Suppression Effect missing in ARMA3

[batto 17]

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

I know exactly what suppression fire is, how it works and why it works. 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.

Before you try to put me down again, comment on nature of this thread or something other unrelated, please, try to state how do you disagree with that quote. Thank you.

That quote is also quite ambiguous and illogical but alright.

How is it ambiguous and illogical?

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

I think it's not.

[froggyluv 2136]

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.

I agree that the suppressed should be able to turn the tables and I do that all the time using the TPWCAS effect. I think the visual penalty is being exaggerated as it's still very possible to hit your targets thru the effect as well as shoot close enough to counter suppress in which bots generally lose their proper aim for continued suppression.. When I'm being suppressed (and under the PP haze), I try and get behind the largest cover available as to lessen the chances of continued suppression (_bullet Distance Player <3 etc..). Often Ill have a teammate try and distract my suppressor but usually the effect doesn't last long and Ill (after some clever re-maneuvering) attempt to become the suppressor myself. It's really not all that hard to fight thru -just kinda like Deuce in tennis -"advantage.....player!" :)

[lightspeed_aust 681]

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.

Just want to clear up that I think we both agree.

[Jex 1]

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

No the game would have to make the suppression affect, if it's even added, consistent to each player. In Arma your avatar is not an individual, it acts exactly the same for everyone. If it were individual then they'd have to introduce a mechanic to make you better at things and worse with others. Shooting in arma is way easier than shooting in RL - so should we have individual skills in shooting ability, or any thing else that individualizes us? The mechanic needs to be equal across the board.

[lightspeed_aust 681]

I think the critical point of your statement above is....That if your position is being suppressed, and you stick out your head, chances are you'll die.

The act of effectively suppressing enemy forces is the all that is required! You don't need nor should there be an artificial effect to indicate that you are being suppressed. You hear the bullets, you see the dust kicked up on your position. You are suppressed.

On the other hand, spraying bullets from an LMG in general direction will not and should not by default, create suppression. The bullets must be accurate or an enemy under fire will realise that they have room to move, or an opportunity to counter.

No smoke and mirrors required folks....just accuracy.

[ratszo 17]

I'd be happy with accurate/precise bullet sounds. If i know bullets are wizzing just above my head or impacting very close, I'm suppressed.

Add to that dust and debris effects on my location from accurate suppression.

Blured vision, shaking and other effects may be something for the concussive damage of indirect fire, like nades or other HE.

[lightspeed_aust 681]

Even I want to have proper suppression effect in ArmA since A1 days I just now notice this thread and discussion.

So in general we need suppression fire effect simply if this game want to be realistic should simulate effects of suppressing fire because it is one of the basic field strategy in real life any way so any ignoring of it is definitely step back in realism.

Check this real video and see what is real humans reaction when you are suppressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNamKwZxOaE

In this video you could exactly see what is happened when individuals overestimates his situation and possibilities. He was crying like pussycat in the end. Don't get me wrong I will to in his situation even more than he is but I will never put my self in this situation.

But what ever this video is exactly showing what suppression is and how human react on it.

No matter how unrealistic this effect will look like if it force players to take cover under direct fire will be increasing realism in .

I decided to go back through the thread and look at some of the vids to see examples of suppression. Now this vid is a good example of ppl not understanding suppression.

In the start of video, the soldier is clearly not suppressed, if he was, he wouldn't have been able to move freely in the open. Bullets are not directed in a tight proximity to him so he can move to counter attack. He doesn't know where the enemy is but he can still move and attempt to better his position and turn the situation to his sides favour.

Later on he takes some hits and is forced behind a rock. He is pinned by bullets landing close and he also gets shot. Great suppression!

Never during that moment was artificial effect required. His wits were sharp, he didn't have blurry vision or inaccurate fire (obviously when he got shot in the arm things changed but let's not bring that into it except to say that due to accurate suppressive fire, I.e. bullets being accurate on target, he got shot.

So I looked at the other videos and you could hardly call either of those suppressive fire. Just because you're taking fire, does not mean you're suppressed. :)

Edited April 12, 2013 by Lightspeed_aust

[Jex 1]

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.

Maybe there is a misconception on what suppression is here that just needs clearing up?

Suppression is placing sustained fire on an enemy position with some degree of accuracy of where they are. An example would be if you imagine a long wall about 5 feet high which I am behind, you are firing you M249 on me trying to keep me and my squad suppressed. I can move along the wall as I like and pop up anywhere, you are unable to suppress my entire squad because you would literally nee to sweep the entire length of the wall meaning if you start at one end, the guys at the other end you're not shooting at wouldn't be affected and could return fire.

Nobody is saying you're suppressed if a bullet lands 20 feet away from you that's just stupid and the people making these arguments or thinking them are being pigheaded in accepting the reality of how this would work.

However If you also had a squad and all of you were shooting at the wall whilst your other squad moved to flank, you could keep us suppressed by keeping up sustained fire. This means one of two things, we try and shoot back and most likely die as the bullets rain in on us and half the squad sees me pop up and shoot at me until we're flanked and killed or we pull back and try to find a better point so we can attack back and maybe suppress as well.

Suppressing isn't spraying bullets all over the place. It has to be near you right? If it isn't, no bullets are whizzing over your head then you know it's a lot safer to return fire.

---------- Post added at 15:42 ---------- Previous post was at 15:27 ----------

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:

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.

It's not a sandbox game, it's a FPS and in your opinion you're supposed to experience free will, not that this effects free will at all because you don't get a choice in combat to how you feel or if you think you do, please enlighten us all here on how this is the case?

I already addressed your points about your squad mates and grenades, how about responding to what I said rather than making it look like you don't have an argument by repeating your own question when it's already been answered?

[dmarkwick 261]

I decided to go back through the thread and look at some of the vids to see examples of suppression. Now this vid is a good example of ppl not understanding suppression.

That guy wasn't being suppressed, he was being shot at :) I doubt whether that guy felt like kneeling down still and firing very accurate shots away. You notice he was more concerned about finding cover than returning accurate fire.

If he were hiding behind some cover with rounds still landing around his position, then he was being suppressed. He would not feel like sticking his head up to return accurate fire. Some return fire maybe - but not accurate fire.

This is the mechanic an ingame suppression would need to replicate, an alternative reason to encourage the same activity.

[Jex 1]

Never during that moment was artificial effect required. His wits were sharp, he didn't have blurry vision or inaccurate fire (obviously when he got shot in the arm things changed but let's not bring that into it except to say that due to accurate suppressive fire, I.e. bullets being accurate on target, he got shot.

How on earth do you know what his vision was like????

So you think you feel exactly the same as he did when you're being shot at in Arma? No? That's why suppression should be modeled.

[ARM505 0]

There would have to be some kind of 'saturation' effect surely as well? ie A single round passing close by shouldn't trigger the effect. So a sniper couldn't suppress you (artifically I mean, ie trigger the 'effect' whatever it is). Nor could a random shot that just happened to zip close by.

Frankly I'm still in favour of louder/more pronounced effects for bullet impact and passing by. Those supersonic cracks are really loud, enough to cause ringing in your ears in a lot of situations, and like I said earlier, bullets hitting close by really give you an idea of how much kinetic energy they have (they thump into the sand berms, and fling up a lots of dust quite fast. In games the little dirt puffs somehow seem....a but feeble. The buzzing that real bullets make as they pass by sounds really....angry, I think that's why the word angry is used so often in books when describing bullets zipping by. They can sound like very, very upset and pissed-off bees. You really want to stay away, not just because you know it's a bullet - it just sounds dangerous anyway!

[Smurf 12]

The effects kicks in taking in consideration the amount of lead and proximity to you. Single, spaced shots should only add some effect the borders of the screen to let you know something passed very close - if all, bullet cracks are there for that.

[batto 17]

It's not a sandbox game, it's a FPS and in your opinion you're supposed to experience free will, not that this effects free will at all because you don't get a choice in combat to how you feel or if you think you do, please enlighten us all here on how this is the case?

I already addressed your points about your squad mates and grenades, how about responding to what I said rather than making it look like you don't have an argument by repeating your own question when it's already been answered?

You're replying to same post for 2nd time. Take a deep breath a check out my actual reply http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?152298-Suppression-Effect-missing-in-ARMA3&p=2371167&viewfull=1#post2371167

[lightspeed_aust 681]

Ok gents, well I don't think we will all agree on the way forward but I will live with whatever BIS decides.

Cheers Lighty

[LJF 0]

Question: what is more important, the realism of the effects (or lack of) on your screen, or the authenticity of the combat?

Keeping in mind that you already have right mouse zoom making up for the low screen resolution, automatic pain noises and shaking aim to account for you not being able to feel pain, gamey mag/ammo counts a real soldier wouldn't see, unified maximum loads and icons popping up on the screen when you enter a vehicle or any number of other unrealistic gamey stuff designed as an interface between the player and the game.

[dmarkwick 261]

Question: what is more important, the realism of the effects (or lack of) on your screen, or the authenticity of the combat?

Keeping in mind that you already have right mouse zoom making up for the low screen resolution, automatic pain noises and shaking aim to account for you not being able to feel pain, gamey mag/ammo counts a real soldier wouldn't see, unified maximum loads and icons popping up on the screen when you enter a vehicle or any number of other unrealistic gamey stuff designed as an interface between the player and the game.

The most unrealistic thing of all is that you're playing the combat though a monitor, keyboard and mouse. Some of the things you mention there are necessary abstractions to replace things that you have lost and cannot replace because of that. Also, bear in mind that some of the things you mention also have ingame disabling options.

[kremator 1065]

The most unrealistic thing of all is that you're playing the combat though a monitor, keyboard and mouse.

Just wait until I get my Occulus Rift :)

[lightspeed_aust 681]

Question: what is more important, the realism of the effects (or lack of) on your screen, or the authenticity of the combat?

Keeping in mind that you already have right mouse zoom making up for the low screen resolution, automatic pain noises and shaking aim to account for you not being able to feel pain, gamey mag/ammo counts a real soldier wouldn't see, unified maximum loads and icons popping up on the screen when you enter a vehicle or any number of other unrealistic gamey stuff designed as an interface between the player and the game.

What's your point exactly?

[LJF 0]

The most unrealistic thing of all is that you're playing the combat though a monitor, keyboard and mouse. Some of the things you mention there are necessary abstractions to replace things that you have lost and cannot replace because of that. Also, bear in mind that some of the things you mention also have ingame disabling options.

Exactly. There are already so many concessions in order to make the game function at all (or any game) I really don't see a suppression effect as that bad considering it will provide more authentic combat.

[xxalitoxx 1]

hope this was addressed,

[ben_s 11]

I think one of the points being made Lightspeed_aust is that suppression effects (such as screen shake or whatever other stuff may have been discussed here) add to some game sense and awareness the player has of what's going on around him, whilst not being a realistic representation of what happens.

I'm unsure of what the devs will eventually go with in the full release; but I remember very similar arguments over 3rd person view or the zoom with the right mouse button; whilst not entirely authentic or realistic they add to the player experience and give the player awareness they'd have in real life, even if by a means that seems unrealistic.

I guess suppression is (and always has been) another one of these arguments, but as Marwick pointed out, fighting over such 'realism' is futile since trying to emulate emotions or feelings through a keyboard/mouse is going to be impossible.

One question I've always had though is whether for a human player the sound of cracks going over your head is enough of a suppression in itself. Or do you need other mechanics to stop you just pixel-shooting back ?

[Levinin 1]

I think the critical point of your statement above is....That if your position is being suppressed, and you stick out your head, chances are you'll die.

The act of effectively suppressing enemy forces is the all that is required! You don't need nor should there be an artificial effect to indicate that you are being suppressed. You hear the bullets, you see the dust kicked up on your position. You are suppressed.

On the other hand, spraying bullets from an LMG in general direction will not and should not by default, create suppression. The bullets must be accurate or an enemy under fire will realise that they have room to move, or an opportunity to counter.

No smoke and mirrors required folks....just accuracy.

This!

[dnk 13]

Went to paintball yesterday. I know it's not real combat by any means, but I'll just say this and assume it to be far more true when dealing with lead:

Suppression was much stronger for me and others than in ACE2, despite the fact that there were fewer "gameplay" consequences. I mean, in ACE2, getting hit can easily mean 3-4 minutes out of action, plus shaky aim or the loss of your legs for an additional 3-4 mins while waiting for a corpsman; in this paintball game, it meant a 1 min turnaround for "respawning" and nothing else but some mild pain/bleeding.

I'd say that when being suppressed it was hard to lay down accurate return fire, and usually I and most others would just hold behind cover until a few seconds after the shots stopped. If I were to return fire, it'd be with a poor sight picture and erratic, as I was less focused on getting a hit and less willing to put my body into a position where I could comfortably aim controlled shots, and more about suppressing the suppressor.

How much that relates to real combat is not something I would know, but just saying: it's a stronger effect than in Arma, not just for me, but based on how other players were acting in the pb match and how other players normally act in ACE2 A2 when under fairly accurate fire (usually, don't move much, just start shooting back since only VERY close impacts have any real effect).

And, yeah, this conforms to prior pb experiences too, so it just wasn't one group of turtles or something.

[LJF 0]

Went to paintball yesterday. I know it's not real combat by any means, but I'll just say this and assume it to be far more true when dealing with lead:

Suppression was much stronger for me and others than in ACE2, despite the fact that there were fewer "gameplay" consequences. I mean, in ACE2, getting hit can easily mean 3-4 minutes out of action, plus shaky aim or the loss of your legs for an additional 3-4 mins while waiting for a corpsman; in this paintball game, it meant a 1 min turnaround for "respawning" and nothing else but some mild pain/bleeding.

I'd say that when being suppressed it was hard to lay down accurate return fire, and usually I and most others would just hold behind cover until a few seconds after the shots stopped. If I were to return fire, it'd be with a poor sight picture and erratic, as I was less focused on getting a hit and less willing to put my body into a position where I could comfortably aim controlled shots, and more about suppressing the suppressor.

How much that relates to real combat is not something I would know, but just saying: it's a stronger effect than in Arma, not just for me, but based on how other players were acting in the pb match and how other players normally act in ACE2 A2 when under fairly accurate fire (usually, don't move much, just start shooting back since only VERY close impacts have any real effect).

And, yeah, this conforms to prior pb experiences too, so it just wasn't one group of turtles or something.

I've had a similar experience with paintball. "Firefights" lasted considerably longer than in A2/ACE even at very short distances and the motivation to keep in cover was, as you said, considerably more powerful than in ACE.

In paintball I didn't stop to consider the chances of being hit; there were impacts nearby and I didn't want to get shot, it was a reflex.

[seamusgod 1]

regarding the video of the soldier being suppressed by taliban machinegun fire. it actually looked like he lost his will, gave up and stood there for a second waiting for be killed. i think that's actually a powerful argument for why suppression should be modeled. the fact that his movement was very lethargic also indicates that he was in a state of severe stress. i don't know why some of you thought he kept his wits, it looked like he was pushing himself through a panic attack the entire time and making some terrible mistakes due to stress, failing to find cover, tumbling around, etc.