Suppression Effect missing in ARMA3

[froggyluv 2136]

The random bullet deviation was the biggest issue .

This would be a deal breaker for me -anything that intentionally makes me unable to control my bullet is a big n0-n0. Haze/blink/insertfunkyeffecthere -I can play thru, random dispersion is a killer.

[Reuben5150 2]

Fear can

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.

Recoil increase is almost on par with random deviation, what on earth makes you think that is a good idea ?

[-Coulum- 35]

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.

Yes it can but not to the degree required to get people to act like in reality. Glad to hear your open to the idea though, I agree the recoil (and weapon sway) have made the game many times better.

[Reuben5150 2]

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

I actually thought the laser blinding effect was pretty cool and it didn't cause random deviation but the laser allows shooting from the hip with total accuracy, stupid. the tac- light yes, totally OTT and it caused weapon inaccuracy on anyone you pointed it at.

The suppression effect should be much more subtle than dices version, as mentioned its main purpose there was generating points, the greater the effect, the more points.

Dice showed us how not to do it although some aspects were pretty good, ie the sound effects and screen blur, which btw would be much more preferable to arma 2's flashing gray / color on off affair .

[katipo66 94]

Yes it can but not to the degree required to get people to act like in reality.

The whole reality thing in certain areas like this gets sickening after a while, if people want to play uber realism that's great, even I attempt it from time to time, but what's the need to force it on everyone. People aren't playing vbs2 here, it's Arma 3 with hopefully a whole range off playing modes to cater for a whole range of playing styles... I guess some just have a hard time accepting that Respawn is a reality :)

Edited April 7, 2013 by Katipo66

[-Coulum- 35]

The whole reality thing in certain areas like this gets sickening after a while, if people want to play uber realism that's great, even I attempt it from time to time, but what's the need to force it on everyone. People aren't playing vbs2 here, it's Arma 3 with hopefully a whole range off playing modes to cater for a whole range of playing styles... I guess some just have a hard time accepting that Respawn is a reality

Oh yeah I totally agree. Thats why having it as an option would be a requirement. (Although keep in mind though that many games though do have suppression effects and people don't get that sick of it (RO2, PR)).

The whole debate isn't whether a suppression system should be forced on everyone, but rather whether it adds or detracts from realism.

[max power 21]

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.

Right. What it says is that the primary use of a machinegun is to establish a beaten zone to kill targets in enfilade or to suppress them, not to bring to bear 100% effective fire on point targets. Machineguns are used against area targets and for area denial, as well as against point targets. Suppression is an important part of what machineguns do.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Max Power

[katipo66 94]

Oh yeah I totally agree. Thats why having it as an option would be a requirement. (Although keep in mind though that many games though do have suppression effects and people don't get that sick of it (RO2, PR)).

The whole debate isn't whether a suppression system should be forced on everyone, but rather whether it adds or detracts from realism.

Fair enough.. although im not sure if it was added whether they would make it optional? to be honest i didnt mind TPW's take on it but i hate arma 2's weapon sway, it just felt totally fake.

[Levinin 1]

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 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?

I can't agree with your scenario at all. The soldiers would all go to ground or to nearest cover if close enough and return fire from there. They won't take the time to return even semi-accurate fire through sights before doing that. There is no way they can be quick enough to line up before enemies already on their flank and bringing weapons to bear open fire with effect. Get down, get in cover, or die.

See

kind of footage, as soon as shots are heard everyone is down and behind the tiny bit of cover there is. The guys here are then looking out trying to find who to shoot back at and are perfectly capable of doing that accurately. In fact

might be a better example. The marines are kept down for a bit but they are definitely able to return accurate fire and get themselves and the new crew out.

The reason they go to ground is that if they stay standing they are pretty certain to be shot.

The only effective suppression effect needed is being killed if you don't get down or in cover and don't manage to return accurate fire yourself.

[batto 17]

Right. What it says is that the primary use of a machinegun is to establish a beaten zone to kill targets in enfilade or to suppress them, not to bring to bear 100% effective fire on point targets. Machineguns are used against area targets and for area denial, as well as against point targets. Suppression is an important part of what machineguns do.

I fully agree. But the desired effect of suppression is caused by human fear of death from many bullets landing nearby. Death in ArmA PvP missions without respawns is "game over".

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.

Use of real world military tactics and expecting real world results in missions with respawns is highly questionable.

[max power 21]

Use of real world military tactics and expecting real world results in missions with respawns is highly questionable.

Or without respawns.

[-Coulum- 35]

to be honest i didnt mind TPW's take on it but i hate arma 2's weapon sway, it just felt totally fake.

Yeah I think one of the things making people hate the idea of a suppression system is simply bad experiences with BF3 or arma 2. I agree that arma 2's shake was pretty horrible and lasted far to long. I am in the process of trying to make a suppression script for the player that adds a bit of weaponsway, some tunnel vision and a quick jolt when a bullet snaps by. The effect doesn't last longe than 5 seconds. When its ready I'll post it and see what you guys think.

I can't agree with your scenario at all.

I must be communicating poorly. Because your vids basically show what I am talking about. The soldiers fire quickly and semi rapidly at the enemy to throw them off long enough to maneuvre to a better position. Although we can't know for sure, the speed of their shots indicates that they are not taking the time to line up kill shots. They are sacrificing accuracy in favor of volume in hopes of intimidating the enemy into cover. Yet even despite being misses, I assume their shots are still effective, because they are suppressing the enemy (though from videos we can't know for sure - but really do you think the soldiers would be firing in such a manner if their shots were ineffective/just a waste of ammo?).

Here is a very well written response I received from another forum member via PM that hopefully better describes what I am trying to convey, if you are interested.

That's a good question, and i can see where the confusion is. It would seem that the amount of accurate fire necessary to accomplish what we call "suppression" would just kill the individual anyway, but in practice, that's rarely the case. You have to remember, that once you've fired your first few rounds, if you didn't manage to hit the guy, he's now going to be hidden behind cover meaning you can't shoot him anymore. You can only shoot near him to keep his head down. People aren't going to lay there and be shot. They're going to do whatever they can to get out of the way of your bullets.

You have to consider that in the real world, hit probabilities in the opening volleys of exchanges are very low. Especially for the side that's firing reactively (i.e. the other guy shoots first).

Basically, if you're advancing along and come under contact, your first shots aren't going to be carefully aimed. They're going to be fired quickly and in rapid succession in the enemy's general direction in the hopes of just throwing off his shot long enough to get yourself behind cover. Then you're probably going to be hiding behind that cover as he continues to shoot at you.

A person's "suppression bubble" (that being the space within which a round must pass in order to have a suppressive effect) is about 1 metre radius around their head (it's centered around the head because that's where the stimuli is perceived from - eyes and ears).

So think of the size/shape of a person, then think of the size/shape of this 1m radius suppression bubble superimposed over it, and you can see that the suppression bubble is a much bigger target than the person himself, and that translates into a much higher hit probability against the suppression bubble than against the person inside it. When you think if it in those terms, considering that hit-probabilities against the person is low, it shows that the chances of him getting suppressed is much higher because that's where missed rounds will often pass through. That's why without accurate, first round hit capable weapons, firefights often quickly turn into two sides fighting each other from behind cover, and this is where constant, suppressive fire comes into play. Because in order to move out of that stalemate, someone's gotta get up and advance on the other side, and that requires that the other side be sufficiently suppressed to the point where they cant shoot at the guy advancing.

Now there are scenarios where one side just gets cut down by accurate fire quickly and it's over almost as soon as it started. A well laid out defensive position (that being you've dug a line of trenches, set out wire obstacles etc) will be centred around a kill zone that offers little or no cover to the enemy. In situation s like this, the guys in the trenches have the initiative because they have cover, they're not moving, they can rest their weapons for accuracy, and they cna take more well aimed shots than the attacker who waonders into the kill zone. In this case, the defenders in their trenches wouldn't be looking at using suppressive fire. They're not trying to maneuver, and indeed they want the enemy to show themselves, so "suppressive fire" isn't used. It's all aimed fire. In that scenariop, t's the attacker who would want to try to use suppressive fire, so that they can get up and move.

And here is another writeup by another veteran on the subject, basically outlining the same thing. And here is a manual detailing common infantry drills - see pg.33, react to contact, direct fire (dismounted).

The reason they go to ground is that if they stay standing they are pretty certain to be shot.

I disagree. Their chances of getting shot would definitely go up if they were standing but even then it wouldn't be a certainty. This is the problem in arma. Unless incoming fire is certain to hit, people rarely hide. In reality I doubt many soldiers wish to be exposed very long if they know a weapon is aimed at their general direction. Not many want to test whether a bullet is certain to hit. The reason for these differences between arma and reality is, respawn or no, death in arma doesn't = death in reality. There is a lot more at stake in reality.

I fully agree. But the desired effect of suppression is caused by human fear of death from many bullets landing nearby. Death in ArmA PvP missions without respawns is "game over".

Use of real world military tactics and expecting real world results in missions with respawns is highly questionable.

Yes, effects of suppression are caused be the fear of being killed by incoming bullets. problem is, in reality this fear is MUCH higher than in game, respawn

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".

This is quite fair. you are right, I have never been shot at (though have been in a life death situation) so I don't know exactly what reality would look like. But through reading and watching I do think I have been able to get a feel for what it might be like. If/when you get time read the stuff I posted in response to Levinin above (its actually quite interesting). Contrast it to what you see in war vids such as

. watch or read about battles and

just to advance small distance. Read field manuals like this (seriously just search how many time suppress is mentioned in this document - 118 times). Then compare the action you see/read about with what you get in arma. To me Arma is definitely missing something. The firefights do not play out like described or shown in these resources. And I think one of those missing components is definitely realistic reactions to incoming fire (although that is not the only things ie. lack of camo at distance, lack of detailed terrain etc.) The point of a suppression system as suggested would be hopefully to try and fix this a bit.

Do you disagree that arma firfights lack some realism/ are missing something. Or do you simply disagree that reaction to incoming fire is simply not that missing piece. Do you have a bit of a better understanding of where my reasoning comes from after reading, seeing the stuff I posted?

Edited April 8, 2013 by -Coulum-

[dmarkwick 261]

Use of real world military tactics and expecting real world results in missions with respawns is highly questionable.

Hence the need for gameplay devices like suppression effects? But, you're right in that gameplay battles in ArmA are not going to be as per reality, because of the different contexts. ArmA needs to have generally faster and more compressed action than reality, but at the same time it needs to be able to reward correct tactics.

[seamusgod 1]

The whole reality thing in certain areas like this gets sickening after a while, if people want to play uber realism that's great, even I attempt it from time to time, but what's the need to force it on everyone. People aren't playing vbs2 here, it's Arma 3 with hopefully a whole range off playing modes to cater for a whole range of playing styles... I guess some just have a hard time accepting that Respawn is a reality :)

because suppression has nothing to do with "uber realism", the only reason people think it's odd or difficult is because it was never in ofp or arma. now if they never had bleeding in the game, and people suggest they model bleeding or wounding, people like you will be crying about how it's too "uber realistic"

arma is and will always be a realism game, and you have to face the fact that most people want more realism, not less, as technology advances.

[liquidpinky 11]

Hence the need for gameplay devices like suppression effects? But, you're right in that gameplay battles in ArmA are not going to be as per reality, because of the different contexts. ArmA needs to have generally faster and more compressed action than reality, but at the same time it needs to be able to reward correct tactics.

Skill needs rewarded too.

Putting someone in a position of being unable to fight back leaves me with a feeling of a hollow victory if I succeed in killing them, especially after removing their abilty to fight back solely by missing them in the first place.

[max power 21]

Skill needs rewarded too.

Putting someone in a position of being unable to fight back leaves me with a feeling of a hollow victory if I succeed in killing them, especially after removing their abilty to fight back solely by missing them in the first place.

Well then if he didn't get into a position where he was suppressed behind cover in enfilade he would have all the reason to w00t with victory when he snipes you.

[liquidpinky 11]

Well then if he didn't get into a position where he was suppressed behind cover in enfilade he would have all the reason to w00t with victory when he snipes you.

Still wont remove that rotten hollow taste from my mouth though, like the one that junk in BF3 leaves you with.

[dmarkwick 261]

Skill needs rewarded too.

I'd rather skills be tactic-based than pixel-sniping based personally.

Putting someone in a position of being unable to fight back leaves me with a feeling of a hollow victory if I succeed in killing them, especially after removing their abilty to fight back solely by missing them in the first place.

Well I think you're overstating the suppression as proposed slightly - we don't say your abilities are totally removed, or penalized for a long time, we don't say you cannot return fire. You just need to employ RL tactics to get yourself out of a situation you're being deliberately put in by someone else. We don't say for example that suppression is a wide-area effect, only specific to the area being targeted i.e. within 2-3m of interest. It promotes teamplay for one thing.

But- the "hollow feeling" of killing someone due to employing suppression tactics is not one felt IRL ;) would you feel the same about bringing in artillery strikes? with proper teamwork, you might find that as a suppressing unit you will be targeted yourself by others. I think it all adds up to emergent gameplay.

Edited April 8, 2013 by DMarkwick

[LJF 0]

Recoil increase is almost on par with random deviation, what on earth makes you think that is a good idea ?

It has nothing to do with random deviation at all. Recoil increase (regardless of how realistic it is) makes combat last longer and gives you the ability to take cover. If you have no recoil combat boils down to your reflexes and skill with a mouse rather than tactics or positioning.

Yes it can but not to the degree required to get people to act like in reality. Glad to hear your open to the idea though, I agree the recoil (and weapon sway) have made the game many times better.

Well not exactly the same, but I think you could get people to react in a similar way to real life using a combination of fear of death (using immersion), penalties of that death (respawn time or being out for the rest of the mission) and suppression effects.

The whole reality thing in certain areas like this gets sickening after a while, if people want to play uber realism that's great ...

It's not uber realism, it's tactical combat. It makes combat more than just who can aim the fastest and get the most uber headshots.

Skill needs rewarded too.

Putting someone in a position of being unable to fight back leaves me with a feeling of a hollow victory if I succeed in killing them, especially after removing their abilty to fight back solely by missing them in the first place.

They can fight back more easily if suppressed than if you shoot them from 500m away without them even knowing you are there, or if you dropped artillery on them while they were taking cover, or if they walked over a mine. It's the same thing. Isn't that what war is all about? Engineering an unfair advantage over your enemy? I can't think of many situations in ArmA where the fight is fair, and even if it was it would just be a boring competition of reflexes.

Edited April 8, 2013 by LJF

[mr_centipede 31]

The AI Suppression ticket seems to be on review... Hope something good comes out of it..

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=5496

[Reuben5150 2]

I can't give any great examples of how suppression should be done, but i can show you how to destroy a once great game franchise.

Hold onto your hats and ready the sick bags for Dice's masterpiece in all its glory-

and

Gustav Halling is a genius.

[bigpickle 0]

I would like to see suppression audio only, as that's what effects people the most.

[Variable 322]

All infantry tactics are based on suppression to some extent. Notably one element suppresses enemy, pins it down while another element flanks and goes for the kill.

Without suppression you can't use infantry tactics. It's as simple as that.

A game that wants to be an infantry simulator CANNOT be left without suppression. Both for AI and player.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I would like to see suppression audio only, as that's what effects people the most.

Yep. ACE2 SM supersonic bullet cracks instill more fear in the target, than any subjective schizo-blur screen effect could.

Re: thread,

http://ttp2.dslyecxi.com/basic_rifleman.html

Suppressive Fire

This is the act of putting a high volume of fire on an enemy position to prevent them from being able to return effective fire.

Note that suppression is only effective if you can make the enemy believe that popping up to return fire is going to result in them being hit or killed.

You don't have to actually hit them, but you must make them think that you can and might if they don't take cover. Suppression can be used to "fix" an enemy force while another element moves around to their flank to catch them in their unprotected or otherwise vulnerable side.

Suppressive fire is typically done at a very rapid rate to begin with, which achieves fire superiority. Once fire superiority has been achieved, the suppressing element can slow the pace of their fire to facilitate ammo management, provided that they aim and pace their shots in a fashion that maintains effective suppression of the enemy.

http://ttp2.dslyecxi.com/tactics.html

Tactical Definitions

The following definitions cover some of the more significant aspects of the employment of team-level tactics. These are important to understand for the purposes of the remainder of this page's content.

Suppression

Suppression is the act of using fire and the threat of fire to deter enemy fire or action, as well as 'fix' the enemy in one place. As noted elsewhere, suppression is only effective if the enemy truly believes that they will be shot or killed if they don't take cover from the incoming enemy fire.

Thread won't die?

I guess, this is not the definition that the bot-commanders want to see, since, apparently, bots don't provide enough of a challenge to them, hence the cries for some forced "effect" that would provide EPIC, REALISTIX, GAEMPLAY.

Oh, well.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Iroquois Pliskin

[twisted 128]

All infantry tactics are based on suppression to some extent. Notably one element suppresses enemy, pins it down while another element flanks and goes for the kill.

Without suppression you can't use infantry tactics. It's as simple as that.

A game that wants to be an infantry simulator CANNOT be left without suppression. Both for AI and player.

nicely and simply said.

important thing is that if BIS includes it the playing field is then level for all players.

Edited April 8, 2013 by twisted