Suppression Effect missing in ARMA3

[dmarkwick 261]

Taken from the recent development sitrep:

... certain other AI technologies can confuse you as to who knows about what: sight, hearing, 'guessing' and suppression are all factored in.

So it seems that AI have an ability to use suppression techniques, which is nice :) I did notice last night that I was hidden behind a structure and not seen (after being seen), but I was still being peppered by spurious rounds.

Edited April 10, 2013 by DMarkwick

[kremator 1065]

Aye I'm seeing suppression with the DEV version. Seems just about right to me. Would like a little bit more suppression of AI however, so that they react in the same way as me (oh shit oh shit oh shit!)

[dnk 13]

Well, the AI suppress YOU, yes, but can you suppress them? That's the issue, though it's good that the other side of it is solved already.

[Jex 1]

So you agree with DMarkwick?

As far as I can see ITT people who protest having suppression effects just don't want them because it will mess with their frag-grinding and leet head popping.

Also "I want to suppress AI but I don't want to be suppressed myself" says a lot too.

I also find that excuse "but zomg play on no-respawn servers and see suppression mean things" that keeps popping up here again and again very funny.

OK bros. Name me at least 10 servers that play no-respawn.

(FYI I play on one myself and I think we need suppression effects.)

What does he have to do with anything. I stated MY position, it isn't reliant on HIS position. I play plenty of no respawn missions and I play plenty that have respawn - I play better on the no respawn ones but the AI often is too accurate and you die stupidly, hence the reason people have to use respawn. If the AI fought realistically and you could suppress them, and they you, it would make for more exciting fights.

---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:26 ----------

.......bullshit of the day :rolleyes:

copy your the in the legion forum - he needs jokes ... oh my god what a world of pc nerds .......................

he gives humans the have a timestrech effect in a deadly situation and the mental power has over 100% and you have the best controll the can you have over your body ;) ........

you can trained this ;) and the adrenalin to .....

go on a french overshot range -( the german has 3m high safty room ) the french is lower. mh badly ? i have not own on your blur or lost controll effects - and no ! im not a robot .

The you misunderstand my point. If you are behind a small amount of cover and bullets are hitting all around you, are you saying you won't flinch one little bit? BS of course you would! Now tell me, is that flinch a voluntary action or an involuntary action? Is that total control of your body?

---------- Post added at 17:35 ---------- Previous post was at 17:01 ----------

Of course the real world tactic of using suppression is useless according to some people in this thread.

---------- Post added at 18:09 ---------- Previous post was at 17:35 ----------

I can't agree with your scenario at all. The soldiers would all go to ground or to nearest cover if close enough and return fire from there. They won't take the time to return even semi-accurate fire through sights before doing that. There is no way they can be quick enough to line up before enemies already on their flank and bringing weapons to bear open fire with effect. Get down, get in cover, or die.

See

kind of footage, as soon as shots are heard everyone is down and behind the tiny bit of cover there is. The guys here are then looking out trying to find who to shoot back at and are perfectly capable of doing that accurately. In fact

might be a better example. The marines are kept down for a bit but they are definitely able to return accurate fire and get themselves and the new crew out.

The reason they go to ground is that if they stay standing they are pretty certain to be shot.

The only effective suppression effect needed is being killed if you don't get down or in cover and don't manage to return accurate fire yourself.

Your second video shows the marines reacting to incoming fire from unknown amount of shooters. There is no bullets near the cameraman because you can't hear them cracking by. The marines are shooting back at muzzle flashes and typically, ambushes of this sort are done by small numbers of taliban so they cannot suppress a larger force than they have meaning the marines can shoot back.

Had the marines come across a squad of trained soldiers of equal numbers I think you'll find the casualty rate would have been considerable.

People are using stupid examples of one person suppressing entire squads.

---------- Post added at 18:10 ---------- Previous post was at 18:09 ----------

I have been fired around (not at) in actual combat too (only once, so I'll admit it's a very limited experience of course). I am not a soldier, and was obviously a non-combatant, although that wouldn't have stopped the aggressors from shooting at me in this case (the usual African tribal thing). Initially it's all a bit of a 'wtf', but once you adapt, locate, and find cover you can happily (ok, not happily, but maybe 'eagerly') look out quickly from behind cover to try and assess whats actually happening. It might be risky, but it's better than not having the faintest idea of what is busy doing the shooting. Thats what I did anyway. I might have been retarded, I don't know. But I kind of figured what was happening quite quickly after the shots started going. Also, I had a very handy stone wall nearby. I like stone walls. I loved that one.

Had a squad of soldiers been shooting at your wall, deliberately trying to kill you, to keep you "suppressed" (which is why the tactic is employed btw in RL) until their mates could flank you and but a bullet in your skull, you would have been shitting your pants and cowering in fear.

That's suppression. That's why you would not even have dared "look over the stone wall" - this is what we mean when we talk about suppression.

[batto 17]

Of course the real world tactic of using suppression is useless according to some people in this thread.

What people? I don't remember anyone saying that in this thread. Suppression is indeed effective real world tactic. There is just no need for suppression effect that just doesn't belong in sandbox game.

I also find that excuse "but zomg play on no-respawn servers and see suppression mean things" that keeps popping up here again and again very funny.

OK bros. Name me at least 10 servers that play no-respawn.

If you complain about lack of "realistic firefight" (define please) on servers with unrealistic respawns you are oxymoron. Play realistic game WITHOUT respawns. Enjoy realistic firefights.

I got RO2. I don't like suppression effect at all. Sometimes it's annoying. Sometimes it tells me someone is firing at me when I wouldn't notice it without it.

Also I find funny that you're trying to impose in the game forced feel of fear of death while completely ignoring the feel of murdering people. You know, hands of some people may shake while killing other people. ;)

That's only one of feel you forgot to add to your wishlist. There are more feels that aren't simulated yet and if they were, it'd lead to much more realistic movie... I mean game.

Edited April 11, 2013 by batto

[lightspeed_aust 681]

Had a squad of soldiers been shooting at your wall, deliberately trying to kill you, to keep you "suppressed" (which is why the tactic is employed btw in RL) until their mates could flank you and but a bullet in your skull, you would have been shitting your pants and cowering in fear.

I disagree with the cowering in fear. For a civvie yes, Trained soldiers, however, would be focused and looking for a way out of the situation. Would their vision be blurry or their weapons shaking as bullets fly overhead or land nearby? No, I would not expect this to happen, that's Hollywood to me.

[LJF 0]

Would their vision be blurry or their weapons shaking as bullets fly overhead or land nearby? No, I would not expect this to happen, that's Hollywood to me.

The important thing is to enable the use of suppression in A3, because it doesn't exist at the moment and even in A2 it was very lacking.

It would increase the authenticity of the combat, which is far more important than the realism of some blur on the screen.

Realistic systems alone (armour simulation, hunger, thrist, component damage, recoil, running speed etc) do not create a realistic simulation, it is almost impossible; there are simply too many things to take into account. To create a simulation you need to compromise and design for a desired effect or result (in this case, realistic combat). The thing is even if ArmA3 was perfectly realistic in every way suppression still wouldn't work anywhere near like it does in real life because the players are not really risking their lives; a suppression mechanic is designed to work around our very loose connection to our virtual characters/lives and produce more authentic behaviour.

[Reuben5150 2]

but the thing is to have the player reduced in accuracy somewhat (not a huge amount, just not a sharpshooter) to give this appropriate analog idea a method.

Indeed. This topic reveals not everyone likes the idea of suppression :)

Your wrong, and if bf3 is not enough proof of that then I don't know what is.

Do like the idea of suppression, but there are always those who seem to think it should be an OP effect, meaning anything that messes with weapon physics is wrong on many levels, over powered and used as an exploit.

I knew this thread would get big...

---------- Post added at 00:56 ---------- Previous post was at 00:50 ----------

I disagree with the cowering in fear. For a civvie yes, Trained soldiers, however, would be focused and looking for a way out of the situation. Would their vision be blurry or their weapons shaking as bullets fly overhead or land nearby? No, I would not expect this to happen, that's Hollywood to me.

Natural human instinct is to fight back when having you butt whipped is it not ? Unless your a pussy...

The game cannot pretend to know how each individual would react in any given situation, only option is to balance realism/gameplay etc.

[lightspeed_aust 681]

Maybe there are suppression issues in PvP or with your AIs ability to suppress or AI to be suppressed in SP - these issues I would not know because I don't play SP or PvP.

I play Coop - and I can say for sure that I have been suppressed by AI who's bullets are flying over my head or landing near me. Did I need vision to blur or to lose control of my weapon or aim to some degree? No, I just knew if I stayed where I was or stuck my head up, I would die sooner or later. In this case, the AI had achieved successful suppressive fire.

I still believe though (and have read articles that attest to the fact that) unless bullets are within very close proximity to those being suppressed then you will not achieve nor maintain suppression. Basically, spraying bullets in the general direction will not achieve desired effect - the bullets have to be within a metre or two. If you fail to keep the bullets within this proximity then you open the door for the suppressed to become the suppressors, or to allow them to get out of danger and potentially turn the tide in their favour.

And this is why I don't support artificial effects - because the suppressed should be able to switch to the suppressor if and when the opportunity arises.

In a PvP scenario, some players are saying that other players can stand up and snipe them - I would argue in this scenario that you have not achieved suppression. If it's because the players standing up know they can respawn a la BF or CoD, then this is not a reason for creating artificial effects. It is a reason to reduce or remove respawns.

I hope this makes some sort of sense.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Lightspeed_aust

[dmarkwick 261]

Unless your a pussy...

Spoken like a true gamer :)

---------- Post added at 07:40 ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 ----------

And this is why I don't support artificial effects - because the suppressed should be able to switch to the suppressor if and when the opportunity arises.

Not saying you should be unable to return fire, there seems to be a miscomprehension that the suppressed player will be totally incapacitated, when that's not the case. You can pop up and return fire just as you would IRL, I'd just like the ability to pixel-snipe under these conditions to be difficult. I believe it would make firefights more realistic and tactics-based.

In a PvP scenario, some players are saying that other players can stand up and snipe them - I would argue in this scenario that you have not achieved suppression. If it's because the players standing up know they can respawn a la BF or CoD, then this is not a reason for creating artificial effects. It is a reason to reduce or remove respawns.

As a gameplay mechanic, I think suppression would encourage tactic based gameplay under all game conditions.

[Jex 1]

I disagree with the cowering in fear. For a civvie yes, Trained soldiers, however, would be focused and looking for a way out of the situation. Would their vision be blurry or their weapons shaking as bullets fly overhead or land nearby? No, I would not expect this to happen, that's Hollywood to me.

Bait and switch? I never said soldiers, I was referring to this one guy having an entire squad shooting at him to press the point of actual suppressing fire. You do realise this is a tactic used by armies today right? That if your position is being suppressed, and you stick out your head, chances are you'll die.

What you want be doing is being perfectly calm and steady and taking your time to shoot back at the enemy. You either get flanked or you relocate. If I'm suppressing you, I don't think you should be able to respond as if nothing more dangerous is happening to you than you're taking a stroll through a park.

---------- Post added at 11:30 ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 ----------

What people? I don't remember anyone saying that in this thread. Suppression is indeed effective real world tactic. There is just no need for suppression effect that just doesn't belong in sandbox game.

If you complain about lack of "realistic firefight" (define please) on servers with unrealistic respawns you are oxymoron. Play realistic game WITHOUT respawns. Enjoy realistic firefights.

Doesn't belong in a sandbox game? Like being a sandbox game has anything at all to do with the argument. The people would be all those here that think that being able to shoot back perfectly calm is as easy as sitting in a chair.

Your second comment makes no sense. Since the AI have unrealistic abilities then dying from a shot to the head from a pistol from 300m kind of requires the use of respawn. Personally I prefer to play without it and your other points just get ridiculous.

[batto 17]

Doesn't belong in a sandbox game? Like being a sandbox game has anything at all to do with the argument.

It has. Suppression effect belongs to movies. In sandbox game you're supposed to experience free will and pay for your mistakes. See this wise comment:

Basically, spraying bullets in the general direction will not achieve desired effect - the bullets have to be within a metre or two. If you fail to keep the bullets within this proximity then you open the door for the suppressed to become the suppressors, or to allow them to get out of danger and potentially turn the tide in their favour.

And this is why I don't support artificial effects - because the suppressed should be able to switch to the suppressor if and when the opportunity arises.

Your second comment makes no sense. Since the AI have unrealistic abilities then dying from a shot to the head from a pistol from 300m kind of requires the use of respawn.

AI accuracy needs to be fixed.

... and your other points just get ridiculous.

Still, if you want to impose forced feel when being under MG fire, I'd like to know why no-one wants to impose that feel when murdering other human beings. Or that feel when watching your squad mates being murdered. Or that feel when grenade lands near you.

[Jex 1]

Yep. ACE2 SM supersonic bullet cracks instill more fear in the target, than any subjective schizo-blur screen effect could.

Unless I'm playing a horror game, I am never going to be scared by hearing a bullet whiz near me. If anything, if it sounds authentic, I'm going to more likely be shot as I think how great it sounds than because it scared me.

So now that we know at least one person on the forums isn't scared by sounds from my PC, what is the alternative to simulating suppression?

[batto 17]

So now that we know at least one person on the forums isn't scared by sounds from my PC, what is the alternative to simulating suppression?

Join the army in country that's currently in war.

[Jex 1]

AI accuracy needs to be fixed.

Still, if you want to impose forced feel when being under MG fire, I'd like to know why no-one wants to impose that feel when murdering other human beings. Or that feel when watching your squad mates being murdered. Or that feel when grenade lands near you.

AI accuracy definitely needs fixing and more I'd say, a lot, lot more.

As to the last part of your response, I don't see how that has any relation whatsoever. Suppression is a tactic used by armies and if there's no effect of it then why bother using it at all and make this game like COD and BF - oh wait, BF has it lol. A grenade landing near you would now give you an indication there was one near you, we don't need a mechanic to give away where a grenade is (very COD or PS2 or BF3?). Seeing your mates killed, likelihood is you'll be next as you're now on your own but the psychological affects of taking out an entire squad but one person just to shit them up is not a tactic armies employ.

---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 ----------

You speak for yourself, alright?

If they're "flying past me", I'll be the Judge whether that warrants taking cover or not, alright?

And you'd be the next one up for a Darwin award.

I can see the video now, shots come in, all your squad take cover whilst you get out a calculator to make a judgement on whether or not you should as well and your head gets blown off.

Oh please this is complete BS. If shots started coming your way you'd immediately get into cover unless you're either a nutter or an idiot. In a video posted earlier when marines get ambushed, did you see any other them not get into as much cover as they could and you think that sat in your armchair you're better placed to tell them how they should react?

[batto 17]

Suppression is a tactic used by armies and if there's no effect of it then why bother using it at all and make this game like COD and BF - oh wait, BF has it lol.

ArmA has suppression fire. Use it.

A grenade landing near you would now give you an indication there was one near you, we don't need a mechanic to give away where a grenade is (very COD or PS2 or BF3?).

And yet you want to impose incoming fire indicator (very CoD or BF3?).

Seeing your mates killed, likelihood is you'll be next as you're now on your own but the psychological affects of taking out an entire squad but one person just to shit them up is not a tactic armies employ.

You ignored the possibility that you were the only one lucky to survive. Should ArmA simulate such feel?

What about murdering other people feel? I want my avatar to be a nice person!

Edited April 12, 2013 by batto

[Jex 1]

Subjective opinions again.

I used the guide to define what suppression is, which, more likely than not, was pulled from some military SOP manual with him being ex-Army AFAIR.

Carry on.

Actually he's a Marine - care to try again?

[dmarkwick 261]

Still, if you want to impose forced feel when being under MG fire, I'd like to know why no-one wants to impose that feel when murdering other human beings. Or that feel when watching your squad mates being murdered. Or that feel when grenade lands near you.

.....because, again, the purpose is to introduce a gameplay mechanic that makes deliberate suppression useful, NOT to simulate emotion.

[batto 17]

.....because, again, the purpose is to introduce a gameplay mechanic that makes deliberate suppression useful, NOT to simulate emotion.

The suppression in ArmA is already useful (of course I'm not talking about AI). The purpose is actually to introduce unfair advantage to initial suppressor. Please see:

Basically, spraying bullets in the general direction will not achieve desired effect - the bullets have to be within a metre or two. If you fail to keep the bullets within this proximity then you open the door for the suppressed to become the suppressors, or to allow them to get out of danger and potentially turn the tide in their favour.

And this is why I don't support artificial effects - because the suppressed should be able to switch to the suppressor if and when the opportunity arises.

---------- Post added at 01:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:37 PM ----------

Not saying you should be unable to return fire, there seems to be a miscomprehension that the suppressed player will be totally incapacitated, when that's not the case. You can pop up and return fire just as you would IRL, I'd just like the ability to pixel-snipe under these conditions to be difficult. I believe it would make firefights more realistic and tactics-based

It doesn't matter how big disadvantage will be. It'll still be unfair for suppressed players.

As for other emotions. I want realistic combat, not just realistic suppression. Either you simulate all combat feels and ArmA turns into half-movie or none and ArmA with remain open sandbox game where players pay for mistakes.

Edited April 12, 2013 by batto

[dmarkwick 261]

It doesn't matter how big disadvantage will be. It'll still be unfair for suppressed players.

Hence suppression exists.

[batto 17]

Hence suppression exists.

Please see

Basically, spraying bullets in the general direction will not achieve desired effect - the bullets have to be within a metre or two. If you fail to keep the bullets within this proximity then you open the door for the suppressed to become the suppressors, or to allow them to get out of danger and potentially turn the tide in their favour.

And this is why I don't support artificial effects - because the suppressed should be able to switch to the suppressor if and when the opportunity arises.

[dmarkwick 261]

Already seen. So we're now in a position where everybody's opinion can be expressed via a quote, I think this expresses the circular nature of this thread excellently :)

[batto 17]

Already seen.

Well, my point was that such advantage has nothing to do with real-life suppression. It's artifical suppression effect created in-game compensating mistakes of suppressors. And there is no need for such unfair unrealistic disadvantage for suppressed not present in real-life.

So we're now in a position where everybody's opinion can be expressed via a quote, I think this expresses the circular nature of this thread excellently

Too bad you try to change contexts in your favor all the time and I need to repeat myself.

[dmarkwick 261]

Well, my point was that such advantage has nothing to do with real-life suppression. It's artifical suppression effect created in-game compensating mistakes of suppressors. And there is no need for such unfair unrealistic disadvantage for suppressed not present in real-life.

You keep saying things like "mistakes of suppressors" indicating you still have no real idea of the purpose or indeed the ability of suppressors.

[Hartmann 10]

That quote is also quite ambiguous and illogical but alright.

"This is how suppression should be done, and that is why I think suppression shouldn't be done"

Well, my point was that such advantage has nothing to do with real-life suppression. It's artifical suppression effect created in-game compensating mistakes of suppressors. And there is no need for such unfair unrealistic disadvantage for suppressed not present in real-life.

I think the general conclusion of the tread is the opposite.