can, but its not even so much about the ability to shoot accurate but rather the decision. Even fewer people would voluntarily expose themselves long enough to line up accurate shots in reality, while under fire. Most "good" arma players do it without a second thought.

Let me just make sure we're on the right page here.

Are you saying that there are people in real life that can just stand there whilst people are shooting at them and be perfectly calm and shoot back whilst bullets are cracking around them?

Those people are dead.

In arma, as there's no fear of death, people don't play the game realistically.

[dmarkwick 261]

Are you saying that there are people in real life that can just stand there whilst people are shooting at them and be perfectly calm and shoot back whilst bullets are cracking around them?

Those people are dead.

In arma, as there's no fear of death, people don't play the game realistically.

Indeed. But the opponents of suppression reckon that these people will eventually die anyway die due to being easy targets. It's a two-edged sword. Basically the opponents say people should roleplay the suppression, and quite obviously this represents a minor exploit, disadvantaging the very units designed to suppress i.e. machinegunners with deliberately inaccurate weapons.

[whisper 0]

In arma, as there's no fear of death, people don't play the game realistically.

And they have all the right to NOT play realistically.

[dmarkwick 261]

Are trying to say that taking risk and returning fire from cover is gameplay abuse?

I say that returning accurate cool fire under fire is a minor exploit, disadvantaging units designed for suppression roles.

Yes, it's to protect my eyes because I don't know what happened. But after the initial shock you know that's bullet cracking (eg. no explosions that can hurt your eyes). Would you still blink? I guess same happens when you hear huge explosions that you didn't expect and that doesn't actually hurt you.

Such shock simulation is IMO much better than suppression effect but still very hard to simulate as game can't tell what the players expects.

Well, if you hear bullet cracks 1m from you head I agree that you'd still blink but that's rare.

Nope, it's involuntary and happens every time no matter how many times it happens. As an experiment, get someone to pretend to poke your eyes out with their fingers, you will blink every time. And that's just a simple non-dangerous example.

---------- Post added at 11:58 ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 ----------

And they have all the right to NOT play realistically.

Well that represents an minor exploit IMO. But would I call it a right? I don't think I would.

[-Coulum- 35]

In arma, as there's no fear of death, people don't play the game realistically.

Yeah we're saying the same thing/on the same page. I agree. I am just saying the effects of being under fire are not only physical (not being able to line up an accurate shot), but also mental (not wanting to even try to line up an accurate shot).

And they have all the right to NOT play realistically.

Yes, you are right but many players want to limit unrealistic gameplay. Thus the push for an optional suppression effect. Edited April 4, 2013 by -Coulum-