Suppression Effect missing in ARMA3

[whisper 0]

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

Yes it's a right, exactly like you have a right to play realistically, and everyone can be happy with all this being configurable, like respawn options etc...

People playing missions with respawn are not playing the game realistically, is Jex going to ask for removal of respawn option? No, because people have the right to play with respawn.

I insist a lot on this, I know, but I keep seeing people coming in the thread wanting to dictate how others should play the game, when the sandbox nature of ArmA should make these arguments invalid.

EDIT : /agree Coulum

[dmarkwick 261]

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).

This is it. One thing leads to the other :) it's an ingame reason that gives you a reason to act in the same way as in a real situation. it doesn't mimic fear, it just encourages decision making that has the same outcome.

---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 ----------

Yes it's a right, exactly like you have a right to play realistically, and everyone can be happy with all this being configurable, like respawn options etc...

People playing missions with respawn are not playing the game realistically, is Jex going to ask for removal of respawn option? No, because people have the right to play with respawn.

I insist a lot on this, I know, but I keep seeing people coming in the thread wanting to dictate how others should play the game, when the sandbox nature of ArmA should make these arguments invalid.

True, but only if you've decided that we're insisting suppression be non-optional, which no-one has at all.

[batto 17]

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.

Wrong! It happens. It happens right now in Syria and there is evidence of those foolish FSA terrorists doing it on internets. Last month I've seen it on video. Foolish FSA peaking from hill trying to look via scope on M4 under bullet wheezing everywhere near the camera. He were so persistent at it that he got bullet at the end of the video he got bullet in head (it'd be boring video otherwise). Of course I can't post it here but feel free to PM me to see how suppression fire doesn't really affect combat ability of fools. That's combat in reality. While he constantly put his head down there were no signs of fear or stress, no hand shaking and certainly nothing that blurred his vision. Stop treating suppression fire like God's hand that automagically puts people in cover.

Inb4 professional soldiers don't do it

[dmarkwick 261]

Wrong! It happens. It happens right now in Syria and there is evidence of those foolish FSA terrorists doing it on internets. Last month I've seen it on video. Foolish FSA peaking from hill trying to look via scope on M4 under bullet wheezing everywhere near the camera. He were so persistent at it that he got bullet at the end of the video he got bullet in head (it'd be boring video otherwise). Of course I can't post it here but feel free to PM me to see how suppression fire doesn't really affect combat ability of fools. That's combat in reality. While he constantly put his head down there were no signs of fear or stress, no hand shaking and certainly nothing that blurred his vision. Stop treating suppression fire like God's hand that automagically puts people in cover.

Inb4 professional soldiers don't do it

For every video with a moron I could post 100 with trained intelligent troops showing the opposite.

[batto 17]

What nonsense is this? Of course we should care how other people play the game, we don't want griefers or cheaters do we?

Taking risk and returing fire isn't cheating, it's sandbox gameplay.

What's wrong with having an effect that you would have in the real world that does not exist in a video game.

There is no such thing as suppression effect in real life. Only fear, stress, shock, ... something you can't simulate in-game unless you build something like Matrix.

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?

Yes you have that option in real life and it happens.

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

No. Rocket jumps and plasma climbs should come first.

---------- Post added at 02:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:16 PM ----------

For every video with a moron I could post 100 with trained intelligent troops showing the opposite.

Good. So? What's your point? So because trained soldiers behave intelligent we must be forced to in-game too? Why not watching documentary or movie instead?

[-Coulum- 35]

Wrong! It happens. It happens right now in Syria and there is evidence of those foolish FSA terrorists doing it on internets. Last month I've seen it on video. Foolish FSA peaking from hill trying to look via scope on M4 under bullet wheezing everywhere near the camera. He were so persistent at it that he got bullet at the end of the video he got bullet in head (it'd be boring video otherwise). Of course I can't post it here but feel free to PM me to see how suppression fire doesn't really affect combat ability of fools. That's combat in reality. While he constantly put his head down there were no signs of fear or stress, no hand shaking and certainly nothing that blurred his vision. Stop treating suppression fire like God's hand that automagically puts people in cover.

Never said it didn't happen. But do you honestly believe that the majority of combatants fight this way? It all comes down to motivation your current state of mind and value for life. My guess is this guy didn't have much to live for. Or maybe he was doped up. Or maybe he was so fanatical that he wanted to martyr himself. Either way, it is only one instance. and like DMarkwick said, you can open up basically any combat video and see that this is not the typical response to fire.

Also how do you know the guys aim wasn't effected in this vid?

Good. So? What's your point? So because trained soldiers behave intelligent we must be forced to in-game too?

IMO arma should try to create the type of situations that happen in a typical engagement, not those that happen once every blue moon because of crazy fanatics.

Edited April 4, 2013 by -Coulum-

[dmarkwick 261]

Good. So? What's your point? So because trained soldiers behave intelligent we must be forced to in-game too? Why not watching documentary or movie instead?

???

I'm only responding to your story of a moron, what was YOUR point? That morons exist so we should simulate everyone being a moron?

[batto 17]

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

Wrong. If the (wo)man in suppression role fails to kill enemy that's trying to return fire he/she does poor job. You want disadvantage for units under fire.

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.

Yes but bullet cracking so close to your yes happens very rarely.

---------- Post added at 02:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------

???

I'm only responding to your story of a moron, what was YOUR point? That morons exist so we should simulate everyone being a moron?

I think we should not care. Let intelligent people be intelligent and morons be morons. Lack of suppression effect in ArmA doesn't give unfair (dis)advantage to any side.

Edited April 4, 2013 by batto

[Smurf 12]

This is good:

This is better:

See? Subtle effects triggered by near misses (keyword: near), explosions and extended exposition to walls of lead (aka MG fire, they were built to do that!), not single not-so-near shots and CQB action.

You guys play anything except Arma?

[batto 17]

Never said it didn't happen. But do you honestly believe that the majority of combatants fight this way? It all comes down to motivation your current state of mind and value for life. My guess is this guy didn't have much to live for. Or maybe he was doped up. Or maybe he was so fanatical that he wanted to martyr himself. Either way, it is only one instance. and like DMarkwick said, you can open up basically any combat video and see that this is not the typical response to fire.

Also how do you know the guys aim wasn't effected in this vid?

IMO arma should try to create the type of situations that happen in a typical engagement, not those that happen once every blue moon.

Wrong. ArmA should remain sandbox open to fools and intelligent people and let them learn from mistakes.

[-Coulum- 35]

I think we should not care. Let intelligent people be intelligent and morons be morons. Lack of suppression effect in ArmA doesn't give unfair (dis)advantage to any side.

I does give a disadvantage to those trying to use tactics and weapons properly in a realistic manner. This is why I want some extra effects. Proper realistic behavior, tactics etc. should be encouraged, not "gamey" behavior and tactics, for lack of a better word. Of course this is not what everyone wants (demonstrated by whisper). But I think it is fair to say that some extra effects while under fire would lead to more realistic overall gameplay than the current. Do you disagree with that?

[dmarkwick 261]

Wrong. If the (wo)man in suppression role fails to kill enemy that's trying to return fire he/she does poor job. You want disadvantage for units under fire.

I guess you have little idea to the nature of suppressive fire.

Yes but bullet cracking so close to your yes happens very rarely.

Um. Are you trying to equate the closeness of bullets to the closeness of fingers in my example? I don't know how to respond to this. I was trying to say something about involuntary reflexes not the proximity of bullets to eyes.

[batto 17]

I does give a disadvantage to those trying to use tactics and weapons properly in a realistic manner. This is why I want some extra effects. Proper realistic behavior, tactics etc. should be encouraged, not "gamey" behavior and tactics, for lack of a better word. Of course this is not what everyone wants (demonstrated by whisper). But I think it is fair to say that some extra effects while under fire would lead to more realistic overall gameplay than the current. Do you disagree with that?

Yes I disagree. Mainly with the phrase

I does give a disadvantage to those trying to use tactics and weapons properly in a realistic manner.

This is complete BS. When your MG fails to kill enemy that pop up from cover you have crappy MG. You can wrap it in nice military phrases like "tactics" and "using weapons properly" but at the end of the day if such situation happens in real life and the MG fails to kill those fools peaking from cover it's the problem of the MG. There is no God's hand keeping the fools in cover and trained soldier shouldn't expect such God's hand.

The end results of the tactics is to eliminate threat. Doing suppression fire just for doing it BS.

[dmarkwick 261]

This is complete BS. When your MG fails to kill enemy that pop up from cover you have crappy MG. You can wrap it in nice military phrases like "tactics" and "using weapons properly" but at the end of the day if such situation happens in real life and the MG fails to kill those fools peaking from cover it's the problem of the MG. There is no God's hand keeping the fools in cover and trained soldier shouldn't expect such God's hand.

The end results of the tactics is to eliminate threat. Doing suppression fire just for doing it BS.

I think we have the source of the problem that you have for suppressive fire effects: you don't believe in suppressive fire.

[batto 17]

I guess you have little idea to the nature of suppressive fire.

It's not really rocket science you know. It's very simple. The desired effect of it is "stay in cover or die in stream of bullets". It's THAT simple.

Um. Are you trying to equate the closeness of bullets to the closeness of fingers in my example? I don't know how to respond to this. I was trying to say something about involuntary reflexes not the proximity of bullets to eyes.

I previously said that when you hear bullet cracks 1m from your head your eyes will indeed blink by reflexes. But bullet cracks at such close range happens rarely.

---------- Post added at 02:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------

I think we have the source of the problem that you have for suppressive fire effects: you don't believe in suppressive fire.

Indeed! I'm atheist.

[-Coulum- 35]

Yes I disagree. Mainly with the phrase

So you'd rather use gamey tactics than real life tactics. Fair enough. Thats why I want the option.

This is complete BS. When your MG fails to kill enemy that pop up from cover you have crappy MG. You can wrap it in nice military phrases like "tactics" and "using weapons properly" but at the end of the day if such situation happens in real life and the MG fails to kill those fools peaking from cover it's the problem of the MG. There is no God's hand keeping the fools in cover and trained soldier shouldn't expect such God's hand.

The end results of the tactics is to eliminate threat. Doing suppression fire just for doing it BS.

I think your understanding of how a firefight is flawed. I am no expert, but MG's purpose is not to "kill those fools peaking from cover". Do some reading on the subject. I can link you to some excellent articles if you want.

[batto 17]

So you'd rather use gamey tactics than real life tactics. Fair enough. Thats why I want the option.

I didn't say anything like that. I was actually talking about real life situation that has nothing to do with game.

I think your understanding of how a firefight is flawed. I am no expert, but MG's purpose is not to "kill those fools peaking from cover". Do some reading on the subject. I can link you to some excellent articles if you want.

Hahaha. I thought that main purpose of MG is to kill people.

I think that you hardcore milsimers should open your eyes and realize that war isn't pre-scripted sequence of actions with cool names like "suppresion tactics" etc. It's eliminating threats, killing enemies, ... Tactics is just a tool to achieve goals. And tactics can vary.

Edited April 4, 2013 by batto

[dmarkwick 261]

It's not really rocket science you know. It's very simple. The desired effect of it is "stay in cover or die in stream of bullets". It's THAT simple.

I guess I should have said "purpose" not "nature". However I think I have a better picture of your opinion now :) suppressive fire is not only what you recieve, it's also what you give. But you've said you don't beleieve in this so I guess the purpose of suppressive fire is nonexistent for you.

I previously said that when you hear bullet cracks 1m from your head your eyes will indeed blink by reflexes. But bullet cracks at such close range happens rarely.

So you did. But now it's my turn to say you're making this stuff up. 1m? Based on what? I would say that for gameplay purposes the suppressive fire effect would happen at around 5m or so. That is a finger-in-the-air guess, to allow for effective suppression but still allow for units to feel somewhat emboldened if not directly targeted i.e. NOT suppressed.

Edited April 4, 2013 by DMarkwick

[kernriver 4]

This is complete BS. When your MG fails to kill enemy that pop up from cover you have crappy MG. You can wrap it in nice military phrases like "tactics" and "using weapons properly" but at the end of the day if such situation happens in real life and the MG fails to kill those fools peaking from cover it's the problem of the MG. There is no God's hand keeping the fools in cover and trained soldier shouldn't expect such God's hand.

The end results of the tactics is to eliminate threat. Doing suppression fire just for doing it BS.

Mate, suppressive fire is not meant to kill everything that moves, it's meant to pin down everything that would otherwise move.

And yes, you're right, suppression just for the sake of it is a waste of bullets.

I think suppression effects should be optional.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Kernriver

[dmarkwick 261]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun

Unlike semi-automatic firearms, which require one trigger pull per round fired, a machine gun is designed to fire as long as the trigger is held down. Nowadays the term is restricted to relatively heavy weapons fired from some sort of support rather than hand-held, able to provide continuous or frequent bursts of automatic fire for as long as ammunition lasts. Machine guns are normally used against unprotected or lightly protected personnel, or to provide suppressive fire.

[batto 17]

What is the goal of suppressive fire? To keep enemy in cover. Why enemy stays in cover? Because he's scared to die in bullet stream around him. It's that simple. If he sees 2 squads flanking him he may just sit there and wait for death or try luck and take out the mg, run, whatever-may-seem-crazy-to-hardcore-milsimers... to save his life. There's no God's hand enforcing suppression effect on him. Only fear/stress.

So you did. But now it's my turn to say you're making this stuff up. 1m? Based on what? I would say that for gameplay purposes the suppressive fire effect would happen at around 5m or so. That is a finger-in-the-air guess, to allow for effective suppression but still allow for units to feel somewhat emboldened if not directly targeted i.e. NOT suppressed.

Reflexive eye blink has nothing to do with suppressive fire effect. I talked only about sonic boom of bullets.

Edited April 4, 2013 by batto

[Smurf 12]

There's no God's hand enforcing suppression effect on him. Only fear/stress.

Yeah. And that is what the supressing effect is suppose to simulate, just like ACE's black borders for fading, white for pain and red for bleeding. It is feedback.

[dmarkwick 261]

What is the goal of suppressive fire? To keep enemy in cover. Why enemy stays in cover? Because he's scared to die in bullet stream around him. It's that simple. If he sees 2 squads flanking him he may just sit there and wait for death or try luck and take out the mg, run, whatever... to save his life. There's no God's hand enforcing suppression effect on him. Only fear/stress.

Or he could just stand up when he's fed up and take a well-aimed and calm shot right at the necessarily inaccurate machinegunner because he knows he has an equal chance of succeeding. Do we wish to discourage this ability? I think I do, but you do not correct?

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:24 ----------

Reflexive eye blink has nothing to do with suppressive fire effect. I talked only about sonic boom of bullets.

???

I think you're starting to make less sense now about things you already said you don't believe in. Eye blink was mentioned as a possible solution, you're mentioning sonic cracks for your own reasons, whatever they may be.

[kireta21 13]

Yeah. And that is what the supressing effect is suppose to simulate, just like ACE's black borders for fading, white for pain and red for bleeding. It is feedback.

No, that's HUD, just very well hidden.

[chrisb 196]

It still amazes me that people are still arguing over this.

Player one would like the feature..:D

Player two doesn’t want the feature..:mad:

As said before, put in something equivalent to an On/Off switch.

And lets be honest, certain contributors are getting less coherent with each post that passes…:803:.

Its funny really, many don’t want to see the effects of suppression in-game, but I can see the effects of anger/rage on screen here, just by reading some of the posts..

Ah you shout, still doesn’t have a real screen effect, your right it doesn't, it actually has a physical effect, I can't read whilst falling around laughing..:icon_lol:.