Suppression Effect missing in ARMA3

[metalcraze 290]

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

But that's not how it works in ArmA3. The point is that you can shoot back accurately. As accurately as you ever could. That's the point.

the whole point of a simulation is roleplaying.

I guess you have no idea what simulation even means.

[Levinin 1]

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 ----------

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.

but there is no such thing as a suppression weapon, only killing weapons. And it is about who is more accurate, reacts faster, does the right things and is cooler under fire. You should always shoot to kill when the enemy is out of cover. if you're not accurate enough to kill and you're not in cover yourself you will be killed. Wanting a mechanic to make up for inaccurate fire is an unnecessary intrusion.

---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------

But that's not how it works in ArmA3. The point is that you can shoot back accurately. As accurately as you ever could. That's the point.

Clearly I was giving an example of what would happen with a suppression effect in place. I want it to remain without one.

[down8 30]

I don't like suppression effects on player, the punishment for not react to suppressive fire and act like rambo should be a high chance of dying by the incoming fire. More than enough risk in my oppinion.

If few times someone sharpshoot an enemy under suppressive fire is fine, the chances of success of such behavior are pretty bad, so it's a bad decission punished by a likely death.

I like suppression on AI,because is a behaviour that improves it.

[dmarkwick 261]

but there is no such thing as a suppression weapon, only killing weapons.

Any weapon used for suppression in that case. If you can't see your enemy, why fire? Suppression.

And it is about who is more accurate, reacts faster, does the right things and is cooler under fire. You should always shoot to kill when the enemy is out of cover. if you're not accurate enough to kill and you're not in cover yourself you will be killed.

You should shoot to kill yes, but if the enemy is hidden then you can shoot to suppress. And even under suppression there are tactics to employ, but which do not involve peeping up for extended periods for accurate shooting.

Wanting a mechanic to make up for inaccurate fire is an unnecessary intrusion.

It's not making up for inaccurate fire, it's to simulate the effects of suppression. Suppression is different to inaccurate fire.

---------- Post added at 14:09 ---------- Previous post was at 14:06 ----------

I don't like suppression effects on player, the punishment for not react to suppressive fire and act like rambo should be a high chance of dying by the incoming fire. More than enough risk in my oppinion.

If few times someone sharpshoot an enemy under suppressive fire is fine, the chances of success of such behavior are pretty bad, so it's a bad decission punished by a likely death.

I like suppression on AI,because is a behaviour that improves it.

When I first installed ArmA 3 I would apply suppression to distant AI and they would almost instantly target and hit me. Very annoying as the suppression tactic, which is real, did not work. I wasn't expecting to kill every one of them, just make them ineffective for as long as it took my subordinates to use more effective fire. This is the sort of situation I'm thinking about.

[kireta21 13]

Actually "I jumped out of cover and shot MG in face" thing is a quickscoping, game debalancing "feature", and exact reason Dice introduced supression in BF3.

In ArmA2 if Aiming Deadzone was set anywhere above 0, using scoped weapon forced player to properly aquire target, before he could shot it. Interesting, despite it was very realistic feature, many (judging from youtube videos like 90%) players disable it completely, because... it's a hassle to look for target. It's better to point, RMB, hit.

In ArmA3 scope follows crosshair perfectly even with Deadzone on, scoping in puts you almost exactly where crosshair was.

[ARM505 0]

My well hidden point earlier was that once the initial shock is over, and the situation develops, you adjust and adapt, and a pc game cannot determine who in reality would actually be suppressed. Unless they apply some kind of legendary simulation, it'll pretty much boil down to 'a bullet landed/passed close to you, so you're suppressed'. In reality thats not the case.

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

To sum up: I don't believe a blanket 'you're suppressed' effect is the answer here because in reality 'suppressive fire' doesn't always suppress as perfectly as many here would think. It's only when you actually think there's a very real chance you will be directly shot at (ie the MG/squad is shooting at YOU, and not just 'your area'), or bullets are coming VERY close to you consistently that you would really want to crawl underground. Otherwise, I believe you will stick your head out, and may well be able to squeeze off a couple of well aimed shots. I could support some kind of twitch if rounds impacted within 30cm or so (because you will flinch if debris actually hits you), but otherwise it's artificial. So what if it's a game - are we going to be able to 'force' everything to be more 'real'? ie a poorly trained fighter's weapon sway will be forced to be bad? They'll throw grenades badly? No, I think how one reacts should be left to the player. Anyway, my 2c. Enough from me.

[Levinin 1]

Any weapon used for suppression in that case. If you can't see your enemy, why fire? Suppression.

Yes, suppression fire is for when the enemy is in cover. If they are not in cover suppression is not the objective, accurate fire that will kill them is the objective.

You should shoot to kill yes, but if the enemy is hidden then you can shoot to suppress. And even under suppression there are tactics to employ, but which do not involve peeping up for extended periods for accurate shooting.

Yes, if they are in cover shoot to suppress. This shooting however needs to be putting rounds close enough to the cover so that if they peep round they will be hit. Otherwise they have the space to move and it is not suppression.

It's not making up for inaccurate fire, it's to simulate the effects of suppression. Suppression is different to inaccurate fire.

We seem to be in agreement on every practical point here. Suppression fire is indeed different to inaccurate fire. It needs to be accurately placed close enough to cover to keep the person behind it down and not give enough room for them to move away or poke their head up.

And my perspective is that if this accurate fire is present there is no need for an effect because the suppression will be real. I.e. if under fire we don't find cover asap we are dead. And in that circumstance thinking "I'm not really going to die IRL, might as well just stay up and shoot back" won't work because the player will die and fail and have to respawn and try again.

It is possible to say that people will abuse the respawn but that is no reason to add in an effect which affects gameplay so much and moves it further from a simulation.

[-Coulum- 35]

Yes, suppression fire is for when the enemy is in cover. If they are not in cover suppression is not the objective, accurate fire that will kill them is the objective.

No doubt, if you can see thenemy clearly the best possible outcome is to kill them. Nobody tries to aim above there heads to suppress them. But in reality lining up accurate fire is not always the best option. Sometimes it is better to sacrifice accuracy in hopes of suppressing an enemy than to take the time to line up an accurate shot and kill them. This is because suppressing fire can be done quickly with very little need for concentration. aiming takes time though - more exposure time that is. And more exposure means more likely hood of getting hit. Let me describe an example in reality.

You are a LMG in a squad taking fire from the front. you look to your flank and see there are three enemies peaking out of cover, 200m away, preparing to fire. In this situation, in reality, soldiers should not try to line up supper accurate shots. This is because it takes too long. you might kill one but you will give the other two time to line up shots of their own and kill you. If you use less accuracy and more speed you will be able to put a burst down range at each of them within a metre or so of them, convincing them to duck down into cover before they can hit you. You report the flanking enemies to the rest of the squad and keep up fire on their position keeping them down and unable to return fire. If your squad has the capacity to, you flank and close on them. If support is available you arty their position prior to advancing.

If the above situation were to happen in arma your suppressing shots would have no effect on the enemies. They would calmly line up their shots and kill you. This is because dying isn't really that big of a deal in game.

It needs to be accurately placed close enough to cover to keep the person behind it down and not give enough room for them to move away or poke their head up.

It needs to be accurately placed close enough to let the person know that he is being shot at. The knowledge alone is good enough to keep most sane human beings down. If you hear a sonic crack you shouldn't be wanting to have yourself exposed. it means that somwhere, someone is pointing a weapon your way. Doesn't matter if the bullet passed 1m away or 10 cm from your face, the knowledge that someone is shooting at you is enough. Honestly guys, if you were in

in reality, from 1:00 to 2:00, would you be trying to line up the accurate shots like this guy is? Edited April 5, 2013 by -Coulum-

[Levinin 1]

Hope is not a strategy or a tactic to rely on. No one puts rounds down range aiming to be within a metre of the enemy. If you see those 3 guys you shout and run for cover then shoot from cover. No way do you take the time out in the open to shoot at them.

And you are.right, the key phrase is being shot at, not being shot near.

[-Coulum- 35]

No one puts rounds down range aiming to be within a metre of the enemy. If you see those 3 guys you shout and run for cover then shoot from cover. No way do you take the time out in the open to shoot at them.

Okay just to be clear, I don't mean you actually aim to hit 1m away from the enemy - rather you don't take the time to ensure that the bullet is 100% hit. Basically point and shoot quickly to the best of your ability. Usually that results in shots passing within 1 m of the enemy (but sometimes it even gets you a hit) depending on the range, but you are not guaranteed hits. Your sacrificing speed for accuracy. In reality these shots would be close enough to get the enemy to seek cover. Note that these shots still have to be well aimed - you can't just spray full auto at the hillside without even using the sights - but they must also be quick and rapid. But even though they aren't precise, per say, they are effective. I'll try to make a vid to better communicate what I mean if you want.

In arma though these kind of shots would have zero effect on the player unless they are the really jumpy type. Thus only shots that hit are actually effective.

Hope is not a strategy or a tactic to rely on.

this is a pretty standard reaction(pg.33) to direct fire - spit out well aimed yet quick/rapid fire towards the enemy to try and suppress them long enough to get to cover. Report the location of the enemy. Try to win fire superiority to pin down the enemy (this is crucial). Call in arty to hit the now stationary target. advance and clean up.

You definitely aren't suppoed to take cover then try and snipe the enemy like you often have to in arma because in reality this doesn't work well until you have the upper hand (fire superiority) or the enemy is unaware of your presence. The reason this doesn't work is because while under fire, no sane person wants to peak out of cover long enough to put down precision kill shots. In arma however its no big deal.

And you are.right, the key phrase is being shot at, not being shot near.

Thank you for agreeing. As you can see though, in

, even knowing that someone is shooting at you isn't even near enough to keep someones head down like in reality. But maybe if his sway was a bit less controllable and his vision was slightly distorted he would decide to duck rather than engage so precisely, just like in reality. The means may be gamey and unrealistic, but the results are realistic.

[batto 17]

When I first installed ArmA 3 I would apply suppression to distant AI and they would almost instantly target and hit me. Very annoying as the suppression tactic, which is real, did not work. I wasn't expecting to kill every one of them, just make them ineffective for as long as it took my subordinates to use more effective fire. This is the sort of situation I'm thinking about.

AI is something different. Its life start and ends with mission. Of course you should be able to scare AI by landing bullets near. But you could also scare AI by killing all its mates. Then there could be different personalities that will react to it differently.

This is still not argument for compensating suckiness of milsimers in charge of MG against human players.

---------- Post added at 05:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 AM ----------

Actually "I jumped out of cover and shot MG in face" thing is a quickscoping, game debalancing "feature", and exact reason Dice introduced supression in BF3.

In ArmA2 if Aiming Deadzone was set anywhere above 0, using scoped weapon forced player to properly aquire target, before he could shot it. Interesting, despite it was very realistic feature, many (judging from youtube videos like 90%) players disable it completely, because... it's a hassle to look for target. It's better to point, RMB, hit.

In ArmA3 scope follows crosshair perfectly even with Deadzone on, scoping in puts you almost exactly where crosshair was.

Wrong. Deadzone is completely unrealistic. Somehow milsimers think that making controls harder makes your game more realistic.

[kireta21 13]

Wrong. Deadzone is completely unrealistic. Somehow milsimers think that making controls harder makes your game more realistic.

Depends which part of it you understand as unrealistic. If you mean removing point we are looking at from middle of screen then yes, you might be right. But if by "unrealistic" you mean weapon not aiming exactly where we were looking momnet we look through sight, then no.

[zooloo75 833]

I've made a suppression system for PvP. You can experience it in my hostage rescue mission http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149766-Hostage-Rescue-Extreme-Edition

Bullets that land near you blur your screen and mute your sound temporarily. I've noticed a difference in how people react compared to no suppression. They tend to take cover more and lay down suppression to allow their teammates to move up.

[white 1]

supression works as is if you dont have third view.

stick your neck out to try to find your target and risk you life.

[seamusgod 1]

you're not really risking your life, you're just risking the game session ending earlier and going to spectator or respawning. suppression isn't meant to stop you from doing something stupid, it's meant to penalize you for it if you choose to do it anyway. same as lowering your stamina when you sprint for too long.

it also doubles as a means to modify behavior so people learn not to rambo, and play it smart and slow down. it worked so well in this regard in aa3. combined with the snap of bullets flying by, it made the battlefield come alive, which is the end goal of of any combat simulation.

[ak1287 1]

Depends which part of it you understand as unrealistic. If you mean removing point we are looking at from middle of screen then yes, you might be right. But if by "unrealistic" you mean weapon not aiming exactly where we were looking momnet we look through sight, then no.

Explain this.

[batto 17]

But if by "unrealistic" you mean weapon not aiming exactly where we were looking momnet we look through sight, then no.

You don't aim where you don't look. That's nonsense. When you aim at something it implies you look at it (eg. it's in center of your view). That's why deadzone is unrealistic.

If you mean that cross hair shouldn't still be in center of your screen when you move I agree. I think when you don't have gun ready while performing quick turn there shouldn't be any cross hair at all. There's new cross hair in ArmA3 for that.

Edited April 6, 2013 by batto

[dmarkwick 261]

My well hidden point earlier was that once the initial shock is over, and the situation develops, you adjust and adapt, and a pc game cannot determine who in reality would actually be suppressed. Unless they apply some kind of legendary simulation, it'll pretty much boil down to 'a bullet landed/passed close to you, so you're suppressed'. In reality thats not the case.

It doesn't need to be legendary simulation, in fact the groundwork is already laid out with work like TPCW etc. Im my mind I would imagine it like this:

suppression doesn't happen from weapons fired closely to your position, for two reasons, you're already in a desperate situation, and you don't wish to be unintentionally suppressed by team-mates firing past or over you.

Suppression happens if a round passes or lands very close to you. Like maybe 3 or 4 meters or something, whatever seems to work to get the result. This means people not very far away from that suppressed area still have the possibility to act on your behalf, I'm not suggestng suppression is a magic render-all-enemy-useless measure.

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

It sounds like you found yourself in a scary situation. But, no-ones saying you can't look around and take in the situation, I'm not suggesting that suppression effects renders you totally incapacitated. Also, I'm not suggesting that suppression is a wide area effect, although the situation you found yourself in was scary, it doesn't sound to me like bullets were landing around you. I might expect a slightly different reaction if you believed you were being seriously targeted.

To sum up: I don't believe a blanket 'you're suppressed' effect is the answer here because in reality 'suppressive fire' doesn't always suppress as perfectly as many here would think. It's only when you actually think there's a very real chance you will be directly shot at (ie the MG/squad is shooting at YOU, and not just 'your area'), or bullets are coming VERY close to you consistently that you would really want to crawl underground. Otherwise, I believe you will stick your head out, and may well be able to squeeze off a couple of well aimed shots. I could support some kind of twitch if rounds impacted within 30cm or so (because you will flinch if debris actually hits you), but otherwise it's artificial. So what if it's a game - are we going to be able to 'force' everything to be more 'real'? ie a poorly trained fighter's weapon sway will be forced to be bad? They'll throw grenades badly? No, I think how one reacts should be left to the player. Anyway, my 2c. Enough from me.

Yes it is just a game, but if that were the main argument we would play just any game, but we don't, we play ArmA because it allows for all kinds of gameplay. But your point about being targeted is recieved, and I agree with it. Suppression should really be localised to a few meters around the area of interest.

---------- Post added at 10:56 ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 ----------

AI is something different. Its life start and ends with mission. Of course you should be able to scare AI by landing bullets near. But you could also scare AI by killing all its mates. Then there could be different personalities that will react to it differently.

This is still not argument for compensating suckiness of milsimers in charge of MG against human players.

---------- Post added at 05:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 AM ----------

Wrong. Deadzone is completely unrealistic. Somehow milsimers think that making controls harder makes your game more realistic.

It's nice that you've decided to reduce the conversation to milsimmers vs everyone else. I don't count myself as a "milsimmer" (whatever you've decided that is) I just like emergent gameplay. Your comment that inaccurate fire from machineguns = suckiness of (milsimmer) player reveals you're still clinging to your miscomprehensions :)

Edited April 6, 2013 by DMarkwick

[-Coulum- 35]

you're not really risking your life, you're just risking the game session ending earlier and going to spectator or respawning. suppression isn't meant to stop you from doing something stupid, it's meant to penalize you for it if you choose to do it anyway. same as lowering your stamina when you sprint for too long.

it also doubles as a means to modify behavior so people learn not to rambo, and play it smart and slow down. it worked so well in this regard in aa3. combined with the snap of bullets flying by, it made the battlefield come alive, which is the end goal of of any combat simulation.

Yes exactly.

This is still not argument for compensating suckiness of milsimers in charge of MG against human players.

You don't seem to understand. In reality MGs can win a firefight - even without getting hits. You seem to think that only players that score hits contribute to a firefights success. This is simply not true. The milsimers you refer to, use their weapons like someone in reality is supposed to. Yet the results are not the same as in reality. Suppression system would make these results closer to that of reality. How can you possibly argue that they make the game less realistic?

It seems to me that a suppression system would make the gameplay different from what you'd like thus you don't want to have them. This is fine. Different people like different gameplay. But if that is the case don't argue that it takes away from the realism of a firefight.

Wrong. Deadzone is completely unrealistic. Somehow milsimers think that making controls harder makes your game more realistic.

correct it isn't that realistic. But when scoping in, having the scope already pointing at the middle of the screen makes using optics much easier and quicker than in reality. Even with the artificial sway magnified weapons are very easy to lineup and handle in comparison to reality where a sudden movement could make you loose sight picture. But it think this is off topic...

Edited April 6, 2013 by -Coulum-

[batto 17]

You don't seem to understand. In reality MGs can win a firefight - even without getting hits. You seem to think that only players that score hits contribute to a firefights success. This is simply not true. The milsimers you refer to, use their weapons like someone in reality is supposed to. Yet the results are not the same as in reality. Suppression system would make these results closer to that of reality. How can you possibly argue that they make the game less realistic?

It makes it less simulation. In reality it can happen that enemy under suppression fire stands up and return fire. It can happen!

The fact is that none of you arguing for forced effect have ever been in such situation (fire range doesn't count, i'm talking about life-or-death situations) so you don't know how it feels. You THINK that under suppression fire everyone would be scared enough to stay in cover. But you only THINK. And it's based on your personality. You don't have any evidence that this is how people under suppression behave in past, behave in present and will behave in future. Those few videos from Afghanistan where marines use MG to successfully suppress someone (you don't actually see enemies, just mg) say nothing. It's like arguing that soldiers can't jump because you haven't seen it in any Afghanistan combat footage. I'm pretty sure that in history of firefights that hasn't been recorded there were many instances of people returning fire under suppression fire and maybe with success. You can't base your argument on how you think you would behave under suppression fire as all of you in favor of this change do. Find me some military manual that says "now enemy is suppressed and you can chill because no one will return fire under suppression fire".

If you fail to take down enemy under suppression fire who tried to return fire in game, it's your fault as MG gunner. Such thing can happen in real life too. That's why manuals describe things like:

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.

By the way, are we talking about PvP missions with respawns?

Edited April 6, 2013 by batto

[dmarkwick 261]

It makes it less simulation. In reality it can happen that enemy under suppression fire stands up and return fire. It can happen!

Of course it can happen. We're not saying you cannot do that if you wish to. We're not saying you will be totally incapacitated.

The fact is that none of you arguing for forced effect have never been in such situation (fire range doesn't count, i'm talking about life-or-death situations) so you don't know how it feels. You THINK that under suppression fire everyone would be scared enough to stay in cover. But you only THINK. And it's based on your personality. You don't have any evidence that this is how people under suppression behave in past, behave in present and will behave in future. Those few videos from Afghanistan where marines use MG to successfully suppress someone (you don't actually see enemies, just mg) say nothing. It's like arguing that soldiers can't jump because you haven't seen it in any Afghanistan combat footage. I'm pretty sure that in history of firefights that hasn't been recorded there were many instances of people returning fire under suppression fire and maybe with success. You can't base your argument on how you think you would behave under suppression fire as all of you in favor of this change do. Find me some military manual that says "now enemy is suppressed and you can chill because no one will return fire under suppression fire".

"no one will return fire under suppression fire" is not what we're after either. Return fire from a suppressed position is a tactic.

If you fail to take down enemy under suppression fire who tried to return fire in game, it's your fault as MG gunner. Such thing can happen in real life too. That's why manuals describe things like:

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 quote you've brought in suggests that machinegun fire is used to generally harass and inconvenience. And it also suggests it reduces the effectiveness of opposition trying to return fire. Amazing! :)

By the way, are we talking about PvP missions with respawns?

It doesn't matter. Only thing that matters is if you wish to play with real tactics or with lowered tactics & thus a different gameplay.

[kireta21 13]

Explain this.

You don't aim where you don't look. That's nonsense. When you aim at something it implies you look at it (eg. it's in center of your view). That's why deadzone is unrealistic.

Sorry guys, I was half-asleep and made is sound weird.

My point is, unless you're actually aiming, your rifle is not perfectly pointing where you look. While using body memory to aim is realistic, it don't allow you to provide accurate fire and is used mostly for quick supression - force them back into cover before they aim.

IRL you don't move entire body just to move your aim a bit lef/right.

Even if you have weapon ready to fire, when you look trough scope your aim will be off, and need to be readjusted. With Deadzone off scope will always be aimed at same position as crosshair - in the middle of screen, so even without crosshair on, we can tell exactly where weapon is currently aimed. There's no need to actually aquire target. It's in the middle already, or very little off. With deadzone on it's the same because weapon will scope-in in the middle of the crosshair, even if crosshair is moving all over the screen.

Deadzone on and crosshair off would fix it, except, well, Deadzone seem to be not working too well atm. Not sure, bug or design, but when you reach border of freeaim zone, player's view don't seem to follow aim as it should.

Not saying in ArmA2 it was perfect (though deadzone itself worked much better), since it was forcing scope in perfect front of you, ignoring where you've been aiming.

Randomizing scope pisition basing on position of crosshair maybe? That would force you to properly lead scope on target, but aiming point would be still in general direction you have your crosshair pointed (or middle of screen with deadzone off). It would also make secondary sight much more usefull, holo to lead on target, scope to aim.

Edited April 6, 2013 by boota

[LJF 0]

Fear can be induced in a game, see Amnesia TDD. It isn't logical because it's not real, but we're not robots; we get immersed in a game and feel fear. Some people don't but that isn't the point.

That said I'm all for more authentic gameplay so bring on the suppression effects; the recoil increase over the pew pew laser rifles of Arrowhead and even OFP is a huge plus to that already and has led to far more realistic firefights.

Edited April 6, 2013 by LJF

[Reuben5150 2]

The reason I stopped playing BF3 is suppression bullshit effect,).

Had some pretty big discussions on the old EAUK forum about this and yes the implementation was game breaking really, a stupid points generating mechanism would be the best description, but it could have been so different.

The random bullet deviation was the biggest issue and I was quite happy with every other aspect of suppression, I hope the arma version is not so overbearing as to put one in an impossible situation as the bf3 version did.

[Smurf 12]

You can compare BF3's supression effect with the flashlight and laser blinding thing, totally overdone.