Fatigue effects

[HKFlash 9]

What about making the weapon lowered animation actual jogging by lowering the speed slightly so when weapon is lowered you will start falling behind.

With the weapon lowered your jog speed decreases.

[fujix 11]

Well, I suggested optional blur over removing the blur few pages ago already.

That is not easiest solution though, of course. But it is the "user friendliest" solution.

There should be visual effects for the extreme fatigue still.

You wouldn't suggest removing "being wounded" -visual effects too?

also the "head bob" and "camera shake" are purely visual effects too.

I suggest removing/make optional ALL effects that create real physical problems for players. This is a game. Period. I play Arma to have fun and enjoy myself, not to experience physical discomfort.

Edited June 27, 2013 by fujix

[Azzur33 1]

I suggest removing/make optional ALL effects that create real physical problems for players. This is a game. Period. I play Arma to have fun and enjoy myself, no to experience physical discomfort.

For SOME few players who have higher visual sensitivity and higher risk of having problems.

It is not fair for those who are ok with the effects, to have to "downgrade" the visual experience if it causes problems for some.

So those effects that are purely visual, should be optional. Not removed, as some suggest and which I fear might happen

.

With fatigue, if the blur is optional, there should be some more "annoyances" to make "no blur"-people to be "forced" to rest too. You are not stopping to rest for just knowing that your aiming is not the best if you have to shoot. You should "feel" that you Have to rest.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Azzur33

[metalcraze 290]

Tbh, the majority of people demanding ultra realism are the guys that play on private servers with like minded people, ie milsim squads. Correct me if im wrong?

These servers/squads often use realism mods like ACE and have rules on how the missions should be played, for example specific roles so not everyone is running around like a one man army.

Now im perfectly fine that some people want to have this kind of super realistic gameplay. But since the milsimers stick together in private communities they dont have to force their kind of gameplay to the rest of us. I admit I sometimes can enjoy playing like that. But most of the times I enjoy Arma for what it is. A semi realistic military sandbox. Not a real life simulator. If i wanted to have ultra realism I would join the army.

So basically just because people play on private servers or use mods they are irrelevant?

Man this forum has a great attitude as of late.

they dont have to force their kind of gameplay to the rest of us.

And who forces anything on anyone?

If you at least tried reading my post you would've seen that you can disable what you don't like anyway. Thus it's not a problem for you. However there's nothing the "other" camp can enable to make the game less of an arcade shooter it is now (but I guess arcade shooters with instaheal medpacks and running around with 100kgs of gear are called "semi-realistic" now)

But you see - your wishes, which are already fulfilled, should ever be the top priority and our wishes should, of course, be completely ignored because, you know, we want ArmA and not Battlefield On A Big Map.

I mean geez what if those damn simulation fans will get an optional feature disabled with a small bit of code in a mission file in their tactical military simulation? Horrible!

Edited June 27, 2013 by metalcraze

[fujix 11]

For SOME few players who have higher visual sensitivity and higher risk of having problems.

It is not fair for those who are ok with the effects, to have to "downgrade" the visual experience if it causes problems for some.

So those effects that are purely visual, should be optional, not removed, as some suggest and which i fear might happen.

Im fine with optional. You can have all the masochistic settings you want, as long as they are not forced on me.

[-=seany=- 5]

C) what's with this crappy attitude "my part of the community should dictate how the whole game should be to everyone else even though my part of the community already has tools to cater the game to their needs and the other one does not". See A)

Likewise I will ask the same question - why should the game be made unfun for the rest of people who want ArmA to be ArmA and not a clone of Battlefield where people crash choppers around without second thoughts?

Heh, I'm sure the irony of this statement is not lost on other players here either. :)

[Masharra 10]

Heh, I'm sure the irony of this statement is not lost on other players here either. :)

And who forces anything on anyone?

If you at least tried reading my post you would've seen that you can disable what you don't like anyway. Thus it's not a problem for you. However there's nothing the "other" camp can enable to make the game less of an arcade shooter it is now (but I guess arcade shooters with instaheal medpacks and running around with 100kgs of gear are called "semi-realistic" now)

What game modes do you primarily play there seany? if you dont mind. You can pm answer

[fujix 11]

So basically just because people play on private servers or use mods they are irrelevant?

Man this forum has a great attitude as of late.

And who forces anything on anyone?

If you at least tried reading my post you would've seen that you can disable what you don't like anyway. Thus it's not a problem for you. However there's nothing the "other" camp can enable to make the game less of an arcade shooter it is now (but I guess arcade shooters with instaheal medpacks and running around with 100kgs of gear are called "semi-realistic" now)

But you see - your wishes, which are already fulfilled, should ever be the top priority and our wishes should, of course, be completely ignored because, you know, we want ArmA and not Battlefield On A Big Map.

I mean geez what if those damn simulation fans will get an optional feature in their tactical military simulation? Horrible!

Look, if its optional I dont care. Of course BI should provide settings for the people that like ultra realism. As long as its not forced on everyone. The attitude on these forums are, the hardcore realism guys want to force their way of playing the game on everyone else. Thats why you have tons of threads where people whine about realism this and that and demanding that we should all be playing some kind of real life simulator.

I believe there are two kinds of Arma players. You have one camp that are all about ultra realism and then the other camp that want some form of hybrid between ultra realism and for example the BF series. A semi realistic military sandbox basically.

Then of course you have the DayZ horde but who cares about them :P

[Smurf 12]

Heh, I'm sure the irony of this statement is not lost on other players here either. :)

And is he wrong?

One thing is to have a system and being able to disable it. Other is not having it at all (or an oversimplification of it).

Strangely, no "wait for ACE" so far. Depend on the good will of those guys on a game that is supose to be something like that in the first place is... well I don't have the right word now, but IF ACE3 doesn't come true?

[-=seany=- 5]

If it can be disabled then why are we having this thread at all? Maybe some people want a reasonable middle ground encumbrance/Fatigue. The BIS encumbrance/fatigue is good, it's just the Blur that's a bit OTT. That's what this thread was about initially. Maybe we need another thread about needing a third, MilSim level of fatigue? Ahem, or wait for ACE (just kidding :) )

Masharra -I mostly play Domination/ Insurgency and the odd offline missions on LAN (CTI etc)

I will admit it is easy to put your back up against these changes, when you first hear about them/ try them. I was very against BIS's encumbrance initially, but I have come around to it a bit more. I still think the blur is over done, but I don't mind not be able to sprint forever anymore etc.

I wonder if they could add your suggestions Smurf, as an alternate to see what it's like. It is hard to imagine what game play would be like simply be reading it. maybe it would not be as bad as i imagine. or maybe it would. The only way would be to test it I guess.

Edited June 27, 2013 by -=seany=-

[Smurf 12]

If it can be disabled then why are we having this thread at all? Maybe some people want a reasonable middle ground encumbrance.

Because the middleground isn't middle?

[Fap 1]

Then of course you have the DayZ horde but who cares about them :P

We should all care about each other, but when a game that's previously only focused on military simulating, starts going over to the arcadey, fast paced and impatient type of game at it's CORE, we all worry.

No one wants a "Call of Battlefield". We want ARMA, not some shitty mix between arcade unrealistic shooter. Which I might add BF already does perfectly fine.

Why are you people trying to ruin the only franchise that lets people immerse themselves into some realistic action?

I don't effing care what you think the game should be, neither should BIS. They need to stick to their roots.

If you want to play "Domination" or "Wasteland", fine, go ahead, but don't fucking try to change an entire game to cater for a pathetic public server mission, that is already being done twice better in Battlefield.

[Masharra 10]

If it can be disabled then why are we having this thread at all? Maybe some people want a reasonable middle ground encumbrance/Fatigue. The BIS encumbrance/fatigue is good, it's just the Blur that's a bit OTT. That's what this thread was about initially.

Masharra -I mostly play Domination/ Insurgency and the odd offline missions on LAN (CTI etc)

The current encumbrance is a start, disabling it reverts it to vanilla which is carry everything under the sun. Which is LESS realistic. Something "you" can do to make the game less realistic quite easily. The reverse is not true.

[-=seany=- 5]

I added a bit more to my last post on the last page.

We should all care about each other, but when a game that's previously only focused on military simulating, starts going over to the arcadey, fast paced and impatient type of game at it's CORE, we all worry.

No one wants a "Call of Battlefield". We want ARMA, not some shitty mix between arcade unrealistic shooter. Which I might add BF already does perfectly fine.

Why are you people trying to ruin the only franchise that lets people immerse themselves into some realistic action?

I don't effing care what you think the game should be, neither should BIS. They need to stick to their roots.

If you want to play "Domination" or "Wasteland", fine, go ahead, but don't fucking try to change an entire game to cater for a pathetic public server mission, that is already being done twice better in Battlefield.

Tone it down a bit eh?

I don't think you understand. The game has never had encumbrance (OFP, Arma1, Arma2) So how could not implementing this change suddenly make the game more like Battlefield (I really cringe at that analogy).

Because the middleground isn't middle?

Well the game has never been a full milsim, there has always been that pickup and play element. Realism to a certain level, but not anal. I think the mods can deal with that extra hardcore level.

But again, I would actually like to try your suggestion in game to see what it is like. I am pretty open about compromise and coming around to new methods.

Edited June 27, 2013 by -=seany=-

[metalcraze 290]

Look, if its optional I dont care. Of course BI should provide settings for the people that like ultra realism. As long as its not forced on everyone.

Dude your post was exactly "force our way of playing the game on everyone"

The attitude on these forums are, the hardcore realism guys want to force their way of playing the game on everyone else.

Thats why you have tons of threads where people whine about realism this and that and demanding that we should all be playing some kind of real life simulator.

Really? Can you point me to these tons of threads?

I believe there are two kinds of Arma players. You have one camp that are all about ultra realism and then the other camp that want some form of hybrid between ultra realism and for example the BF series. A semi realistic military sandbox basically.

No you have one kind that likes ArmA for what it was, a tactical shooter for the brain, and doesn't want ArmA to be turned into an arcade shootbox. And another kind that really hates any kind of challenge and can't have enough of BF and CoD and their clones every year and wants ArmA to be just another generic mindless shooter where you crash choppers around without thinking. Because this kind of people "don't have all night to play ArmA"

Is wanting people not being able to run around with ridiculous loadouts that not even BF would allow has anything to do with "ultra realism"?

Have you heard about a concept called "different genre"?

It's enough that you can already have completely unrelated mods and missions (like wasteland and domi) to the core idea of the game. But it doesn't mean that ArmA has to be sacrificed so only wasteland / domination players can have another Battlefield to play.

Then of course you have the DayZ horde but who cares about them :P

"Who cares about "realism crowd", who cares about "DayZ horde""

Edited June 27, 2013 by metalcraze

[fujix 11]

We should all care about each other, but when a game that's previously only focused on military simulating, starts going over to the arcadey, fast paced and impatient type of game at it's CORE, we all worry.

No one wants a "Call of Battlefield". We want ARMA, not some shitty mix between arcade unrealistic shooter. Which I might add BF already does perfectly fine.

Why are you people trying to ruin the only franchise that lets people immerse themselves into some realistic action?

I don't effing care what you think the game should be, neither should BIS. They need to stick to their roots.

If you want to play "Domination" or "Wasteland", fine, go ahead, but don't fucking try to change an entire game to cater for a pathetic public server mission, that is already being done twice better in Battlefield.

Uh dude, I dont want Arma to be Call of Battlefield either. And Arma is not turning into BF nor Cod. Just because they finally made fluid movement where you dont control a whale on land (A2 movement), that doesnt turn this game into CoD. Get over yourself.

I loved Arma 2. I thought it was a fresh wind from all the arcade shooters. Trust me, Arma3 is no where NEAR to be like CoD or BF.

And obviously I was kidding about the DayZ horde....

And FYI I dont play Domi or Wasteland. I play mostly CTI, some insurgency and once in a while I join a server with an ACE variant of those missions. All depending on what I feel like playing.

[Masharra 10]

Lets get a dash back on topic as we have strayed a bit?

As it stands I find "Smurfs" idea very interesting and wouldnt mind trying it. Unfortunately in the current system we have one can not easily increase realism only decrease.IIKWIATA Without some all expansive hopeful mod by the Gods.

[fujix 11]

@metalcraze

And now I remember why I shook my head every time I´ve read your posts in the past. Your way of viewing the playerbase.

"You are either milsim player or a pubbie CoD/BF kiddie with no brains that wants unrealistic gameplay".

*Sigh*

[metalcraze 290]

If it can be disabled then why are we having this thread at all?

Because it's clearly not enough for it to be disabled. It must be gone, completely gone. Blur is bad. Vignette is bad. Panting is bad. I can't sprint for more than 100m with max loadout = bad too. All these complaints are in this very thread.

Maybe some people want a reasonable middle ground encumbrance/Fatigue.

Really? You seem to be shooting these down.

The BIS encumbrance/fatigue is good, it's just the Blur that's a bit OTT.

So you call a system where you can run forever and loadouts next-to-zero effect on gameplay - a "middle ground"?

Maybe we need another thread about needing a third, MilSim level of fatigue?

If first level is current, utterly non existent fatigue - what's the second level then?

@metalcraze

And now I remember why I shook my head every time I´ve read your posts in the past. Your way of viewing the playerbase.

"You are either milsim player or a pubbie CoD/BF kiddie with no brains that wants unrealistic gameplay".

*Sigh*

You forgot to add "DayZ horde". But hey, who cares about them?

Also didn't you just say the second camp wants ArmA to be sandbox BF? And of course I am now a bad guy for repeating your very point.

Edited June 27, 2013 by metalcraze

[Wolfstriked 11]

With the weapon lowered your jog speed decreases.

Make it even slower is what I am suggesting.Right now I run the airfield with a starting sprint at 4min30sec and if I lower weapon I do it at 4min35sec.Make weapon lowered running to be considered jogging instead and lower the speed so its noticeable that heavier geared fellas will fall behind.Make it have no blur.

[fujix 11]

You forgot to add "DayZ horde". But hey, who cares about them?

As I wrote in my reply to Fap, it was a joke. Thats why I added the ":P"

And I doubt you give a shit about DayZ players. To you hardcore milsim dudes they have ruined Arma and turned A3 into CoD :j:

[chortles 263]

Pffft, fujix, you shoulda seen 'em in the balance thread, A+ defamation.

Strangely, no "wait for ACE" so far. Depend on the good will of those guys on a game that is supose to be something like that in the first place is... well I don't have the right word now, but IF ACE3 doesn't come true?

Go ask NouberNou, he mentioned that it's happening.

Incidental note here that I'm wondering, but would lowering the weapon have any recovery or fatigue mitigation effect under your proposed scale?

[-=seany=- 5]

No you have one kind that likes ArmA for what it was, a tactical shooter for the brain, and doesn't want ArmA to be turned into an arcade shootbox. And another kind that really hates any kind of challenge and can't have enough of BF and CoD and their clones every year and wants ArmA to be just another generic mindless shooter where you crash choppers around without thinking. Because this kind of people "don't have all night to play ArmA"

Is wanting people not being able to run around with ridiculous loadouts that not even BF would allow has anything to do with "ultra realism"?

Have you heard about a concept called "different genre"?

It's enough that you can already have completely unrelated mods and missions (like wasteland and domi) to the core idea of the game. But it doesn't mean that ArmA has to be sacrificed so only wasteland / domination players can have another Battlefield to play.

See Metal, it's scathing, blown out of proportion statements like this that means we can never have a rational discussion about these things with you. Unfortunate really. You want it to be painfully realistic to the point of punishment. Most of us just want it to be similar levels of realism that have been in the franchise all along. Small improvements along the way. Like this new BIS fatigue, that happens to have a Blur post effect that is a bit too strong. Not adding a hyper realistic fatigue system is not suddenly going to make it another Battlefield, any more than it already is. Unless you think that it currently is like another Battlefield?

Edited June 27, 2013 by -=seany=-

[Fap 1]

no need to spread hate, but i still give up

*no offense meant to anyone*

Edited June 27, 2013 by Fap

[Smurf 12]

I wonder if they could add your suggestions Smurf, as an alternate to see what it's like. It is hard to imagine what game play would be like simply be reading it. maybe it would not be as bad as i imagine. or maybe it would. The only way would be to test it I guess.

Me too. :)

I thought that was the whole point of the thread (well, wasn't initially). It is a suggestion to improve a system that was added (if it wasn't, it would be a whole other history), not saying it is the best even less it is the "right". As I lack the L33t skills to implement something like that, it is the best that I can do and I'm taking (or trying to) in consideration the people that are not fans of simulation.

Anyway, in the end the decision will be made in Czech Rep. no matter what.

Again, it's not a system to punish without a reason, rather it is about adding a new layer of strategical thinking. Not crippling from the start but to add consequences. You can go light and in the long run suffer from lack of ammo, or you could go heavy and in the long\middle term suffer from it or your find a balance there. In A2 for example, what was the downside of have a whole army on your backpack? None.

Go ask NouberNou, he mentioned that it's happening.

Incidental note here that I'm wondering, but would lowering the weapon have any recovery or fatigue mitigation effect under your proposed scale?

I know it is, but I'm throwing one "and if" situation to help people see both sides of the discussion.

And I'm pretty sure the current BI system already takes that in consideration, aswell stances, actions and even the terrain. It is pretty good but the base system could be "better".

Haha, if anyone is harming anyones reputation, it's you.

You and your ignorant snobby attitude, you're so arrogant it hurts.

I'm done, thanks, I give up. Stupid people everywhere.

Chortles was in agreement with you...

Edited June 27, 2013 by Smurf