Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)

[dmarkwick 261]

So what has changed exactly?

Animations got slowed down and it looks like the soldier is running in slo-mo but the running speed hasn't changed?

And loadouts are still extreme

Basically the only difference is visual?

Yes I'm aware that the "fatigued" speed is ~15% or so slower. But it makes zero difference. It's running X meters in 11 seconds instead of 10. And this change was there for a month or so and it's not enough.

The good and authentic way is to make the soldier run at a slower speed, not animate him slower while keeping the speed unchanged.

Extreme loadouts look, to me, as though they will eventually be penalised by increased fatigue penalties. Do you mean to complain that it's possible to have an extreme loadout, or that there's not enough penalty for an extreme loadout?

[maturin 12]

Yes I'm aware that the "fatigued" speed is ~15% or so slower. But it makes zero difference. It's running X meters in 11 seconds instead of 10. And this change was there for a month or so and it's not enough.

15% isn't an important difference now?!? What?

You've made a whole career out of bitching and whining about the minutiae of sprinting and walking speeds, and tiny, barely noticeable nuances of inertia and turn radius in player controls that don't actually affect gameplay unless a player is deliberately trying to exploit the game like a bunnyhopping CS player.

So little statistical changes in controls are MASSIVE BETRAYAL BY DUMBING-DOWN-DEVS if they aren't to your taste, but small improvements are worthless?

When you ignore all progress and all promise of future progress (kindly provided by reliable developers in good faith), you only ensure that your posts will be ignored. So enjoy your crusade in a soundproof padded room.

[CaptainObvious 95]

So what has changed exactly?

Animations got slowed down and it looks like the soldier is running in slo-mo but the running speed hasn't changed?

And loadouts are still extreme

Basically the only difference is visual?

Speed has changed, a lot.

Yes I'm aware that the "fatigued" speed is ~15% or so slower. But it makes zero difference. It's running X meters in 11 seconds instead of 10. And this change was there for a month or so and it's not enough.

It's not severe enough. The max running speed should be limited based on load. So if a soldier puts on 60 kgs the fatigued running speed should not exceed the speed of combat pace.

Carryall full of titan missiles+Titan itself, full fatigue, running (or jogging because you can't run) 100 meters takes ~33 seconds.

Without the carryall and the Titan, full fatigue, 100 meters takes ~27 seconds.

hmm, scratch that, seems I wasn't fully fatigued on the second run.

However, with the carryall full of missiles running speed doesn't exceed combat pace and is even slower.

The good and authentic way is to make the soldier run at a slower speed, not animate him slower while keeping the speed unchanged.

It is like this now, did you even test the new system?

Edited November 8, 2013 by CaptainObvious

[danil-ch 165]

Animations got slowed down and it looks like the soldier is running in slo-mo but the running speed hasn't changed?

Fatigued speed is about 30-35% slower. For example: Jogging speed is getting reduced from 15 km/h to 10 km/h. Which a bit slower than tactical pace.

[instagoat 133]

Raising and lowering weapons is very much slowed down, even for light assault rifles and SMGs. The Idea is right, hope you can diversify the reaction speeds in lifting and lowering weapons across the different platforms.

[Greenfist 1863]

Here's a tiny & crude script for other scripting noobs like me to monitor the level of fatigue on screen:

sleep 2;

_newfat = 0;

_oldfat = 0;

_diffat = 0;

_oldpos = getpos player;

dist = 0;

player addAction ["Reset fatigue", "player setfatigue 0;"];

player addAction ["Full fatigue", "player setfatigue 1;"];

player addAction ["Reset distance","dist = 0;"];

while {true} do

{

_newfat = (round((getfatigue player)* 1000))/10;

_diffat = (round((_newfat - _oldfat)*10))/10;

dist = dist + (_oldpos distance player);

_oldpos = getpos player;

hintsilent format["%1 % fatigue\nChange %2\nDistance %3 m\nSpeed %4 km/h\nLoad %5",_newfat,_diffat,round(dist),round(speed player),loadabs player];

_oldfat = _newfat;

sleep 1;

}

Just create a mission and save this to the mission folder with filename init.sqf.

Actual fatigue value is between 0 and 1. This displays it in 0..100, the change of it during last second, speed and distance travelled.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Greenfist

[jw custom 56]

I did a small test with a rifleman:

With the "spawned" gear the guy jogged aprox. 550m at speed 15 before the black edges appeared. After aprox. 100m the speed slooowly decreased to 10.5 when hitting aprox. 750m.

With only the uniform, helmet and vest the guy jogged 1000m+(i stopped there) at a constant 14.4

This needs some adjustments but it sure is a good start :cool:

[Dwarden 1125]

it will be for sure tweaked more

[St. Jimmy 272]

Can you add that lower gear guy can still go fully fatigued faster than a fully fatigued heavy gear guy?

Something like

0-30% gear -> Speed doesn't reduce. Just like with the old system. (Light SMG loadout goes to this)

30%-50% gear -> Speed is reduced like now.

50%-70%% gear -> Speed is reduced more.

70%-85% gear -> Speed is reduced even more.

85%-100% gear -> You should only walk. You're just a backpack slave.

Sprint works as now. It's pretty balanced.

Edited November 10, 2013 by St. Jimmy
Re-thought.

[sproyd 2]

Overall an awesome first effort - only tweaks required from here not a radical overhaul. This is cool because it means people will want to use vehicles more to transport their stuff... The slowest speed of jogging (i.e. after maxing out tiredness) is perfect. The legs look like they are dragging.

Changes, both covered above I agree with;

- Going from prone to standing should be proportionate to your load. If you are carrying some 80kg of gear, it is always going to be VERY slow standing, even slower when exhausted

- Diving to prone shouldn't really be slowed in any circumstances.

My only concern (and this applies pre-change as well) is that everyone is at identical fitness level, when IRL there are huge variances. If you look at say SAS troops they can carry huge load-outs very long distances (still tiring but they can actually do it) while some unfit basic grunts aren't always very fit. My idea was to corellate it to the skill bar (in the editor) but then I don't know how you'd apply this to player units. Anyway just a thought for discussion

[blu3sman 11]

Really liking new settings. First thing I noticed is that moving uphill AND downhill results in fast fatigue increase. Very good and makes sense.

What I would like to see, is for uphill movement to be more punishing, like immediate hard limiting of speed, no matter fatigue level.

For future updates, maybe even go further and make a new animation set for moving on inclines bigger than 30 degrees. Kinda immersion breaking seeing people run up and down mountains.

[chortles 263]

@sproyd: Somehow I believe that the shared fitness level is intentional -- attempting to divvy up Fatigue levels/accumulations by unit or, even worse, faction, might well collapse under the weight of subjective bias* -- and I approve of this neutrality.

@ Blu3sman: I'm not sure why exactly moving downhill is supposed to accumulate Fatigue moreso than on flat terrain considering the same gravity/load rationale for going/'diving' to prone??

I have to say, it's nice/interesting to see standing sprint functionality now seem to not be "on/off" tied a distance duration but now 'simply' slow down over time as Fatigue accumulates.

* There's a good reason that Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations doesn't simulate stuff like "pilot skill", "crew training" or "morale" and is purely platforms vs. platforms...

[maturin 12]

Moving down a serious slope is a lot more tiring than moving on flat ground. IRL.

[Brisse 78]

@ Blu3sman: I'm not sure why exactly moving downhill is supposed to accumulate Fatigue moreso than on flat terrain considering the same gravity/load rationale for going/'diving' to prone??

Try it out for yourself. Fill a backpack with 40kg of stuff, strap on some heavy boots and find a really steep hill with difficult terrain to run down. It's not as simple as it sounds.

[Psychobastard 136]

;2553058']1) Please replace/improve the annoying breathing sound: (to come - FT currently offline)

2) New scripting command to adjust the recovery (factor to negative duty values for anims) - ie twice as fast recovery

3) New scripting command to adjust the exhaustion (factor to positive duty values for anims) - ie half as much exhausion

Rationale: For fast pvp game modes like CTF' date=' CQB, DM a different gameplay system is needed vs large scale, slow movement systems.

Right now one can just disable fatigue completely which is not desirable either.[/quote']

+1!

I like it what you do. But, it's right what .kju say: think about fast game modes like CTF and DM. The new settings are a similar a gamebracker for the named game modes. Please add scripting commands and give mission designers the power to create it by themself.

regards

[Doombell 10]

One thing I have been thinking about concerning running and sprinting is that the basic run is more controlled, while the sprint is your absolute maximum output because some unlikeable character is trying to rob you of your basic functions.

Now, I am unsure as to how much of this is already done, since I only have the subjective experience during missions rather than numbers and mechanics behind it, but the run probably should max out its fatigue below the actual maximum fatigue, with speed slowing down in a more "predictive" way (this could be complicated or it could just be a case of making the slowdown for fatigue hit sooner).

If you then let sprinting cause maximum fatigue, relatively fast (Even professional athletes with nothing weighing them down can tire themselves enough to barely be able to stand in just a hundred meters or so if they do not pace themselves, after all), you could then have running at that point be considerably slower than where usual running would slow down, but it would let you get a little bit of breath back until you hit that max, though considerably slower than actually taking a rest.

This to me sounds like a reasonable depiction of how one would try to move in a dangerous situation; keep the pace up (run), but save some energy for when it is definitely needed (sprint).

Heavily loaded people lagging behind would be a concern, but hopefully they wouldn't be completely useless in combat unless they pushed themselves to keep up with guys running around in t-shirts with SMGs.

My only concern (and this applies pre-change as well) is that everyone is at identical fitness level, when IRL there are huge variances. If you look at say SAS troops they can carry huge load-outs very long distances (still tiring but they can actually do it) while some unfit basic grunts aren't always very fit. My idea was to corellate it to the skill bar (in the editor) but then I don't know how you'd apply this to player units. Anyway just a thought for discussion

I can see the logic behind this, but I am unsure if it's prudent to have too many stats tied to skill. It is reasonable to assume your special ops troops are going to be highly fit, but you are still going to have plenty of basic grunts carrying around the heavy stuff.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Doombell

[chortles 263]

guys running around in t-shirts with SMGs.

Hahaha, right here is who I'm most concerned about...

[progamer 14]

Hahaha, right here is who I'm most concerned about...

Once we get the Body armor system better, the guy in the T-shirt won't be laughing very long.

[Doombell 10]

Speaking of which, I don't necessarily think making fatigue a bigger concern would do harm to modes like CTF.

Having varying mobility, firepower and survivability seemed to make the old Tribes games (Not sure about the newer one, the maps seemed too cramped for my tastes) some of the most interesting takes on the gameplay modes around.

Maybe adapting the mechanics to the mode is not the best choice?

Edited November 8, 2013 by Doombell

[chortles 263]

As it stands, between the BLUFOR Rifleman (plate carrier) and Officer (slash bandolier) default loadouts I'm not seeing any "top" speed difference but noticing a slight difference between them as far as Fatigue accumulation (amount per tick) and when the sprint slowdown (from 20 km/h to 19 km/h) begins distance-wise, a difference of about 20 meters or so, so that's an interesting start... though the differences are so slight that I'm only seeing them thanks to Greenfist's script (thanks Greenfist!).

I'll definitely reiterate that I'm happy that so far these seem solely based on Load, stance, movement speed, etc and not subjective biased factors like unit or, even worse, Faction/side... because if you thought that arguments over opposing force hardware (instead of individual troops) were bad enough... :rolleyes:

[Brisse 78]

Heavily loaded people lagging behind would be a concern,

Thats the way it should be! IRL squads need to take this into account so why should not Arma do it? It's part of working as a team.

[Doombell 10]

That's what I meant. It is a concern that needs to be accounted for when moving so you maintain cohesion, not a problem that needs to be removed.

[chortles 263]

Interesting anecdote: In my most recent testing with Greenfist's script of the BLUFOR Rifleman and Officer, I noticed that there's a slightly higher movement Speed (only 1 km/h more according to Greenfist's script which only rounds to decimal places for the Load display, not Distance, Change, Fatigue or Speed*) and somewhat lower Fatigue accumulation when wielding their respective sidearms instead of their long guns (4-5 vs. 7-8) in combat pace, so at least right now there's not only a nominal upside for a lower Load overall but also for wielding a sidearm. (I haven't experimented between different sorts of long guns yet since that and their magazines would affect the total Load.) May not be as pronounced as some want, but that's subject to tweaking; the important point to me is that they exist at all now to an magnitude measurable with Greenfist's script.

Also, an inadvertent upside to being locked stationary when making the sidearm transition is that there's a reduction of Fatigue during this animation (first tick is -11, second tick is -12) and transitioning back to their rifle has a higher reduction due to the longer animation (first tick is -19, second tick is -20, third tick is -6). I tested this by moving forward in combat pace with the rifle and building up Fatigue above 40 then performing rifle-to-pistol transition while holding down W; after a bit once Change was positive again I reset Distance and Fatigue, moved forward in combat pace with the pistol and building up Fatigue past 50, then performing pistol-to-rifle transition, holding down W the whole time.

EDIT: Gave things a go with the BLUFOR Helicopter Pilot, really similar if not identical numbers to the Officer despite a slightly higher Load, while the BLUFOR Pilot was that way with the Rifleman as well (adding a P07 and three magazines didn't seem to change much despite pushing his Load to 0.4000833 or 40%) so right now it looks like total Load is the main determining factor.

* Speaking of which, a P07 mag is worth 0.005 of Load according to the script display.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Chortles

[progamer 14]

Why don't we make fatigue more like VBS2?

Fatigue and breathing sounds are in the video:

Another video:

And finally with weapon sway and fatigue, please make it more realistic like VBS2: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15943

[Kerc Kasha 102]

as someone who's played a lot of vbs 2, please don't.