Suppression Effect missing in ARMA3

[batto 17]

Or without respawns.

In missions without respawns you usually put more care to protect your life in game and therefore suppression "just works".

Hence the need for gameplay devices like suppression effects?

There are no respawns in real world. If we're talking about team deathmatch for example, from the score point-of-view, it might be good tactic to sneak into enemy spawn and spawn-kill players until more of them spawn at the same time and someone finally kills you. It's very unrealistic and it's certainly not real world tactics but it can win the game. Suppression effect will have little significance and team that tries to employ real world tactics may very well fail because TDM has different rules from real world. Same goes for other PvP modes with longer respawns/ranges where death while completing objective is feasible.

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.

This shouldn't be your problem. You are free to play safely. Let other people risk their game lives. That's why it's called simulator.

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.

Again, suppression effect will have little effect in simulating life or death situations in sandbox simulator where you can do a lot more other foolish things that'll result in your death without any warning (and possibility to implement such warning). See my previous post for some examples.

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.

I disagree that suppression effect will make them more realistic. It'll make the game less simulation. In PvP with respawns it'll have little effect on game outcome or firefights.

Do you have a bit of a better understanding of where my reasoning comes from after reading, seeing the stuff I posted?

I think your reasoning is flawed and I'm trying to explain it in whole thread but it seems we can't synchronize.

Frankly, I think there must be something wrong with your aim. I've no problem taking out even moving targets with MG. The moment when someone sneaks from the cover there's already accurate stream of bullets flying into him. There is no need to give me another advantage.

[dmarkwick 261]

There are no respawns in real world. If we're talking about team deathmatch for example, from the score point-of-view, it might be good tactic to sneak into enemy spawn and spawn-kill players until more of them spawn at the same time and someone finally kills you. It's very unrealistic and it's certainly not real world tactics but it can win the game. Suppression effect will have little significance and team that tries to employ real world tactics may very well fail because TDM has different rules from real world. Same goes for other PvP modes with longer respawns/ranges where death while completing objective is feasible.

I don't understand - Suppression is an invalid tactic because a gamemode exists that is unrealistic?

I disagree that suppression effect will make them more realistic. It'll make the game less simulation. In PvP with respawns it'll have little effect on game outcome or firefights.

Well I disagree, I believe it will make the game more a simulation :) whether or not it has an outcome on game outcomes or not - can't say, but will it have an effect on use of tactics? I would say so. For me the game isn't about the winning, it's about the situation. How I lose is as entertaining as how I win :)

Frankly, I think there must be something wrong with your aim. I've no problem taking out even moving targets with MG. The moment when someone sneaks from the cover there's already accurate stream of bullets flying into him. There is no need to give me another advantage.

You keep reducing the context to how well or bad someone's aim is. Machinegunners have wider dispersion, that's simply a fact. And as a machinegunner you might be tasked with suppressing an area while others move into position, also a fact. While you might hope to get a kill in this situation, your task is to keep those opponents' heads down. It's not always about getting the kill or how awesome a shot you are. Of course, if it IS about how awesome a shot you are, of course you will not wish for suppression to happen to you.. :)

Edited April 8, 2013 by DMarkwick

[batto 17]

I don't understand - Suppression is an invalid tactic because a gamemode exists that is unrealistic?

Exactly. It simply doesn't have to work in unrealistic gamemodes.

EDIT: Ah, well, I see you're changing context again. I don't need to answer that.

You keep reducing the context to how well or bad someone's aim is. Machinegunners have wider dispersion, that's simply a fact. And as a machinegunner you might be tasked with suppressing an area while others move into position, also a fact. While you might hope to get a kill in this situation, your task is to keep those opponents' heads down. It's not always about getting the kill or how awesome a shot you are. Of course, if it IS about how awesome a shot you are, of course you will not wish for suppression to happen to you.. :)

Machine-gunner may be KIA by an enemy returning accurate fire under inaccurate suppression fire. Also a fact.

Edited April 8, 2013 by batto

[Wolfstriked 11]

Even if no negative suppression effects get implemented I would love to see a slight blurring just because it looks way better when under fire.

[kernriver 4]

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.

Yes. You don't just run around like crazy without some form of suppression, be it tanks, artillery, MGs, anything. You stay put and keep your head down untill you're told otherwise. You're not alone on the battlefield...

In real life rounds don't have to impact near you to suppress you. It's enough to fly past you. If they are close enough, you will be pinned down.

Natural hehehehehe, yeah...

Clearly you and your friend here have no idea what it's like to be fired at.

Mate, they don't understand. ;)

I am all for some visual effects, but they have to be very subtle, an abstraction of fear you feel when being shot at. (I don't know how it should be done). Sonic cracks have to be really loud. And there has to be some slight disadvantage on the one that's being suppressed/shot at, otherwise what's the point? But I think the effect should only be temporary, like 1-2 seconds, because on the battlefield you're not alone, you have your squadmates to help you.

[valnwt 11]

...Sonic cracks have to be really loud...

This I think, even the vanilla cracks in Arma 2 made me jump a little when rounds flew by.

Visuals would be good for showing that you're in danger but sound makes one truly scared.

[katipo66 94]

If they want to focus on realism then realistic infantry movement on distance and speed should be added along with suppression, so you cannot suppress someone and sprint 100 metres in 5 seconds to flank suppressed player.. Because that would be a tactic in a not so "uber realistic" scenario, that will never happen :)

Edited April 8, 2013 by Katipo66

[kernriver 4]

This I think, even the vanilla cracks in Arma 2 made me jump a little when rounds flew by.

Visuals would be good for showing that you're in danger but sound makes one truly scared.

Yeah, I think vanilla cracks in Arma 2 were pretty good.

If they want to focus on realism then realistic infantry movement on distance and speed should be added along with suppression, so you cannot suppress someone and sprint 100 metres in 5 seconds to flank suppressed player.. Because that would be a tactic in a not so "uber realistic" scenario, that will never happen :)

Agreed.

But that shouldn't happen anyway because Arma is oh so realistic. ;) :rolleyes:

That's why I said you're never alone on the battlefield, and I can't emphasize that enough. IMHO, penalties for stupid behavior in this game should be much much harsher.

Let's face it once and for all, Arma is a game. It can not possibly simulate realism. Well it can to some extent, but there are things you simply can't copy from real life. Therefor we need some abstractions to give us an illusion of reality, or rather illusion of realistic outcome of our reactions in the game.

If it was up to me, which is not, Arma would be a very painful game ;). First I would make medic simulation so harsh that it would discourage any stupid or "gamey" behaviour.

Then I would make wounding system such that you can't even carry your rifle if you were hit in the arm, let alone fire it.

Fatigue system? I would make it much harsher. Soldiers don't run/sprint to the combat zone, they walk. Or they use trucks. Don't get me started. :p

So there's my little rant, sorry, but I'm sick and tired of this useless thread that resolves nothing, but just hangs here for people to rant in. :lookaround:

[Brain 12]

That's why I said you're never alone on the battlefield, and I can't emphasize that enough. IMHO, penalties for stupid behavior in this game should be much much harsher.

If it was up to me, which is not, Arma would be a very painful game ;). First I would make medic simulation so harsh that it would discourage any stupid or "gamey" behaviour.

Then I would make wounding system such that you can't even carry your rifle if you were hit in the arm, let alone fire it.

Fatigue system? I would make it much harsher.

+1. Can't wait for CSE or ACE3, let's see which is better/more complex.

For the suppression part: I've never been under fire, but obviously if it'd be like in-game, it can't be so bad (coming from a mil. family, I know it is!). So, why don't you just sit down and create some concepts instead of bashing each others. I think the guys who had been under fire, either if it's been in Kosovo, Jugoslavia, Afghanistan, Israel or what ever, know what it's like and could provide a detailed way of how to display it, as long as we can't have simulated feeling integrated into our brain from inside the game.

Natural hehehehehe, yeah...

Clearly you and your friend here have no idea what it's like to be fired at.

Keyboard-Warriors.

[Reuben5150 2]

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.

Of course it has, its the same thing- suppression having an effect on an enemy's weapon/bullet physics.

"makes combat last longer" ? really ? you assume too much- and gives you the ability to take cover ? no, it forces you.

Is it not clear by now that "player actions" within game should not be forced by crappy design mechanics and whether realistic or not it should be the players choice what action he/she takes under fire, take away my freedom of choice and you can stick it where bf3 went.

[Smurf 12]

So.... anyone plays anything besides Arma?

Or BF3?

[Brain 12]

Ain't nobody got time for that.

[froggyluv 2136]

So.... anyone plays anything besides Arma?

Or BF3?

Uninstalled BF3 a while ago but just reinstalled both RO2 and VBS2 - both of which have a visual suppression effect ;)

[Reuben5150 2]

So.... anyone plays anything besides Arma?

Or BF3?

There was another newish game with the suppression effect, maybe ghost recon or something i dont remember, the vid i saw showed a dude in 3d person suppressed behind cover.. not sure what that was.

[LJF 0]

Uninstalled BF3 a while ago but just reinstalled both RO2 and VBS2 - both of which have a visual suppression effect ;)

In Red Orchestra 2 the effect works incredibly well; it adds on to the fear of being shot and really makes you put your head down, but it never feels gamey.

[-Coulum- 35]

Yeah, no shit, but it's a game, SHOCKER.

?? Yeah that's what I've been saying. its a game, so in order to get reaslitic results in firefights we need abstractions such as... ah fuck it. If you haven't gotten it by now, after the last suppression thread, and this thread then you'll never get it.

I agree it is a tactic and agree that perhaps something is needed, I just am concerned about how it happens.

Thank you for at least conceding this. I agree that bluriness, or weapon sway isn't exactly a perfect way to go about it. But I really see no other option, unless of course you have an ideas. Take a try with the script I provide below. Maybe you'll find that the effects aren't that bad.

The problem there is that the discussion will concentrate on what exactly the soldier sees when under suppression, and not the gameplay mechanic of needing to give actual reasons to dissuade from poking your head out for an accurate snapshot in a game The separation between visual effect and gameplay mechanic is one of the major issues here.

Yes indeed. I think we would find ourselves pretty much in the same situation. Some arguing it helps the gameplay be more realistic, some arguing that it limits your options too much or doesn't accurately portray what you feel or see in battle.

Machine-gunner may be KIA by an enemy returning accurate fire under inaccurate suppression fire. Also a fact.

This is not impossible with suppression effects, just harder. Just because its possible in reality doesn't mean it should be easily done by everyone ingame with ease.

I disagree that suppression effect will make them more realistic.

I think your reasoning is flawed and I'm trying to explain it in whole thread but it seems we can't synchronize.

Frankly, I think there must be something wrong with your aim. I've no problem taking out even moving targets with MG.

Okay I think we'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't know if you read all the stuff I linked or quoted in my last response to you (starting to think not du to your MG comment) but nevertheless.

Would it be fair to end this by saying that a suppression system would lead to firefights with more realistic tactics and results, while no suppression system would lead to a more realistic range of options available to the combatant(player)?

Let's face it once and for all, Arma is a game. It can not possibly simulate realism. Well it can to some extent, but there are things you simply can't copy from real life. Therefor we need some abstractions to give us an illusion of reality, or rather illusion of realistic outcome of our reactions in the game.

Hey man stop copying and pasting my shit!:D I totally agree. I am glad to see that there are more people who acknowledge this. I would be interested in playing your version of arma, though I would have to have another easier game to take a break everyonce in a while.

_________________________________

Okay so in hopes of making this thread a bit more constructive, Ive made a suppression script that adds suppression effects to the player. It is only SP and pretty inefficient/inconsistent, but it does serve its job as an example of what a suppression system could look like in arma. If you have the time give it a shot and give feed back on what you like or don't like. Maybe we can formulate ideal effects so if BIS does ever decide to make an optional suppression system we already have a good idea of what it should look like.

Here it is

How to use it

Save a mission in the editor. Drop the "init.sqf" and "suppression.sqf" files within the Zip into the mission folder. You should now have suppression effects when you start up the mission.

What the effects are

When a bullet passes within a certain radius of the play (exact radius is unknown as explained below) several things will happen...

Screen edges will blur for 3 seconds - represents tunnel vission.

The camera will shake resulting in apparent weapons sway - really your point of aim doesn't change though it is disorienting. This lasts 3 seconds.

Your fatigue goes up creating more sway and lack of the ability to hold breath for 6 seconds. After which it returns to what it was prior to suppression.

Limitations of scripting/Why BIS needs to do this instead of a modder

The biggest problem is the overhead. Tracking every bullet from every unit is difficult/impossible to do efficiently via scripting (at least for my meager scripting skills)

Next is the unreliability of scripting. Riight now, many times per second the script tracks where the bullet is in relation to the player. Problem is, if a bullet whizzes by the player, one frame the bullet may be too far ahead of the player and then the next it is too far behind the player. Even though it whizzed near the player it is not picked up by the script. Basically the script can't catch everything. Thus it is impossible to say what the exact "trigger radius" is because if a bullet is close to the edges of this radius it is more likely it will pas through undetected. Right now My estimate is that the script [icatchesbullets within 2 metres or so of the player, though it would also depend on hw fast you are running the game.

I think however that you could make additions deep within the engine, this could be solved though, to make for consistent and performance friendly bullet catching.

The effects aren't ideal - For me to get extra sway I had to reduce the players fatigue. Obviously I want just sway without the lowered fatigue. Similarly instead of camera shake I would much rather the gun just twitch to another point once after a bullet passes by. Basically as a scripter you don't have as many options as to what exactly the effects are as BIS would.

I am interested to know what you guys dislike or like about the effects!

[Lucasmnunesk 2]

In Red Orchestra 2 the effect works incredibly well; it adds on to the fear of being shot and really makes you put your head down, but it never feels gamey.

In my opnion its quite contrary, RO2 supression system fits RO2 very well, but i wouldn't like that on arma, the main purpose that i don't like supression effects is that it would give you feedback that you're being shot, and sometimes people don't pay attention and don't see the shot coming and a visual representation of supression would advise them, as you used RO2 as an example, sometimes someone shot close to me but i wouldn't know if it wasn't the supression coming in.

[LJF 0]

In my opnion its quite contrary, RO2 supression system fits RO2 very well, but i wouldn't like that on arma, the main purpose that i don't like supression effects is that it would give you feedback that you're being shot, and sometimes people don't pay attention and don't see the shot coming and a visual representation of supression would advise them, as you used RO2 as an example, sometimes someone shot close to me but i wouldn't know if it wasn't the supression coming in.

That could be useful at certain times but nowhere near enough to warrant not having a suppression system just for the rare occasion where you are able to fire a second shot.

[kernriver 4]

The effect is more to dissuade gamey twitch sniping.

Exactly.

I agree it is a tactic and agree that perhaps something is needed, I just am concerned about how it happens.

This is my biggest concern also, how to do it. I have some ideas, I'll post them.

In my opnion its quite contrary, RO2 supression system fits RO2 very well, but i wouldn't like that on arma, the main purpose that i don't like supression effects is that it would give you feedback that you're being shot, and sometimes people don't pay attention and don't see the shot coming and a visual representation of supression would advise them, as you used RO2 as an example, sometimes someone shot close to me but i wouldn't know if it wasn't the supression coming in.

This would be a problem. How would the game know if you're being suppressed by the enemy, bullets may be coming from friendlies behind you.

Hey man stop copying and pasting my shit!:D I totally agree. I am glad to see that there are more people who acknowledge this. I would be interested in playing your version of arma, though I would have to have another easier game to take a break everyonce in a while.

Sorry. :o That goes to show you that two people on Arma forums can have the same opinion. :p

About my version of Arma, I was just daydreaming, BI would never do that as they are in great position right now, they would be foolish to lose 90% (my estimate) of customers. :) ACE3, here I come.

Now, after my rant post yesterday and a good night sleep, I want to make a constructive post.

Disclaimer: Coulum, I thought of this before reading your post on suppression script. ;)

When you're fired at/suppressed:

1. No blur on whole screen, that just doesn't happen.

2. if anything, you're more focused. So, slight, barely noticeable tunnel vision would be appropriate. Duration: no more than 3 seconds. If you find cover, it lasts shorter.

3. Adrenaline, heart pumping. Take it from fatigue system. Duration: 2-4 seconds, depending on if you found cover.

4. Impaired vision. Slight desaturation of colours. Duration: no more than 3 seconds.

When all this happens, you are in no way unable to shoot back, it's just a little harder, as it should be. Effects must be subtle.

[Lucasmnunesk 2]

That could be useful at certain times but nowhere near enough to warrant not having a suppression system just for the rare occasion where you are able to fire a second shot.

I understand why people want a suppression system, for me i can't imagine one that would please me, the arma 2 was enough, they should add it as a module so it is optional. But harder than make it optional is making it functional, it should be subtle, and non intrusive, but how would it work around it flaws? How would it detect you're in cover, how would it work? You guys should come up with these ideas, maybe you can find something that would please those that aren't liking the idea, and it could be optional in any mission, just adding a parameter to load or don't load the supression module.

[dmarkwick 261]

I understand why people want a suppression system, for me i can't imagine one that would please me, the arma 2 was enough, they should add it as a module so it is optional. But harder than make it optional is making it functional, it should be subtle, and non intrusive, but how would it work around it flaws? How would it detect you're in cover, how would it work? You guys should come up with these ideas, maybe you can find something that would please those that aren't liking the idea, and it could be optional in any mission, just adding a parameter to load or don't load the supression module.

It has to be somewhat intrusive to be effective.

As for how it would decide who is under suppression - I guess the simple approach is to not have suppression from rounds kick in until that round has gone a minimum distance. This will mean CQB will be suppression-free, but it also means that you won't get suppressed by your own team members firing near, around and over you. Unless you're far away from them, and then normal suppression will be natural in any case :) why are they shooting at you? :D

[Hartmann 10]

It has to be somewhat intrusive to be effective.

As for how it would decide who is under suppression - I guess the simple approach is to not have suppression from rounds kick in until that round has gone a minimum distance. This will mean CQB will be suppression-free, but it also means that you won't get suppressed by your own team members firing near, around and over you. Unless you're far away from them, and then normal suppression will be natural in any case :) why are they shooting at you? :D

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to be suppressed in CQC, or by your teammates for that matter. They're all still bullets, and I can't imagine it's comfortable to have rounds crack several centimeters over your head regardless of the direction they're coming from.

Don't overcomplicate it.

[batto 17]

This is not impossible with suppression effects, just harder. Just because its possible in reality doesn't mean it should be easily done by everyone ingame with ease.

Why are you so concerned about how other people play the game and why do you want to limit their freedom? There is still little chance that people sneaking from cover under MG fire will survive. Just lecture your mates about proper tactic and win the game.

---------- Post added at 08:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------

Would it be fair to end this by saying that a suppression system would lead to firefights with more realistic tactics and results, while no suppression system would lead to a more realistic range of options available to the combatant(player)?

I agree with second but disagree with first. I wonder how can you tell if firefight is realistic or not. Say that we're looking at video where marines takes out bunch of Taliban running on their MGs. Is it realistic or not?

[wormeaten 0]

Even I want to have proper suppression effect in ArmA since A1 days I just now notice this thread and discussion.

So in general we need suppression fire effect simply if this game want to be realistic should simulate effects of suppressing fire because it is one of the basic field strategy in real life any way so any ignoring of it is definitely step back in realism.

Should be present in game no matter you are playing COOP or PvP. Simply suppressing fire is basic of any teamwork and flanking manoeuvring in real life so those who are against it because of realism is wrong. Sometime in game you could reach more realism in general by implementing some unrealistic features but in conjunction with others features create more realistic feeling in general.

As someone who experienced what is suppressing fire is in real life I can tell you real effects. You are simply reacting on reflex only thing what soldier could train, not true trainings but true real combat experience only, is basically better perception are you in cover or not but everyone finding cover without exceptions. Sometime it is look like they don't take cover but it is just illusion they just know direction where from bullets come, or distance and they will stay in cover just how much is needed to stay aware of the situation.

Such feeling is not possible to simulate in game yet, At list there is no such advanced software or better say hardware who will be able to handle it.

In game people when they under fire not reacting same way as it is in real life simply fact that this is still the game and even if you die you will respawn or play another mission next day you want it or not 99% of players reacting in the way to start shooting back no matter on repercussions because it is game in the end no matter.

Check this real video and see what is real humans reaction when you are suppressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNamKwZxOaE

In this video you could exactly see what is happened when individuals overestimates his situation and possibilities. He was crying like pussycat in the end. Don't get me wrong I will to in his situation even more than he is but I will never put my self in this situation.

But what ever this video is exactly showing what suppression is and how human react on it.

If we want it to ArmA be millsim or just realistic FPS suppressing fire effect is must have only question is how to achieve it to be realistic.

When you're fired at/suppressed:

1. No blur on whole screen, that just doesn't happen.

2. if anything, you're more focused. So, slight, barely noticeable tunnel vision would be appropriate. Duration: no more than 3 seconds. If you find cover, it lasts shorter.

3. Adrenaline, heart pumping. Take it from fatigue system. Duration: 2-4 seconds, depending on if you found cover.

4. Impaired vision. Slight desaturation of colours. Duration: no more than 3 seconds.

When all this happens, you are in no way unable to shoot back, it's just a little harder, as it should be. Effects must be subtle.

Kernriver suggestion is going in good direction.

No matter how unrealistic this effect will look like if it force players to take cover under direct fire will be increasing realism in game.

So what we got right now implemented in game?

Any blurring effect based on PP is out of the question as long we are able to turn it on/off in settings.

So number 2 and 3 are already existing in game engine and it is close to real life reaction.

Bad aiming and tunnel vision is good reasons for someone to find cover to recover before get back in action.

Edited April 10, 2013 by wormeaten

[dnk 13]

Yes, I think "no more than 3-5 seconds" for the effect is reasonable.

Only mild visual effects.

Increased "heart rate/breathing" audio effect.

Mild increase in weapon sway.

Enough to make someone less accurate, so that sniper-aim is not possible, but no enough to make them overpowered by the mechanism or unable to score kills (just to make it harder to score them, and to make suppression worthwhile in PvP and as something to be avoided in PvAI).