Suppression Effect missing in ARMA3

[sqb-sma 66]

Ehm, yes. The A2 way.

My problem is that some people will push for it to be as heavy handed as it is in BF3, which I just found to be detrimental to enjoyable gameplay.

We have others here wanting it to make things harder while combating AI, which I think should be an AI issue.

It is like taking a car into a garage with a flat tyre and preceeding to ask the mechanic to fix the brakes.

In BF3 being suppressed made your screen blurry, decreased recoil compensation (basically increased recoil) and increased the random deviation of the weapons by a huge amount. NOBODY is asking for that in Arma (I hope ;)).

Who copied who also makes no difference. What would you like in the game, seeing as you've said what you don't want?

Here's what I'd like: If a bullet comes very close to you there's an audible bullet snap, not these wussy "plink" sounds we have now, which make me think the bullets are hitting hundreds of meters away not going right past my ear, and your soldier flinches, misalignment the sights momentarily (very, very, momentarily). There's also a slight "blink" of blurryness like a much, much more subtle version of Darkest Hour/Red Orchestra Ostfront's blur.

If a large volume of rounds passes near, but not necessarily hugely close to, the player you'll experience a slight weapon shake and the same effects as being out of stamina (heavy breathing etc). These effects go away immediately once the enemy stops firing, so you could look over and shoot them as they reload.

[batto 17]

Wait, what? Now you're saying it's a cheat because someone may not know they are being fired at?

Of course it is.

How can person feel when they notice hand grenade landing nearby? I guess I'd have at least same level of stress and fear as when bullets would land nearby. By milsimer logic the game should activate suppression effect in this case too. This is of course stupid. There are other stressful situations where person in real-life would in 99.99% do something expected. You can't force it in-game unless you break freedom of game-play.

During intense firefight, when you're focused on target, you can possibly ignore the sound of bullets landing nearby and pay for it. But with suppression effect the game will tell you.

The suppression effect will turn your avatar into half-AI. People arguing for suppression effect want to trade freedom of game-play with half-interactive movie that feels so real (not really).

---------- Post added at 01:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 PM ----------

If a large volume of rounds passes near, but not necessarily hugely close to, the player you'll experience a slight weapon shake and the same effects as being out of stamina (heavy breathing etc). These effects go away immediately once the enemy stops firing, so you could look over and shoot them as they reload.

If you're safe behind rock why should your weapon shake?

[dmarkwick 261]

Of course it is.

How can person feel when they notice hand grenade landing nearby? I guess I'd have at least same level of stress and fear as when bullets would land nearby. By milsimer logic the game should activate suppression effect in this case too. This is of course stupid. There are other stressful situations where person in real-life would in 99.99% do something expected. You can't force it in-game unless you break freedom of game-play.

In the case of the nearby-landing grenade, I cannot see any reason why any applied suppression effect would make any difference to your immediate action :) which, I assume, would be to GTFO.

During intense firefight, when you're focused on target, you can possibly ignore the sound of bullets landing nearby and pay for it. But with suppression effect the game will tell you.

I think the occasions that give you an advantage of "being told when bullets land near you" are very small indeed. Much smaller than the advantage gained by not having it at all IMO.

The suppression effect will turn your avatar into half-AI. People arguing for suppression effect want to trade freedom of game-play with half-interactive movie that feels so real (not really).

Argument can go the other way too - people arguing against suppression effect wish to retain their elite fighting skills against a normally effective RL tactic. :)

If you're safe behind rock why should your weapon shake?

Gameplay mechanic, to discourage (not prevent) players from thinking they can lean around and snap off a perfectly aimed shot to take out the machine-gunner.

[batto 17]

In the case of the nearby-landing grenade, I cannot see any reason why any applied suppression effect would make any difference to your immediate action :) which, I assume, would be to GTFO.

Simply because in many cases you don't even see/hear the grenade. I can't understand why you don't feel the need for grenade stress/fear effect and yet you feel that bullets stress/fear would make game so real...

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

I think the occasions that give you an advantage of "being told when bullets land near you" are very small indeed. Much smaller than the advantage gained by not having it at all IMO.

Tell me the advantage player has without suppression effect.

---------- Post added at 02:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 PM ----------

Gameplay mechanic, to discourage (not prevent) players from thinking they can lean around and snap off a perfectly aimed shot to take out the machine-gunner.

Play the game how you like it. Don't force others to act how you like it.

[dmarkwick 261]

Simply because in many cases you don't even see/hear the grenade. I can't understand why you don't feel the need for grenade stress/fear effect and yet you feel that bullets stress/fear would make game so real...

... I think we've been here before (of course we have), it's not to simulate fear, but a mechanic to discourage a certain "overbrave" activity due to the game nature of ArmA.

Tell me the advantage player has without suppression effect.

I already did with my very next sentence...

lean around and snap off a perfectly aimed shot to take out the machine-gunner.

Play the game how you like it. Don't force others to act how you like it.

*shrug* hey look if you don't dig it, you don't dig it. Works both ways y'know, why would you want to "force" others to your overbrave snap-shooting of their machine-gunners? ;)

[dayglow 2]

Of course it is.

How can person feel when they notice hand grenade landing nearby? I guess I'd have at least same level of stress and fear as when bullets would land nearby. By milsimer logic the game should activate suppression effect in this case too. This is of course stupid. There are other stressful situations where person in real-life would in 99.99% do something expected. You can't force it in-game unless you break freedom of game-play.

During intense firefight, when you're focused on target, you can possibly ignore the sound of bullets landing nearby and pay for it. But with suppression effect the game will tell you.

The suppression effect will turn your avatar into half-AI. People arguing for suppression effect want to trade freedom of game-play with half-interactive movie that feels so real (not really).

---------- Post added at 01:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 PM ----------

If you're safe behind rock why should your weapon shake?

Why force fatigue? I'm a highly trained marathon runner and I won't get tired. The game is limiting my freedom to play.

My idea of suppression effect would to be model the tunneling of vision and audio exclution that people do experience in a high stress situation. A single round wouldn't cause it, but as the intensity and proximity of rounds increase, so does the effect.

[Smurf 12]

Tell me the advantage player has without suppression effect.

Accurate pop shots on targers with worst equipment; Think a 3 man on ironsights only trying to get to a point where there is a single man armed with somekind of scope.

Without supressing fire, there is no point in "spraying" an area, you are only giving away your position and wasting ammo. Read: There is no point to shoot if not for a kill. And on top of that, it is too easy to get an accurate shot in Arma even in longer distances.

Hell, when games like Insurgency, Project Reality, Red Orchestra (the effect on 1 might be better than on what is on 2 for some), Arma 2 (better with mods) and more arcade games like BF3, BiAHH and RTS games in general have it. On the other end there is those skill based shooters where it doesn't matter and the game doesn't "force" anything on you, frag based games.

Last night I spent a whole round on Project Reality just acting on a support (as in covering fire for advancing troops) squad getting only one kill! Firefights were longer, ammo was a real problem and getting shot was terrifying, you NEED help to get out of firefights.

And the whole discussion is focused on small arms only. What happens when explosives, cannons and artillery comes into play? Get bombarded and "stay cool"?

[froggyluv 2136]

Has BI ever stated they are implementing this? Seems like a futile debate as which is better Chocolate or Vanilla Ice cream (hint:chocolate!) and people are so firmly entrenched in their belief, no one is going to budge an inch. Your better off debating with a :banghead::banghead::banghead:

[katipo66 94]

... I think we've been here before (of course we have), it's not to simulate fear, but a mechanic to discourage a certain "overbrave" activity due to the game nature of ArmA.

*shrug* hey look if you don't dig it, you don't dig it. Works both ways y'know, why would you want to "force" others to your overbrave snap-shooting of their machine-gunners? ;)

Perhaps the machine gunner should fire from a better position, be it AI or player, if the suppressors are in no better cover than the suppressed then why should they receive any more advantage.. They shouldn't. "The suppressors" should not be able to drop to the ground anywhere and start laying fire and getting instant advantage of any suppression mechanic.

But of course if they are firing from good cover and good position then they should naturally have an advantage as the suppressed will find it much more difficult to try and find targets.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Katipo66

[batto 17]

... I think we've been here before (of course we have), it's not to simulate fear, but a mechanic to discourage a certain "overbrave" activity due to the game nature of ArmA.

Then it's something completely unrealistic and isn't compatible with simulator game as in real life there is no such mechanic. Not to mention that it doesn't really discourage all "overbrave" as you could be brave in countless other ways in-game without any penalty.

*shrug* hey look if you don't dig it, you don't dig it. Works both ways y'know, why would you want to "force" others to your overbrave snap-shooting of their machine-gunners? ;)

Oh well, we can also play ArmA by sitting around campfire and singing so everyone, newcomers/skilled players, would be happy. But I'll rather keep playing PvP games (and it really doesn't have to be OMG MOAR FRAGZ as you milsimers like to exaggerate) where I can risk and snap-shoot noobs that are unable to hit me. Again, being unable to hit is your problem and not my problem and certainly not problem of ArmA. That's why it doesn't work other way. You try to deal with it or find easier game.

---------- Post added at 08:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 PM ----------

Why force fatigue? I'm a highly trained marathon runner and I won't get tired. The game is limiting my freedom to play.

Fatigue is not psychological effect. By "simulating" psychology the game-play would turn into limited control of AI.

---------- Post added at 08:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 PM ----------

Accurate pop shots on targers with worst equipment; Think a 3 man on ironsights only trying to get to a point where there is a single man armed with somekind of scope.

Without supressing fire, there is no point in "spraying" an area, you are only giving away your position and wasting ammo. Read: There is no point to shoot if not for a kill. And on top of that, it is too easy to get an accurate shot in Arma even in longer distances.

Well, "spraying for not hitting" doesn't make sense even in real life firefight I guess. I mean, if the person in real-life could be absolutely sure he/she can't get hit then why run away?. If I bullets lands nearby I run to cover in-game.

If i move down from a hill into a camp/town, suddenly enemy pop out and start shooting my way as i'm approaching a wall/rock, the 1st thing i do is dive prone behind the wall/rock!

There's no way i'm popping my head up untill:-

A, they stop firing!

B, they reload and i may have a chance to move/return fire!

Am i suppressed?

IMO it works as it's intended to work.

And on top of that, it is too easy to get an accurate shot in Arma even in longer distances.

That's another problem.

Hell, when games like Insurgency, Project Reality, Red Orchestra (the effect on 1 might be better than on what is on 2 for some), Arma 2 (better with mods) and more arcade games like BF3, BiAHH and RTS games in general have it.

Just because something is there and there doesn't necessarily mean it's good.

And the whole discussion is focused on small arms only. What happens when explosives, cannons and artillery comes into play? Get bombarded and "stay cool"?

I welcome anything that doesn't turn game-play into limited control of half-AI. That is any visuals/sound are OK but it must not "simulate" psychology.

[ck-claw 1]

You missed the point, ck is saying when the enemy is shooting at him, is he suppressed whilst they are shooting.

Thats my point ;)

Surely, the fact that i've had to get my head down and into cover and dare not stick my head up is the fact that i'm being suppressed?

maybe i'm mising something here??

*grabs another cider* :cool:

[dale0404 5]

Nope your definitely not missing anything buddy. I am though, just grabbing a brandy + coke!

[dmarkwick 261]

Then it's something completely unrealistic and isn't compatible with simulator game as in real life there is no such mechanic.

Actually the RL "mechanic" is a genuine fear of real death, which obviously you cannot get in ArmA. Therefore an alternate reason to encourage "similar" behavior, i.e. you don't take unnecessary risks because your abilities are slightly & temporarily lessened. If you already roleplay this, then good for you, but what of the player who decides to take risks beyond reasonable "bravery" in order to game the game? You're laying down what should be effective suppressive fire to pin an enemy down into one location and unlikely to make an effective retaliation, but he makes that 20% gamble and casually lines up the machine-gunner in his sights? Worst case scenario is that he needs to respawn, wait for mission restart, or server-hop.

As I said, the mechanic would be there to discourage such a gamble. He can still make it, but with penalty, therefore abstracted gameplay mechanic.

and it really doesn't have to be OMG MOAR FRAGZ as you milsimers like to exaggerate

Not me pal. Never said or thought that.

Edited August 6, 2013 by DMarkwick

[-Coulum- 35]

Oh well, we can also play ArmA by sitting around campfire and singing so everyone, newcomers/skilled players, would be happy. But I'll rather keep playing PvP games (and it really doesn't have to be OMG MOAR FRAGZ as you milsimers like to exaggerate) where I can risk and snap-shoot noobs that are unable to hit me. Again, being unable to hit is your problem and not my problem and certainly not problem of ArmA. That's why it doesn't work other way. You try to deal with it or find easier game.

It is fair enough that you want the game to play like this. BUT you have to admit that this sounds much more like arcade gameplay - "I can risk snap shoot noobs that are unable to hit me". That is the same as the likes of quake, unreal tournament etc. = battles are won by your skill with the mouse rather than your ability to out smart the enemy. This is fine and your taste in gameplay is no more or less valuable then mine or others' but you must understand that In real life battles arent won by the side that has the best shooters - it helps but it doesn't win the battle. This is not reflected in arma.

So from a realism perspective, well you know what I think will create the more realistic overall gameplay results.

I welcome anything that doesn't turn game-play into limited control of half-AI. That is any visuals/sound are OK but it must not "simulate" psychology.

Keep in mind that suppression effects would not force anybody to do anything. It merely encourages them to take one course of action and makes it harder to pursue another. You can still risk snap shooting noobs that can't hit you, but it will take an extra bit of skill.

And also keep in mind that we must let the game take control of our avatar to some degree. In real life things like fatigue and stopping power are largely psycological - people have been known to take many shots without giving up, literally run themselves to death and lift incredible amounts of wieght because they were in the right state of mind. However making this a common and controlable ability in arma wouldn't do, because in reality it isn't as easy to make that choice to fight/run/lift on as it is to sit at a computer and press xyz.

You make the best (and the only real) argument against suppression effects batto, but you must admit that they do have some positive effects for realism?

Here's what I'd like: If a bullet comes very close to you there's an audible bullet snap, not these wussy "plink" sounds we have now, which make me think the bullets are hitting hundreds of meters away not going right past my ear, and your soldier flinches, misalignment the sights momentarily (very, very, momentarily). There's also a slight "blink" of blurryness like a much, much more subtle version of Darkest Hour/Red Orchestra Ostfront's blur.

If a large volume of rounds passes near, but not necessarily hugely close to, the player you'll experience a slight weapon shake and the same effects as being out of stamina (heavy breathing etc). These effects go away immediately once the enemy stops firing, so you could look over and shoot them as they reload.

Exactly. Or at least something along those lines. I don't understand why people think we want BF3 effects. These effects above are really quite minimal and will require an enemy to keep a steady stream of lead coming your way to suppress you for any period of time. In fact these effects are even more forgiving than arma 2 effects (because arma 2 effects took up to a minute to go away - these disappear immediately), the only difference being that arma 2 was only triggered by very close impacts (less than .5 m) where as the trigger range for these would be much larger and not only for impacts but also for "snap bys".

[batto 17]

It is fair enough that you want the game to play like this. BUT you have to admit that this sounds much more like arcade gameplay - "I can risk snap shoot noobs that are unable to hit me". That is the same as the likes of quake, unreal tournament etc. = battles are won by your skill with the mouse rather than your ability to out smart the enemy. This is fine and your taste in gameplay is no more or less valuable then mine or others' but you must understand that In real life battles arent won by the side that has the best shooters - it helps but it doesn't win the battle. This is not reflected in arma.

So from a realism perspective, well you know what I think will create the more realistic overall gameplay results.

I fail to see how is artifical advantage for shooter related to ability to out smart the enemy.

Keep in mind that suppression effects would not force anybody to do anything. It merely encourages them to take one course of action and makes it harder to pursue another. You can still risk snap shooting noobs that can't hit you, but it will take an extra bit of skill.

Why don't other players learn extra bit of skill and shoot to kill first instead?

but you must admit that they do have some positive effects for realism?

Depends on what you mean by realism. It still won't capture countless other situations.

It is fair enough that you want the game to play like this. BUT you have to admit that this sounds much more like arcade gameplay - "I can risk snap shoot noobs that are unable to hit me". That is the same as the likes of quake, unreal tournament etc

It's similar in real life in Afghanistan. They just call Apache because they know (?) that Taliban (= noobs) don't have any Stingers left.

Edited August 6, 2013 by batto

[dmarkwick 261]

I fail to see how is artifical advantage for shooter related to ability to out smart the enemy. Why don't other players learn extra bit of skill and shoot to kill first instead?

I'm hearing this a lot in this thread :)

My answer would be that some firing is deliberate suppressive fire. OK its true no-one fires to miss and everyone hopes their fire will kill, but suppressive fire is.... different. It is specifically laid down to achieve a purpose other than to merely kill. In this case I think it's safe to say that suppression of enemy is it's primary purpose.

And the artificial advantage to shooter is a RL tactic BTW. Also, it is entirely possible to suppress the suppressing unit in turn. But, that depends on teamwork.

[ScratcH334 10]

Why don't other players learn extra bit of skill and shoot to kill first instead?

You don't shoot to kill, not in the military. At least that's what I've been told in the time where I served in the Austrian Armed Forces. You shoot at an enemy soldier to injure him or else you would use a different kind of ammunition and not one which enters one side of the body and leaves at the other side. You would chose one which would release the full energy of the projectile in his body, like police forces do.

When killing an enemy soldier he'll be dead and won't necessarily affect his other squadmembers since they can carry him out whenever the firefight is over. Injuring a man will incapacitate him from fighting. Another guy has to treat his wounds, at least quickly apply a bandage to prevent blood loss, making 2 soldiers unable to fight. The injured one will most probably scream in pain, affecting the morale of his other squad mates while the dead guy is just silent and his death may even be forgotten in the heat of the battle.

That's what I've learned in the Armed Forces, and the reason why don't shoot to kill, but to injure!

English isn't my primary language so I hope you understand what I'd like to tell you :)

That's why I'd like to see suppression effects, which would add another tactical layer than just killing, killing, killing...

[batto 17]

... That's what I've learned in the Armed Forces, and the reason why don't shoot to kill, but to injure!

Interesting thoughts. I've never thought like that but it makes sense.

That's why I'd like to see suppression effects, which would add another tactical layer than just killing, killing, killing...

Suppression effect proposed here has nothing to do with injuries though. But I kinda understand what you mean (scream, treating wounds, morale, ...).

[Anachoretes 10]

That's why I'd like to see suppression effects, which would add another tactical layer than just killing, killing, killing...

This tactical layer already there. People want visuals.

suppression of enemy is it's primary purpose.

And nothing prevents people from using it now. Or you not enough motivated to produce suppressive fire?

You say "fear" but what about fact that soldiers adapt to war?

Example.Soldier(player) get a panic attack. He lose his head and left the cover. And die. With suppression effects people, even beginners, avoid this. Because they still don't have fear, but have "effects" that prevent their from mistakes. But Arma not are simple game, isn't it? Reflexes should be worked out and not be present by default.

but what of the player who decides to take risks beyond reasonable "bravery" in order to game the game

He have 50/50 chance, like IRL. Next time you will not play with him(if you don't like it). But that's no reason to put the "rails and walls".

Edited August 6, 2013 by Anachoretes

[katipo66 94]

I dont get it, if the whole concern is that some want realistic behavior from anyone being suppressed then surely those of us doing the suppression should behave in realistic manner also.

In other words If the suppressors are firing from adequate cover then then why would there be a need to handicap anyone? surely if you are firing from good cover you should have the advantage because the one who is suppressed needs to first see if he knows where the shots are coming from and then decide if its worth the risk returning fire... from my limited experience its not always a good idea, but then there are the times when the person suppressing me thinks hes safe to go prone in the open, or even worse going prone in the open on a hill? thats happened a lot... how do we curb that behavior, do we need some mechanic to advise the shooter that its probably not the best position to shoot from and then maybe show 3d markers of realistic firing positions?

Also wouldnt there be too many variables and different scenarios that are possible to just slap a one stop shop for all suppression mechanic.. things like distance, cover used, suppression from infantry or vehicle, fire power from either side etc etc.

Anyway i probably lie and do get why people want it and like others im all for a bit of screen whitening/slight blur maybe but nothing that removes my ability to return fire, especially not when gi joe is shootn at me from out in the open and ive actually made it to cover.

[Masharra 10]

thats happened a lot... how do we curb that behavior, do we need some mechanic to advise the shooter that its probably not the best position to shoot from and then maybe show 3d markers of realistic firing positions?

If death is not enough then I dont know what will work. Then gain death with respawn isnt much of a death more of a minor inconvenience.

I believe all the rope in the world should be given, hands not held, and kinetic encouragement given for all.

Let people be "stupid". They will learn or they will drown.

[dmarkwick 261]

Example.Soldier(player) get a panic attack. He lose his head and left the cover. And die. With suppression effects people, even beginners, avoid this. Because they still don't have fear, but have "effects" that prevent their from mistakes. But Arma not are simple game, isn't it? Reflexes should be worked out and not be present by default.

Well, I can see that even with multiple explanation attempts, you still retain a misunderstanding of the intent.

---------- Post added at 15:40 ---------- Previous post was at 15:38 ----------

If death is not enough then I dont know what will work. Then gain death with respawn isnt much of a death more of a minor inconvenience.

I believe all the rope in the world should be given, hands not held, and kinetic encouragement given for all.

Let people be "stupid". They will learn or they will drown.

Its not stupidity the effect is trying to stop :)

[ScratcH334 10]

This tactical layer already there. People want visuals.

What I didn't mention is that I mainly play singleplayer. The only way to win a firefight (in singleplayer) is killing each and every enemy soldier. If you only injure him: bad luck, he just fights back as if he was healthy and not injured at all. Lay down suppressive fire: nothing happens, if you don't kill him he just shoots back without any fear of death. I know this has more to do with the AI but when you make the AI behave more realistically, it would give the player an unfair advantage over the AI when he doesn't suffer under any of these effects the AI does. It should of course be optional, so for PvP (for example) you can disable it but for those of us who wish to make a firefight as authentic as possible, should be allowed to enable it in their missions or in the campaign.

[batto 17]

Well, I can see that even with multiple explanation attempts, you still retain a misunderstanding of the intent.

Then pick correct intent. So far it's

a) Handicap others because I'm being killed by people returning fire and I just can't hit them.

b) Training wheels for newcomers to force them doing what I'd expect in real-life.

As this thread goes on you pick one of them dependning on the arguments you have to counter.

@ScratcH334: Of course AI should simulate some kind of fear/stress/suppression.

[dmarkwick 261]

Then pick correct intent. So far it's

a) Handicap others because I'm being killed by people returning fire and I just can't hit them.

b) Training wheels for newcomers to force them doing what I'd expect in real-life.

As this thread goes on you pick one of them dependning on the arguments you have to counter.

@ScratcH334: Of course AI should simulate some kind of fear/stress/suppression.

Nah. Obviously ain't gonna happen, as evidenced by that reply.

Toodles :)