Suppression Effect missing in ARMA3

[dnk 13]

means you are going to suffer from impairement most of the time in an engagement. Hardly fun if you ask me.

What exactly is suppression effect?

What I would expect is probably how it already is:

Every time a bullet travels (or hits) within a certain close distance, it increases gun sway a bit, with modifiers for closeness and caliber (or, better, bullet energy x caliber).

Each of these increases is added to a variable, like "suppression sway", which is constantly emptying itself, such that a single shot would only have a minimal effect for a few seconds. There also would be a max limit, such that you can never be suppressed after the firing stops for more than like 10 sec or something.

But, these sway increases are cumulative, so if you start getting a lot of incoming rounds, it will build up quicker than the natural rate of decrease, such that you'll be significantly affected (by how much is up for debate), and take 5-10 sec to return to "normal".

So, some guy taking the odd pot shot at you is going to have an effect, but unless it's a 50 cal, the effect would be minimal and would dissipate fairly quickly after he finished.

But, if a guy with an M249 unloads on you, your aim is going to be quite reduced up to 5-10 sec after he stops.

I think further PP effects are unnecessary, though a light one that has no real detrimental impact might be a nice touch. Increased breathing/pulse are also good and have no impact but to increase immersion.

[Jex 1]

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

This is just ridiculous. OK I'm going to state, as a fact, that nobody short of a crazy fool is going to stand in the open whilst being shot at. I'm also going to state that whilst being shot, you are not totally in control of your body, that any bullet landing near you will most likely make you involuntarily flinch - like if I sneak up behind you and pop a paper bag in your ear.

Roleplaying the experience???? Do you mean they fall off their chair, clinging to their desk, trying desperately to get to the mouse and keyboard, throwing dirt in their faces and coughing it out?

Sorry but under fire you don't have control of your body completely and there's no argument why you should in a PC game UNLESS you want it to be a game and not strive towards realism .

[metalcraze 290]

Sorry but under fire you don't have control of your body completely and there's no argument why you should in a PC game UNLESS you want it to be a game and not strive towards realism .

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.)

Edited April 4, 2013 by metalcraze

[whisper 0]

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.)

Typical "I'm better than thou" elitist attitude :)

[EDcase 87]

Let me try and understand this...

So, if you are stuck behind a rock just big enough to give you protection and a machine gunner is prone some distance away spraying this rock with bullets. You want a stupid screen effect and aim wobble in case you cant get the point that all the bullets hitting around you is a bad situation?!?!?!

So you have no chance to get out of that situation at all because you can't shoot back and you have to sit there and wait to be flanked or forced to try and run probably to get mown down....

And if this were a REAL situation where the soldier leaned out from behind his cover it would be impossible for him to hold his weapon steady? LOL

Famous quote... "Nice"

The sound effects should be enough to let any mentality know its a dangerous situation. Not forced fake effects for the addrenalin junkie generation.

The SOUND is what BiS have to get right.

Edited April 4, 2013 by EDcase

[dmarkwick 261]

So you have no chance to get out of that situation at all because you can't shoot back and you have to sit there and wait to be flanked or forced to try and run probably to get mown down....

The idea is that "IRL" you would also be unable to shoot back effectively, for several reasons. Ingame, apart from roleplaying, there is none. If roleplaying were a reliable game mechanic there would be no reason... but of course it's not.

[Chocolate 1]

This is a fascinating philosophical thread on what I will call (though probably poor wording) the "ethics of gameplay mechanics."

The discussion should probably conclude something like this however, "Lets make it a switch on or off mechanic that Bohemia Interactive provides a base model of. In this way, those who are for turning on the suppression effect can now discuss among themselves a general level/design that they wish to see the effect take."

Also, a suppression model Has to be improved for AI. I can't imagine why anyone would disagree with that, and a suppression model for the AI should take priority.

[kireta21 13]

Human players, also to some degree real combatants

When player gets under fire, he hides behind cover or in high grass (go prone and roll twice in left or right, and they lost you) to not get shot. Since it's damn near impossible to returne fire effectively without visual on enemy, player will expose himself, but usually for short enough to take 1-2 potshots and go back in cover, to not give enemy time to aim down on him. Side with fire superiority already has one advantage - they don't need to stick out of cover first to scan for targets.

This is basically how it works in real life. Supressed enemy will leave cover to fire few snapshots, and go back, or will outright panic and start shooting "Allah's way", sticking only rifle from behind cover and blindfire it in general direction of incoming fire. If smart will try to change position, if smart and trained will use smoke to conceal movement.

ArmA2 AI, default player supression.

Bullet hits ground close to PC/NPC, weapon starts shaking similar to player beign wounded. AI additionaly suffers lowered fire-rate. Fire volume and accuracy decreases with stronger supression. If not supressed further, aim becomes steady again after time depending on level of supression 5-15 seconds.

While mechanics are completely arbitrary, result was pretty much real.

By default supression was supposed to simulate AI hiding behind cover / low in grass, since default ArmA2 AI had no concept of using cover or concealement. Even now, 3.5 years after release and several AI mods their ability to use cover and concealement (which is both lifesaver and fire volume limiter) is nowhere near awarness of even average human player.

Edited April 4, 2013 by boota

[Levinin 1]

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

That's not it though. Suppression isn't suppression unless it is accurate fire. Fire in kind of the general direction of someone won't do the job. On an MG the right way to use it is to fire 3 or 4 round bursts at rapid intervals at people or, if they are in cover, close as possible to the cover. That way person hiding knows if they pop up they will almost certainly be hit. If the person in cover sees all rounds hitting cover or a few yards away, or well over their heads, they have a hole to get out of that crappy position. Either flank, withdraw, advance, or shoot the MG.

Games like BF3 people haven mentioned earlier in the thread need a suppression effect because the player can take a few hits and then auto-heals soon after the contact. So in fact the suppression effect includes the first couple of hits on the player. It can be expressed as an aura around the player, bullets passing through the aura trigger the suppression effect and the closer the shot to the player the more intense the effect. Hitting the player is most intense and of course after a few shots to the body ultimate suppression i.e. death.

In arma it is possible to get single-shot kills so it is therefore necessary to find cover if shots come in. What is needed is for the opfor and PvP to be accurate enough to actually suppress, not some random effect.

Nothing to do with roleplay as some suggest, just good old fashioned "you're dead if you don't find cover". That's all the suppression effect we need.

Of course some people might think it more fun to have the effect but know the enemy can't shoot well enough to actually kill them so there is plenty of time to run to cover or run away or charge the MG. To me that is way more like an arcade game than just knowing you are dead if you don't fight from sufficient cover.

[twisted 127]

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

seen that video. on reddit combat footage. that guy was too afraid to even lift his head up. he was trying to fire from cover in his ditch. and he WaS right to be afraid because the top of his head was blown off a few minutes later.

ironically it's a great example of how ducked up being under fire is.

am enjoying this conversation and contrasting the arguments for against. although the latter does seem to involve a lot of foot stomping and trying to insult others to force a point of view across.

[batto 17]

seen that video. on reddit combat footage. that guy was too afraid to even lift his head up. he was trying to fire from cover in his ditch. and he WaS right to be afraid because the top of his head was blown off a few minutes later.

Yes. But it didn't stop him from doing that. And while he constantly put his head down there were no signs of hand shaking or blurred vision. I mean, he wouldn't put his head up if he couldn't see properly through his scope (as opposed to proposed effects that would just force you to put your head down). That's still no argument "for".

---------- Post added at 12:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 AM ----------

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.

We're going in circles. Please see post my previous post: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?152298-Suppression-Effect-missing-in-ARMA3&p=2364004&viewfull=1#post2364004

It's impossible to simulate it unless you isolate to only one emotion in only one very specific situation. That's why someone in FPS shooter gaming invented the term "suppression effect" to applaud military fans (my theory). If he called it what it is, fear/stress, it would seem weird. Feedback is OK if it's opt-in or opt-out at least. But forcing it on all players just because MG sucks at his/her job is not OK.

Edited April 4, 2013 by batto

[metalcraze 290]

So, if you are stuck behind a rock just big enough to give you protection and a machine gunner is prone some distance away spraying this rock with bullets. You want a stupid screen effect and aim wobble in case you cant get the point that all the bullets hitting around you is a bad situation?!?!?!

So what? I will just pop from behind a rock and shoot him with a carefully placed shot. With MG the recoil will not let him put a precise shot on me unless he is close.

Try suppressing AI and see how they disregard that and just snipe you with ease - but you would complain about that now wouldn't you?

Edited April 4, 2013 by metalcraze

[jgbtl292 0]

Sorry but under fire you don't have control of your body completely

.......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 .

Edited April 5, 2013 by JgBtl292

[Nutlink 10]

I miss the suppression. I don't care for the visual effects too much, but the gun sway that prevented me from just popping up during a reload and firing off pinpoint accurate rounds brought a lot more of a "realistic" feel to it. Not to mention that half the fun I had with the M249 in ArmA 2 was laying down suppression fire while a few friends work their way through the alley on the side. Much more fun than everyone charging in without a care in the world about near misses.

[seamusgod 1]

The idea is that "IRL" you would also be unable to shoot back effectively, for several reasons. Ingame, apart from roleplaying, there is none. If roleplaying were a reliable game mechanic there would be no reason... but of course it's not.

the whole point of a simulation is roleplaying.

[max power 21]

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

http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/23-65/ch6.htm

[ARM505 0]

Mechanical 'hard' suppression would be ridiculous in most cases. It's all about expectations. I've been on the firing line surround by guys shooting - I expected it, so I could easily aim and fire. But one guy pulls off a ND? Suddenly everybody craps themselves, flinches, and looks around, because they didn't expect it. Likewise, when I worked under the targets - 7.62mm rounds are flying just above my head. No vision blur, no nothing, because I expect it, and know I'm behind hard cover, even though the snap can be really loud (loud enough to ring your hearing). Once you think you're ok, you can work ok too (note - even if you just THINK you're ok, not necessarily whether you are ok or not). A hard coded 'vision blur' or shake when ANY round snaps by would be totally unrealistic. When unexpected fire, or fire that you have no cover from gets close, then you may start feeling degradation of your abilities I suppose, not before. And how is a PC going to be able to tell that in order to implement 'suppression effects' at the right time? It cannot, IMHO. It's trying to turn what is essentially an FPS (ie all objects, bullet paths etc individually modeled) into a 'generalisation' model, like in RTS type games (ie squad x has received y amount of fire in their area, they are now 'suppressed', albeit on an individual level). One thing that I would be happy with is the whole 'dirt in the eye' thing - I found IRL, when lots of rounds hit ground/cover close by, there are lots of bits and pieces flying around, and you tend to almost close your eyes. Goggles/eye pro really helps here. I found the twitch that RO2 gives when ANY round passes close is stupid - I wouldn't always twitch when my buddy is firing - on the contrary, I LIKE it when he is firing!

Likewise you can't say it's 'feedback', since the world around you is supposed to give that. Pain etc that cannot be felt in front of a pc needs feedback. The sounds of rounds impacting/passing by is done by sounds and gfx.

[Levinin 1]

So what? I will just pop from behind a rock and shoot him with a carefully placed shot. With MG the recoil will not let him put a precise shot on me unless he is close.

Try suppressing AI and see how they disregard that and just snipe you with ease - but you would complain about that now wouldn't you?

No, if you're a bad shot and, in shooting first miss with that initial burst, and the enemy turns round and kills you with a single shot to the head then become a better shot or - radical suggestion - drop prone or find cover to shoot from behind before taking that first shot.

With suppression the scenario is:

Fire first with a burst. Just need to get approximately on target.

Enemy suppressed and therefore can't shoot back accurately enough to kill you.

Use suppression time to correct aim and kill enemy.

That my friend is an arcade game mechanic.

[dmarkwick 261]

Mechanical 'hard' suppression would be ridiculous in most cases. It's all about expectations. I've been on the firing line surround by guys shooting - I expected it, so I could easily aim and fire. But one guy pulls off a ND? Suddenly everybody craps themselves, flinches, and looks around, because they didn't expect it. Likewise, when I worked under the targets - 7.62mm rounds are flying just above my head. No vision blur, no nothing, because I expect it, and know I'm behind hard cover, even though the snap can be really loud (loud enough to ring your hearing). Once you think you're ok, you can work ok too (note - even if you just THINK you're ok, not necessarily whether you are ok or not). A hard coded 'vision blur' or shake when ANY round snaps by would be totally unrealistic. When unexpected fire, or fire that you have no cover from gets close, then you may start feeling degradation of your abilities I suppose, not before. And how is a PC going to be able to tell that in order to implement 'suppression effects' at the right time? It cannot, IMHO. It's trying to turn what is essentially an FPS (ie all objects, bullet paths etc individually modeled) into a 'generalisation' model, like in RTS type games (ie squad x has received y amount of fire in their area, they are now 'suppressed', albeit on an individual level). One thing that I would be happy with is the whole 'dirt in the eye' thing - I found IRL, when lots of rounds hit ground/cover close by, there are lots of bits and pieces flying around, and you tend to almost close your eyes. Goggles/eye pro really helps here. I found the twitch that RO2 gives when ANY round passes close is stupid - I wouldn't always twitch when my buddy is firing - on the contrary, I LIKE it when he is firing!

Likewise you can't say it's 'feedback', since the world around you is supposed to give that. Pain etc that cannot be felt in front of a pc needs feedback. The sounds of rounds impacting/passing by is done by sounds and gfx.

This is the biggest problem when discussing this - that there is often no dissociation between the game mechanic and the game mechanic's displayed solution.

You can say that when you're expecting the rounds close by then you're not experiencing any visual effect, that's fine and I can accept that. But, would that fact make you more prone to peeking out and having a nice cool shot at the suppressing weapon? I don't think it would.

That's what the game mechanic is there for - to give you an alternative ingame reason to dissuade you from trying. Because lets face it - you know you're playing a game. Death would not do much more than inconvenience you for a while. Everyone hides when under fire, but then what?

If you know that you're not going to be 100% effective with your cool snapshot - you might make different decisions. I'm not suggesting you won't return fire - return fire even under fire is a fine tactic. But it'll be quick and life-like because of this game mechanic.

So the actual look of the effect is not the important thing - it's the effect on people's gameplay.

---------- Post added at 10:12 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------

No, if you're a bad shot and, in shooting first miss with that initial burst, and the enemy turns round and kills you with a single shot to the head then become a better shot or - radical suggestion - drop prone or find cover to shoot from behind before taking that first shot.

With suppression the scenario is:

Fire first with a burst. Just need to get approximately on target.

Enemy suppressed and therefore can't shoot back accurately enough to kill you.

Use suppression time to correct aim and kill enemy.

That my friend is an arcade game mechanic.

I don't know why you would call that an arcade mechanic. It sounds reasonable to me :) otherwise it becomes a matter of twitch-response and who is better at pixel-perfect aiming etc.

Let me give a similar scenario:

Without suppression the scenario is:

Fire first with a burst using wide-dispersion suppression weapon. Just need to give your position/direction away.

Enemy not suppressed and therefore can simply quickly shoot back accurately enough to kill you.

Becomes arcade Quakathon :)

Scenarios like this can always be turned around & described to present a proof, when it doesn't provide a proof.

Edited April 5, 2013 by DMarkwick

[-Coulum- 35]

I think that perhaps people don't have a very accurate idea of what happens in reality.

Levenin, in reality, the scenario you describe with suppression is much more likely to happen then the scenario DMarkwick describes without suppression. With suppression results in more realistic accurate reproduction of reality. Yesy the means of producing may be gamey but the end result is much more closer to reality in the majority of situations. Without suppression results in gameplay are more similar to a typical twitch reflex shooter - which is fine if you just want a twitch reflex shooter. But is that what you want...

There is a reason suppression is represented in VBS2, Red Orchestra, Project reality etc. - all games/sims aiming to be realistic - and not in quake, COD, Halo, and pretty much every other fps that doesn't care much for realism. BF3 is a rare exception, and they do a poor job with the suppression effects, but honestly it is still more realistic with their wonky suppression than it is without.

@ARM505 I understand that when bullets were snapping over you there was no fear or physical effects. but that was because you were in safety. How long do you think you would have peeked up exposing your head to the incoming fire. Do you still think you would be calm and collected? Like DMarkwick said, this is the reason for suppression effects. to dissuade you from peeking up out of cover. Because in reality you are much more likely to stay down and safe than you are ingame.

Edited April 5, 2013 by -Coulum-

[batto 17]

http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/23-65/ch6.htm

Thank you. Looks interesting. Unfortunately I don't have time to read it at the moment so I just quickly skimmed it. But it seems there's nothing that says that MG is not mainly killing machine. Only MG fire techniques.

6-8. FINAL PROTECTIVE FIRES

These are types of fire that are placed on a predetermined line along which grazing fire is placed to stop an enemy assault. This fire is fixed in direction and elevation; however, a few mils of search are employed during firing to compensate for irregularities in the terrain. FPLs are always laid in using the extreme left or right of the tripod, causing the T&E to move to the extreme left or right on the traversing bar. The FPFs can be delivered in any visibility conditions. When terrain permits, final protective lines are assigned to machine guns along the forward line of troops as a part of the FPFs of the defending unit. The signal used to call for FPFs is normally prescribed in the company operation order. The authority to call for these fires may be delegated to the platoon leader of a forward rifle platoon. Final protective fires are ceased on order.

This still doesn't imply there's God's hand that helps milsimers who can't operate MG properly to "execute real world tactics".

There's not described why it does stop enemy assault because it's clear I think.

This is interesting:

6-9. APPLICATION OF FIRE

To be effective, machine gun fire must be distributed over the entire target area. Improper distribution of fire results in gaps which allow the enemy to escape or use weapons against friendly positions without effective opposition.

This is what matters. Therefore I think milsimers should rather read such articles to understand how to properly operate MG instead of crying on BIS forum because their "real world tactics" doesn't work.

Edited April 5, 2013 by batto

[dmarkwick 261]

Well of course all weapons are mainly killing machines :) and thus any weapon can be used for suppression etc. But the machinegun has a built-in inaccuracy to make it more suitable for roles other than sharpshooting. If the machine gun was as accurate as other weapons it wouldn't need to be a machinegun.

[batto 17]

But the machinegun has a built-in inaccuracy to make it more suitable for roles other than sharpshooting.

milsimers...

[liquidpinky 11]

Well of course all weapons are mainly killing machines :) and thus any weapon can be used for suppression etc. But the machinegun has a built-in inaccuracy to make it more suitable for roles other than sharpshooting. If the machine gun was as accurate as other weapons it wouldn't need to be a machinegun.

The innacuracy is not built in, it is a side effect of having to have a slacker bore to prevent the gun overheating under sustained fire while suppressing targets.

Now although I am in the anti-supression camp at the moment, I would be happy if it was implemented better than current games do.

The dust and dirt effect mention by ARM505 and better application of some physical effect (not visual blur crap) derived from a better formula. I would actually probably welcome and enjoy.

eg like I mentioned ages back and similar to others as well it should be calculated from volume of incomming fire, caliber of incomming fire and distance from player. Not the current bullet lands withing 5m so make player blur and shake for 15 seconds, repeat until no more incomming bullets. Wait 15 seconds then remove effect.

It should also tail off the longer you are under suppression as you grow accustomed to it, to a certain level deemed as the ultimate lower limit while under fire. So as to keep it fair on those dishing out the suppression. Hard cover needs to be taken into account as well, lying in the grass being suppressed would be more effective than being in a bunker getting shot at.

And again, make it an option for those who will detest it no matter how well they impliment it.

[dmarkwick 261]

milsimers...

Machineguns that are too accurate become less useful because if they hit consistently exactly where they're pointed, the firer is put at a disadvantage because he needs to aim exactly even when the machinegun is vibrating him all around :) so the dispersion is there to give an effective cone of fire around the aiming point. The desired effect of a machinegun is to spray.

---------- Post added at 12:51 ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 ----------

The innacuracy is not built in, it is a side effect of having to have a slacker bore to prevent the gun overheating under sustained fire while suppressing targets.

Well whether its a side-effect or built-in (and some are built-in) the fact is that machineguns have an inaccuracy.

Now although I am in the anti-supression camp at the moment, I would be happy if it was implemented better than current games do.

The dust and dirt effect mention by ARM505 and better application of some physical effect (not visual blur crap) derived from a better formula. I would actually probably welcome and enjoy.

eg like I mentioned ages back and similar to others as well it should be calculated from volume of incomming fire, caliber of incomming fire and distance from player. Not the current bullet lands withing 5m so make player blur and shake for 15 seconds, repeat until no more incomming bullets. Wait 15 seconds then remove effect.

It should also tail off the longer you are under suppression as you grow accustomed to it, to a certain level deemed as the ultimate lower limit while under fire. So as to keep it fair on those dishing out the suppression. Hard cover needs to be taken into account as well, lying in the grass being suppressed would be more effective than being in a bunker getting shot at.

Some good ideas about reduction of suppressive fire effectiveness over time. But still you're hung up on the look purely, whereas I say the look is unimportant, the important factor is the emergent gameplay. If it was just purely about the look I would dismiss it as unimportant eye-candy, 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.

And again, make it an option for those who will detest it no matter how well they impliment it.

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

Edited April 5, 2013 by DMarkwick