Not liking the new Fatigue system - Jogging should not be penalised

[katipo66 94]

Yes i also agree with metalcraze on this one, I like where the fatigue system is (was?) heading, This will maybe make for some interesting gameplay, especially PVP where transport vehicles play a more important role, id prefer the forced walk, I'm imagining it would create more of a team work scenario where players might be more inclined to stick with a group than have the ability to sprint for the hills like I sometimes do :) - at least on them much frowned upon pub servers that Ive finally been enjoying.. Would be awesome if AI could be affected by it but from memory that's not an option, at least not in arma2

[chrisb 196]

There is a need for fatigue in the game. Its been modded a few times in the past, SLX, Ace etc, so I’m not really bothered if its down to that again, but should they put it in the game as standard, to the same effect as some of the mods mentioned, I wouldn’t moan, they were really well done..

Simple switch 'on/off' would be o.k. for those that do and don't..;)

[artemas 1]

The spectrum of speed and endurance under differing loads is far too narrow at the moment. While overloaded guys receive stamina effects easily enough, so too do unencumbered guys. There's not much of a difference. Furthermore, 10k ruck runs are a normal part of military training, so forcing the system to prevent doing that is fairly misguided. I am certainly not a fan of a 'force to walk' function either. You almost always have enough strength to push yourself into a run that little bit more. I think blur and shake would suffice to induce you to take it slow.

ps. Didn't ACE have you actually blackout if you ran out of stamina? Unless you're completely unclimatized in scorching hot conditions, i'm not interested.

[Inimical_rize 1]

I can run 2/3miles with 15-20kg at a 'shuffle' constantly, only after then will i 'tab and run 600-800mtrs and then walk for 200. the fatigue system is a little over done, my self i think this 'going for exact realism' is stupid, soon youll buy an arma game, play 5 minutes, get shot and die and the disk will melt in your drive to simulate cremation and wont be able to play the game again, simulating death. lets not go full realism, lets work on making the combat real, all that trivial nonsence can be modded at a longer later date.

[metalcraze 290]

Being able to run forever under full load is not a trivial nonsense.

my self i think this 'going for exact realism' is stupid

Why are you playing ArmA then?

[chortles 263]

I can run 2/3miles with 15-20kg at a 'shuffle' constantly, only after then will i 'tab and run 600-800mtrs and then walk for 200. the fatigue system is a little over done, my self i think this 'going for exact realism' is stupid, soon youll buy an arma game, play 5 minutes, get shot and die and the disk will melt in your drive to simulate cremation and wont be able to play the game again, simulating death. lets not go full realism, lets work on making the combat real, all that trivial nonsence can be modded at a longer later date.

Feels like the spergs are back... the same nonsense that is why I stay away from ACE, I'm glad that jogging isn't so penalized.

Truthbetold, I wouldn't have minded the fatigue system having already been implemented way back because, as I said at least twice on these forums, the promised fatigue system could have been used to gauge the movement speeds as part of tweaking them. Remember all the people who were calling for "more noticeably faster (than jog) but shorter duration" sprint?

Edited May 7, 2013 by Chortles

[Inimical_rize 1]

Being able to run forever under full load is not a trivial nonsense.

Why are you playing ArmA then?

Really, does everyone just stab the "why play arma" at any one who crit's it?

There is a difference between authenticity and realism, why are you playing arma when it doesn't include Weapon cleaning, food and water intake, Heat exhaustion, Non freezing cold injuries,frostbite, resupply via link men, broken ankles, batterie changes in night vision, general fatigue and rest periods, the inability to engage legitimate targets because 0 or HQ says civcas would be to high, map predict Sf support weapons, refuelling of vehicles by hand, maintenance on vehicles. I could carry on as i know the military world rather well.

What I'm saying is by implementing such trivial things can take a military sim to the real it will never recover from resulting in loss of audience.

yes its fantastic that they've thought of it, yes I think the load system is brilliant how ever, it is just a game, Lets not focus on a guy breathing out of his hoop trying to hit Neo 'the one, tom cruise will smith bon lee swagger sniper' Ai 1 shot 1 kill and missing because his hearts up, lets focus on making that engagement intense ,.. I.e the shock of seeing him, the fluster of shooting at him as you bring the weapon to bar and him doing the same, missing and proceeding to fail shot (from primary to secondary weapon)

I play Arma to enjoy those kins of things, not because i want to hear 80s sex noises in my earphones for hours because i ran 20mtrs with kilos of kit.

---------- Post added at 23:37 ---------- Previous post was at 23:35 ----------

Feels like the spergs are back... the same nonsense that is why I stay away from ACE, I'm glad that jogging isn't so penalized.

Truthbetold, I wouldn't have minded the fatigue system having already been implemented way back because, as I said at least twice on these forums, the promised fatigue system could have been used to gauge the movement speeds as part of tweaking them. Remember all the people who were calling for "more noticeably faster (than jog) but shorter duration" sprint?

Im not sire what you mean by spergs? how ever i did like the idea of a super quick sprint, short, across a road type of sprint or cover to cover

[metalcraze 290]

Nice try at apples vs. oranges bro but that's not what I've meant. Perhaps you should read my point more carefully?

What I'm saying is by implementing such trivial things can take a military sim to the real it will never recover from resulting in loss of audience.

I don't see how losing an audience that complains that they can't put on M107 and Javelin, throw 20 ammo mags for 107 and 4 javelin missiles into the backpack - and then run around for miles like nothing's happened is a bad thing. The community will certainly not suffer from a loss of people who call players who dislike exploits - aspies.

[Inimical_rize 1]

Nice try at apples vs. oranges bro but that's not what I've meant. Perhaps you should read my point more carefully?

I don't see how losing an audience that complains that they can't put on M107 and Javelin, throw 20 ammo mags for 107 and 4 javelin missiles into the backpack - and then run around for miles like nothing's happened is a bad thing.

Right ok, First off theres not much to get from "why are you playing arma then?" how ever if you want it realistic, If you join a game and the class is sniper guess what, you get standard sniper kit, unable to change unable to tweak or add, you want a weapon with gucci sights and fancy optics and cool gear guess what? should have joined the game sooner and got your self a Spec forces role.

hows that champ?

Edited May 7, 2013 by Inimcal_

[metalcraze 290]

What are you even talking about?

[chortles 263]

It would be nice if a dev would at least say what the intent for the new fatigue system is supposed to be, but I'm wondering if there's even a working consensus on that at the moment.

[-Coulum- 35]

I can run 2/3miles with 15-20kg at a 'shuffle' constantly, only after then will i 'tab and run 600-800mtrs and then walk for 200. the fatigue system is a little over done, my self i think this 'going for exact realism' is stupid, soon youll buy an arma game, play 5 minutes, get shot and die and the disk will melt in your drive to simulate cremation and wont be able to play the game again, simulating death. lets not go full realism, lets work on making the combat real, all that trivial nonsence can be modded at a longer later date.

Fatigue systems can be very frustrating if not done right that is true. But, although I know it may no longer be the "goal" of arma, I don't think that going for full realism is bad - just my personal preference. But sometimes it creates even bigger problems when you make one aspect of the game realistic but another not so much. For example, you say that BIS should should work on combat being real - well how can combat be real when players are able to sprint around with ridiculous loadouts (javelin plus m107 plus laser range finder plus rucksack plus armour and ammo anyone?) with no adverse effects. Full realism is not possible, but I think that having the level of realism remain relatively equal throughout each of the game mechanics is important. Currently the fatigue system is IMO lacking. The main problem I see is what artemas stated:

The spectrum of speed and endurance under differing loads is far too narrow at the moment. While overloaded guys receive stamina effects easily enough, so too do unencumbered guys. There's not much of a difference. Furthermore, 10k ruck runs are a normal part of military training, so forcing the system to prevent doing that is fairly misguided. I am certainly not a fan of a 'force to walk' function either. You almost always have enough strength to push yourself into a run that little bit more. I think blur and shake would suffice to induce you to take it slow.

I don't think that the fatigue system is done, but I hope BIS address this issue.

EDIT

It would be nice if a dev would at least say what the intent for the new fatigue system is supposed to be, but I'm wondering if there's even a working consensus on that at the moment.

Yes indeed.

[Inimical_rize 1]

metalcraze it's not difficult, You want realism yes? If you dont want guys carrying .50s and Javs and run around all over the place, lock the kit issue like it is in the real army, i.e a rifleman has

1 Individual weapon

2 6 mags and a 250rd bandolier

3 2 h.e

4 1 red 1 green smoke

5 water

6 rations

that is it. its not hard to understand, If the slot is machine gunner you get a standard machine gunner kit issue as per the real army, so on and so forth. its not hard to understand, it will stop your peev of the Long range shooting anti tank operators who are infinitely fit , the encumbrance system is the only way to stop what you're talking about not fatigue and poor aim. he will just take longer to get there but still have the same kit that you seem to hate.

If you're not trained you're not to operate it, unless (in real life) you are Small arm skill at arms qualified, thats just rifles.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Inimcal_

[chortles 263]

Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. :lol:

+1 for hoping that BI addresses the issue, even if only by saying what the intent is. See, last year we at least had Jay Crowe saying "sprint duration, accuracy, and accuracy recovery time, based on how much/what you're carrying", but not only do we not know how much of what's intended has been implemented, we don't even know how much is supposed to be implemented, or what the intended end state is supposed to look like.

Heck, "combat pace with iron sights due to recent design decisions" and RiE's comments to Gamespot about grenades are the closest that I've gotten to a straight-up answer on some of the changes -- or lack of changes from prior games -- re: the design decisions made for Arma 3.

[Inimical_rize 1]

Fatigue systems can be very frustrating if not done right that is true. But, although I know it may no longer be the "goal" of arma, I don't think that going for full realism is bad - just my personal preference. But sometimes it creates even bigger problems when you make one aspect of the game realistic but another not so much. For example, you say that BIS should should work on combat being real - well how can combat be real when players are able to sprint around with ridiculous loadouts (javelin plus m107 plus laser range finder plus rucksack plus armour and ammo anyone?) with no adverse effects. Full realism is not possible, but I think that having the level of realism remain relatively equal throughout each of the game mechanics is important. Currently the fatigue system is IMO lacking. The main problem I see is what artemas stated:

I don't think that the fatigue system is done, but I hope BIS address this issue.

.

I do agree, but thats more encumbrance and loud out restrictions, as I said before this is where they can go a step further, by making the player slot locked i.e the sniper snipes and cant use a.t weaponry.

for every ones info contrary to popular belief the m107 in the infantry pam (uk) is man packable for 1 mile on foot and its that distance because the shooter will still need to acquire the 900mtr (sniper standard) first round first hit. Saying this the m107 is primarily ordinance disposal, if you want to man pack a .50 sniper rifle i suggest the aw .50.

how ever kit restrictions isn't the issue, its the fatigue.

Some guys can do incredible feats of physical activity and others cant, some people can run until they pass out, others can run slow for miles.

The fatigue system affects Aim and held breath duration that is all, Encumbrance effects the load carried and the fatigue gained, by locking a player type to what slot they joined could be good.

edit: sorry for the edits I'm typing on my ipad, it's all thumbs here lol

Edited May 7, 2013 by Inimcal_

[metalcraze 290]

You want realism? If you dont want guys carrying .50s and Javs and run around all over the place, lock the kit issue like it is in the real army, i.e a rifleman has

You do realize that there's also a civilian side, a resistance side and a lot of non US sides?

And how is that relevant to a topic at hand?

that is it. its not hard to understand

It's hard to understand since ArmA is not about silly roles, it's about whatever mission maker creates. ArmA is not all about some primitive deathmatch with 'whoever joins first gets the best role' you know.

the encumbrance system is the only way to stop what you're talking about not fatigue and poor aim.

What ArmA has now is encumbrance system. Yes putting on 30 kgs does fatigue you faster in turn. Surprise.

[-Coulum- 35]

I do agree, but thats more encumbrance and loud out restrictions, as I said before this is where they can go a step further, by making the player slot locked i.e the sniper snipes and cant use a.t weaponry.

So basically instead of annoying fatiguing effects to dissuade people from taking unrealistic gear you would want it simply impossible to take unrealistic loadouts. While both are viable solution I think that the former is more flexible and thus more suitable for the sandbox aspect of the game. How about a middle ground:

-If you take realistic loadouts you will not be effected by annoying fatigue effects no matter how far you run (weapon sway and heavy breathing are still fine though)

-If you take an unrealistic load out you suffer from annoying fatigue effects (force to walk, blurring of screen, crazy sway, black out etc.)

That way, if you don't want the weird shit, all you gotta do is take good loadouts. It would satisfy people like you wanting to run long distances with little penalty while still keeping the flexibility that makes arma such a great game. I think this is what alot of people are actually suggesting just many are instantly against any fatigue effects due to ACE's blackouts or in previous iterations of A3, riflemen with proper loadouts being forced to walk after a couple hundred metres - nobody wants those.

[cifordayzserver 119]

I've often thought this game could take on a lot more roles if there was a server adjustment for Realism/Simulation. Like Difficulty...

IE Reality ON/OFF

That way all the sim guys could get their weather blowing their choppers out of the air or no fly days, and arcade folk can hit up down forward back and go....

When A3 first launched the controls were very arcade-y it's clearly not too difficult for them to adjust.

Endless run has it's place in certain missions/mods... and belongs NO WHERE NEAR others...

It adds immersion for squad play, reenactment, and realism... Armies don't run at full sprint across swaths of land, it...

While it breaks immersion for a objective type mods/missions like Wasteland, running from objective to objective and being constantly stalled or delayed is just annoying. Gamers don't like to get tired while running to a place to do things, they're playing a game.

Although the mod makers have the option of removing it if they feel that it should be though right?

[-Coulum- 35]

Although the mod makers have the option of removing it if they feel that it should be though right?

Yep. So do missionmakers. It would be nice if player had an option in the difficulty menu as well.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Isn't Chernarus like the size of Rhode island? You can jog across Rhode island with full gear with zero need for a break? Color me impressed - and Im a runner :p

Chernarus is 160 square miles. RI is over 1000 square miles.

[bad benson 1733]

How about a middle ground

^this and

Yep. So do missionmakers.

^this

why does every thread have to escalate into the extremes all the time. sure the blur is annoying and being forced to walk would be annoying too (pretty sure it's not even the case). but what would be even more annoying would be no fatigue at all and only seeing sprinting people all the time. it's also a matter of aesthetics. i mean why bother playing on huge maps if all you do is run from A to B? it makes no sense. that's why the game has vehicles. that's why i always leave wasteland once i realize that i've been walking the last ten minutes without anything happening. too grindy and time consuming for me. i got other games for that with smaller maps and more compact gameplay.

what is needed is a more balanced system that avoids unrealistic load outs.

and about fixed load outs. look at bf3. the heavy unit is slower if i'm not mistaken. and that's not the only example. in a lot of games the more damage a unit/class can do the slower it is. while other games use simpler measures arma has something more complex and that's perfectly fine.

no need to jump the gun and cry for nerfs and buffs. it's a flexible platform with no set PvP rules because that's simply just a part of the spectrum. so calm down and make useful suggestions instead of dismissing the feature by comparing it to gun cleaning. it's ridiculous:rolleyes:

[afp 1]

So basically instead of annoying fatiguing effects to dissuade people from taking unrealistic gear you would want it simply impossible to take unrealistic loadouts. While both are viable solution I think that the former is more flexible and thus more suitable for the sandbox aspect of the game. How about a middle ground:

-If you take realistic loadouts you will not be effected by annoying fatigue effects no matter how far you run (weapon sway and heavy breathing are still fine though)

-If you take an unrealistic load out you suffer from annoying fatigue effects (force to walk, blurring of screen, crazy sway, black out etc.)

That way, if you don't want the weird shit, all you gotta do is take good loadouts. It would satisfy people like you wanting to run long distances with little penalty while still keeping the flexibility that makes arma such a great game. I think this is what alot of people are actually suggesting just many are instantly against any fatigue effects due to ACE's blackouts or in previous iterations of A3, riflemen with proper loadouts being forced to walk after a couple hundred metres - nobody wants those.

This looks like a good option. There is no point to apply the penalty to someone without any loadout or with few kilos, after several minutes. Missions makers could have a function or a parameter where the fatigue begins, lilke "SetFatigueStart (30 kilos)"

Edited May 8, 2013 by afp

[dmarkwick 261]

My suggestion would be:

Make fatigue very "soft" and forgiving - with default loadouts. Anything a person can carry WITHOUT a backpack, is fine. But, wear a backpack and fill it with heavy stuff then it begins to impinge on your fatigue levels. I think this would be a good middle ground, most of us don't wish to be limited by fatigue when we're just playing a game, but then again we don't wish to have ridiculous amounts of loudout with no penalty at all.

Best thing is - for skirmishes & battles the backpack wearers can dump their backpacks for the battle duration.

[Inimical_rize 1]

You do realize that there's also a civilian side, a resistance side and a lot of non US sides?

And how is that relevant to a topic at hand?

Yes i so thanks champ, I've been a fan of the series since OFP, though i can't play them as much as you (if you do play a lot) because I'm out of the country for long periods of time so yes, i do realise the incredibly obvious thank you.

You're talking about unrealistic loud outs yes?, I'm talking about putting a cap on whats packable in specific classes for people like you that don't like the ability to do said equipment carry, c'mon that is obvious related to the topic, - stupid equipment (weight) = increases fatigue = exactly what it does already

It's hard to understand since ArmA is not about silly roles, it's about whatever mission maker creates. ArmA is not all about some primitive deathmatch with 'whoever joins first gets the best role' you know.

So you're saying if a mission maker creates a position for a .50 sniper and javelin operator you'd be content with it?

Pretty sure this is what you wanted, your gripe with the silly loudout.

What ArmA has now is encumbrance system. Yes putting on 30 kgs does fatigue you faster in turn. Surprise.

Yes it does, the more you add the heavier it gets this increases fatigue and shortens the Full pace run.

My gripe is,... There should be a limit on where the fatigue system is headed, If it goes towards Ace Bis will loose customers, "why play arma 3 then?" because it's a game, games are fun, they can be realistic and authentic down to tying your boots, not every one wants that and sadly no matter what you do in this day and age no game even Arma is even anywhere near real conflict.

[metalcraze 290]

If it goes towards Ace Bis will loose customers

Customers that hate when the game challenges them instead of being a straight up primitive team death match shooter where you just run and gun never thinking about consequences?

Good riddance.

"why play arma 3 then?" because it's a game, games are fun, they can be realistic and authentic down to tying your boots, not every one wants that and sadly no matter what you do in this day and age no game even Arma is even anywhere near real conflict.

Military seems to think otherwise. That's why they use ArmA's big brother and not Crytek's smoke and mirrors.

Of course no game will be a 100% sim. Doesn't mean it shouldn't try.

At least one shooter has to be something more than a generic TDM on a big map which is sadly how ArmA3 feels (and is played on most servers) at the moment.

Edited May 8, 2013 by metalcraze