Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Although I feel like it was unwise to take a step forward and then backward, I personally think the current stamina system fits Arma more in its current state. With the old fatigue system you were majorly penalized for doing mostly anything, but then you had a basic medical system that involves either healing instantly to 75% health or having an unlimited 100% health heal from medics. Having a hardcore fatigue system while having extremely basic sub systems didn't seem to mesh. ...

 

I really don't see how the logical step there is to gut the generally favored fatigue system and not improve the generally disliked medical one.

[das attorney 858]

I quite like it.  The bar does it's job for me.  I can see fatigue, deduce how much I'm carrying, and how fast I'm recovering/tiring.

[aronh17 26]

I really don't see how the logical step there is to gut the generally favored fatigue system and not improve the generally disliked medical one.

What I'm getting at is it should've been an overall overhaul to everything. Making an extremely penalizing fatigue system with no tweaks to other systems makes the game feel strange. I still don't see how it is this big of a deal though, you can re-enable it with a mod and majority of the people that dislike the new system runs mods. They still have control over their game, but as I said the old Fatigue system should've still stayed in the game as an option. I'm finding it difficult to see how the current system is Call of Duty like to people though, because it definitely is not.

[toysoldier 35]

The system is fine, only the sway after the hold breath is way to much.

[JamesTheClarke 40]

I fully agree with Alwarren's BIS forum post and Dslyecxi's tweet.

 

This new system is a quite strange hybrid between very casual / arcade (no penalty on regular movement) and punishing MilSim (sprinting). Neither target audience is going to be very happy with it as it only partially fulfils each interest group's requirements, while heavily infringing on the desires of the other.

 

The previous stamina system was perfect for what Arma does best: provide an easy to use, simplistic platform which kinda reflects real life aspects rarely found in more arcade shooters without going too overboard with the MilSim aspects. The MilSim crowd could always use systems like ACE and ACRE to cater to a full-on MilSim experience without imposing it onto the "general public". All the old system needed was a vanilla UI reflection of how stamina builds up over time, similar to what the ShackTac Stamina Bar does.

 

I'm in the MilSim camp and thus I can at least rest assured that the ACE team will soon provide us again with a usable system, but for the general public mostly playing Altis Life, Wasteland and smaller un-modded scenarios with their friends this system will probably be a huge turn-off. Honestly I'm a bit baffled by the decision to not handle the new stamina system the same way AFM was: add it to the game as a feature which can be turned on either player or server side, but is off by default (old system remains in place).

 

I strongly believe that BIS should not start "fixing" things that aren't broken, such as the simplistic old stamina system or the base medical system. They function fine and do their job, if anyone wants more there are dedicated modding teams working hard on it. Please focus your attention on things that are actually rather broken, but much harder to fix: AI driving (especially when it comes to avoiding obstacles, not driving over friendly infantry patrols crossing the road and movement in convoys), AI suppression, AI rate of fire / dispersion, AI coordination of various elements, AI flying (especially landing without manually forcing it via Zeus / Ares).

 

AI behaviour / performance is something that currently even the best of mods had limited success at improving - especially on the scale of larger, organised community game play.

[cyruz 103]

Agreed, this system is weird and doesn't seem to suit anyone out of the box.

 

We did our first session with it on the weekend and found it a really weird mix of excessively punishing and then totally non-impacting. Jog forever endlessly but sprint for 5 seconds and you're completely ruined. It makes any sort of movement during a firefight a complete nightmare as you sprint from cover to cover and after two or three bounds your character is totally ruined and can't shoot for shit.

 

Sway is beyond terrible too now and we're using non-magnified optics, can't imagine how stupid it is with anything magnified.

[bullhorn 18]

What I'm trying to understand is why BI, having such limited manpower resources, spends all this energy on 'fixing' what's not broken while the things that the player-base has been complaining about for years appears to rarely be solved.

 

I have to agree with pretty much everyone; the new fatigue system is an absolute deterioration. 

[ObiDammos 1]

Agreed, this system is weird and doesn't seem to suit anyone out of the box.

 

We did our first session with it on the weekend and found it a really weird mix of excessively punishing and then totally non-impacting. Jog forever endlessly but sprint for 5 seconds and you're completely ruined. It makes any sort of movement during a firefight a complete nightmare as you sprint from cover to cover and after two or three bounds your character is totally ruined and can't shoot for shit.

 

Sway is beyond terrible too now and we're using non-magnified optics, can't imagine how stupid it is with anything magnified.

Try it with vectors...you have to hold your damn breath to do anything at all.

[cyruz 103]

Try it with vectors...you have to hold your damn breath to do anything at all.

 

Yeah my poor MMG assistant did nothing but swear for an hour as he couldn't spot shit without holding his breath. ACE has a PR to readd the legacy stuff, although the default values are still pretty rough, hopefully with some tweaks we can get it back to how it was when it was config based and ACE made it manageable.

[rübe 127]

What I'm trying to understand is why BI, having such limited manpower resources, spends all this energy on 'fixing' what's not broken while the things that the player-base has been complaining about for years appears to rarely be solved.

I don't know, but this all smells a lot like design by commitee.

Who is the guy in charge of this? I'm not looking for a scapegoat, mind you, but for someone with a clear vision and a sound plan w.r.t implementation too? Chances are there is no such leader. Hence the foul compromise. :ph34r:

And yes, fatigue wasn't broken by itself. But as a side-effect AI was, since it never did get adapted to cope with fatigue at all (...and again: who is the guy with an overview over all parts that should merge to one lovely game? Surely this problem must have been obvious from day one fatigue has been envisioned? What was the plan there anyways, e.g. w.r.t. the campaign missions, default loadouts, etc.?).

Anyways..., fatigue got implemented, the obvious problems came up as expected, but instead of fixing the AI, BIS rather choose to dumb down fatigue - which just got implemented - call it stamina, and then a day... And instead of affecting the movement, we end up with that silly sway-minigame, because that's no problem for AI, but still some kind of punishment annoyance for the player... 

 

Fatigue should be *all* about movement(-restrictions). That's what complements all the different "gears" and weapon lowering and stuff together with the new inventory of A3. And that fatigue-/loadout-/movement-/risk-management is was a very interesting, fun and rewarding "mini-game" - be it in the offensive or defensive - with direct/immediate feedback (that IMHO doesn't even need some stupid indicator widget thingy) and consequences. With no fatigue but stamina we're basically back to an infantry-vehicle with a single, steady gear. Happy jogging, all day long... and have fun with that super annoying weapon-sway.

 

Fatigue, together with all the different stances/modes of movement, was on track to be something really great for an infantry-centric game. That's why the current stamina-crap is such a damn shame (...besides the wasted development time for fatigue, and then stamina, ugh... again, who is managing this kind of process?!). :(

[St. Jimmy 272]

Lower your weapon and you spend bit more stamina. So lowering weapon only does harm to you because you move slower and spend more stamina. So better just move weapon up and faster.

Technically you spend same amount of stamina per second if you've weapon up or lowered when running but weapon low is slower so that's why you spend more stamina when weapon lowered in the same distance that with the weapon up.

 

Why going slower and more comfortable is punished now more? I could only maybe understand, because the stamina was a dumbed down fatigue, if they're in the same level but this is unacceptable.

[gippo 38]

Lower your weapon and you spend bit more stamina. So lowering weapon only does harm to you because you move slower and spend more stamina. So better just move weapon up and faster.

Technically you spend same amount of stamina per second if you've weapon up or lowered when running but weapon low is slower so that's why you spend more stamina when weapon lowered in the same distance that with the weapon up.

 

Why going slower and more comfortable is punished now more? I could only maybe understand, because the stamina was a dumbed down fatigue, if they're in the same level but this is unacceptable.

I haven't measured it completely, but I feel the same. Lowering your weapon does nothing. Even the sway value (getAimingCoef) goes up if you move with lowered weapon.

[Freghar 73]

Guys, remember that you can configure the 1.54 stamina system however you like it. It's still far from ideal, but it's at least usable.

Here's an example I've written for my community (CNTO):

class CfgPatches
{
	class CNTO_Stamina
	{
		units[] = {};
		weapons[] = {};
		requiredVersion = 1.54;  /* new stamina system needed */
		/* since we want to override maxSoldierLoad defined by ACE3,
		 * we need to load after it, hence the dependency */
		requiredAddons[] = {"ace_movement"};
		/* if you wish to run this stamina tweak without ACE3, comment
		 * out the above requiredAddons and uncomment the following */
		//requiredAddons[] = {"A3_Modules_F"};
	};
};

class CfgMovesFatigue
{
	/* make sway recovery faster when changing stances, offset by weight */
	aimPrecisionSpeedCoef = 20;  //default 5
	/* disable sprinting for this amount of secs when stamina runs out */
	staminaCooldown = 5;         //default 10
	/* "amount" of stamina, how fast it drains (higher = slower) */
	staminaDuration = 90;        //default 60
	/* restore stamina from 0 to full in this amount of secs */
	staminaRestoration = 90;     //default 30
	/* when terrain gradient prevents sprinting (hill icon),
	 * add this value to stamina gain */
	terrainDrainSprint = -0.6;   //default -1
	/* when terrain gradient forces you to walk (steep hill),
	 * add this value to stamina gain (warning: too low negative values
	 * actually restore stamina due to the character walking) */
	terrainDrainRun = -1.4;      //default -1
};

class CfgInventoryGlobalVariable
{
	/* how much a soldier can carry (weight bar width) */
	maxSoldierLoad = 1400;     //default 1000, ACE 1200
};

(some references: Stamina wiki page, CfgMovesFatigue)

Put it in a file called config.cpp, pack it in a .pbo (ie. using cpbo), put that .pbo inside a new Addons directory and create mod.cpp alongside it, containing something like

name = "CNTO Stamina System Tweaks";
author = "Freghar";
hideName = 0;
overview = "Various tweaks of the vanilla Stamina system, to make it more bearable.";

Finally, put both mod.cpp and Addons inside another directory and call it ie. @cnto_stamina. Or really whatever name you want.

Since my community uses the ACE3 mod, which already modifies maxSoldierLoad, I had to put a dependency on ace_movement to override that definition - if you don't use ACE3, simply use the other requiredAddons line.

Please do customize those values, mine are just an example of a sort-of-eyeballed-1.52 and some other coefficients might suit you better. This configuration tweak doesn't make the stamina system any good, but IMHO it makes it .. umm .. less broken.

To keep huge weapon sway at bay, use loadouts with "weight bar" below 50% - sway is much more affected by carry weight rather than stamina. Alternatively, look at CfgImprecision.

[2fast 11]

The forced walk mechanic linked to

 

configfile >> "CfgInventoryGlobalVariable" >> "maxSoldierLoad"

 

is a server-killing mechanic ;)

This is awesome. Thanks man! Just curious how did you find out about this variable? I would never have thought where to look at all...

[ceeeb 147]

Here are some observations of the stamina system, based on the 1.55.133700 dev build. I haven't really thought about the system as a whole, or as a part of a game (most expectations are based on real world expectations). 
 
 
General:

• Stamina's impact on movement speed is restricted to the stepped graduations of the speed of jogging and sprinting movement modes (the old fatigue system was smoother with animation slowdowns).  Having zero stamina means player cannot sprint. Expected: movement restrictions due to low stamina and a heavy load should be more graduated, and more significant.
• Changes in stance have no stamina cost (but do prevent recovery). Expected: changes in stance should cost stamina, getting up from prone being the most expensive.

 

Load carried:

• Load carried reduces the maximum possible stamina available to the player (maxStamina = 60s * (1 - load player)). It does not affect the absolute stamina cost of movement, but the cost of movement as a percentage of total stamina available increases with load. Expected: Above a certain "normal" load, the relationship between load carried and max stamina should be non-linear (carrying twice as much should be have more than twice the impact on stamina).
• Heavily loaded soldiers still go from completely rested to completely exhausted in as little as a fraction of a second. Expected: A minimum level of available stamina, representing the anaerobic system.
• Overloaded soldiers are unable to jog. They also suffer from permanent fatigue effects without any exertion. Expected: Overloaded soldiers should not suffer fatigue effects without any movement.

 

Moving on flat ground:

• Walking has no impact on stamina (recovery rate is same as standing still).
• Stamina cost of jogging or using tactical pace is -0.1/s on flat ground. This means an unburdened player can jog for 10 minutes before exhaustion. Player can continue to jog while exhausted. Expected: When exhausted, player should always have ability to jog on flat ground, but not up slopes. If cost of slopes was more graduated between -0.1 and -1.1, player should be able to move in any way that would cost say -0.3/s while exhausted.
• Sprinting cost 1/s on flat ground. This means the stamina cost is 10x that of jogging, for approx 25% more speed. 
• Crawling at default speed (or tactical pace) cost is same as jogging (-0.1/s). Expected: crawling should have greater stamina cost. Default speed is faster than tactical pace and should cost more stamina.
• Crawling at sprinting speed cost is same as sprinting (-1/s). Expected: crawling should have greater stamina cost.
• Stepping over has no stamina cost or recovery. Expected: stamina cost should be the similar to sprinting.

 

Moving up/down slopes:

• Walking up slopes up to +16°, or down slopes up to -25° has no effect on stamina (player recovers as quickly as if standing still). Walking up slopes above +16° or below -25° causes no stamina cost or gain (ie it's not tiring but prevents recovery). Expected: walking up or down severe slopes should reduce stamina. Stamina cost of slopes should be more graduated.
• Stamina cost of jogging (or using tactical pace or crawling at default, tactical or walking speed) up or down hills jumps severely from -0.1/s (slopes <+16° and >-25°) to -1.1/s for steeper slopes up to the limits of jogging (<+29° and >-38°). Expected: jogging down gentle slopes should use less stamina than flat ground, and more for steep slopes. For uphill, a gradual increase in stamina cost with slope. Downhill limit of "runnable" steep slopes should probably be a bit less severe. Stamina cost of different slopes should be more graduated.
• Stamina cost of sprinting (or crawling at high speed) up or down hill is not affected by slope, it is always -1.0/s whether on flat ground, up the steepest possible slopes of +16° and -25°. Expected: Sprinting down gentle slopes should cost less than flat ground. Sprinting up or down steep hills should cost significantly more than sprinting on flat ground (say up to 3x). Stamina cost of slopes should be more graduated.

 

Stance/Weapon selection:

• Recovery rate is not affected by stance (being prone is no longer the quickest way to recover)
• Moving while crouched has the same stamina cost as being upright at any movement speed. However, speed while crouched are lower than when upright. Expected: moving while crouched should cost more stamina than moving while upright.
• Holding a rifle ready (shouldered) or down has no impact of stamina cost. Expected: Holding weapon ready should cost slightly more stamina.
• Holding a pistol increases movement speed, while holding a launcher reduces movement speeds. Neither has any impact on stamina. Expected: The stamina cost of holding a weapon in a readied position should be relative to the weight of that weapon. Equipment only affects stamina through load.

 

Aiming/Weapon Sway:

• Having low stamina has little to no impact on the pattern or severity of weapon sway, despite the sway being apparently designed to look like the rhythm of the player's breathing. Expected: Weapon sway should be significantly increased by low fatigue.
• Stamina has a minor effect on the player's hold breath ability. At low stamina, duration of hold is shorter and recovery longer. Expected: Player should be unable to hold breath when extremely fatigued.
• Holding breath pauses stamina change (no cost or recovery). Expected: holding breath should cost stamina.

 

Water:

• Stamina recovers while the player is treading water at the surface or underwater without any breathing apparatus. Expected: Stamina should reduce while player is underwater.
• Swimming in or under water has the same stamina cost as jogging (-0.1/s). Expected: Stamina cost of swimming underwater should be severe.
• The length of time the player can hold his breath underwater is not affected by stamina when entering the water. Expected: Starting a dive with low stamina should result in reduced time before drowning.
• Load carried affects the available stamina of diving units. Expected: scuba gear has buoyancy control, divers make no exertion to remain neutrally buoyant.

Edited December 16, 2015 by ceeeb

[twisted 128]

Here are some observations of the stamina system, based on the 1.55.133700 dev build. I haven't really thought about the system as a whole, or as a part of a game (most expectations are based on real world expectations). 

 

 

General:

• Stamina's impact on movement speed is restricted to the stepped graduations of the speed of jogging and sprinting movement modes (the old fatigue system was smoother with animation slowdowns).  Having zero stamina means player cannot sprint. Expected: movement limitations of carrying a heavy load should be more graduated, and more significant.
• Changes in stance have no stamina cost (but do prevent recovery). Expected: changes in stance should cost stamina, getting up from prone being the most expensive.

Load carried:

• Load carried reduces the maximum possible stamina available to the player (maxStamina = 60s * (1 - load player)). It does not affect the absolute stamina cost of movement, but the cost of movement as a percentage of total stamina available increases with load. Expected: Above a certain "normal" load, the relationship between load carried and max stamina should be non linear (carrying twice as much should be have more than twice the impact on stamina).
• Overloaded soldiers are unable to jog. They also suffer from permanent fatigue effects without any exertion. Expected: Overloaded soldiers should not suffer fatigue effects without any movement.

Moving on flat ground:

• Walking has no impact on stamina (recovery rate is same as standing still).
• Stamina cost of jogging or using tactical pace is -0.1/s on flat ground. This means an unburdened player can jog for 10 minutes before exhaustion. Player can continue to jog while exhausted. 
• Sprinting cost 1/s on flat ground. This means the stamina cost is 10x that of jogging, for approx 25% more speed. 
• Crawling at default speed (or tactical pace) cost is same as jogging (-0.1/s). Expected: crawling should have greater stamina cost. Default speed is faster than tactical pace and should cost more stamina.
• Crawling at sprinting speed cost is same as sprinting (-1/s). Expected: crawling should have greater stamina cost.
• Stepping over has no stamina cost or recovery. Expected: stamina cost should be the similar to sprinting.

Moving up/down slopes:

• Walking up slopes up to +16°, or down slopes up to -25° has no effect on stamina (player recovers as quickly as if standing still). Walking up slopes above +16° or below -25° causes no stamina cost or gain (ie it's not tiring but prevents recovery). Expected: walking up or down severe slopes should reduce stamina. Stamina cost of slopes should be more graduated.
• Stamina cost of jogging (or using tactical pace or crawling at default, tactical or walking speed) up or down hills jumps severely from -0.1/s (slopes <+16° and >-25°) to -1.1/s for steeper slopes up to the limits of jogging (<+29° and >-38°). Expected: gradual increase in stamina cost with slope. Downhill limit of "runnable" steep slopes should probably be a bit less severe. Stamina cost of slopes should be more graduated.
• Stamina cost of sprinting (or crawling at high speed) up or down hill is not affected by slope, it is always -1.0/s whether on flat ground, up the steepest possible slopes of +16° and -25°. Expected: sprinting up such steep hills should cost significantly more than sprinting on flat ground (say up to 3x). Stamina cost of slopes should be more graduated.

Stance/Weapon selection:

• Moving while crouched has the same stamina cost as being upright at any movement speed. However, speed while crouched are lower than when upright. Expected: moving while crouched should cost more stamina than moving while upright.
• Holding a rifle ready (shouldered) or down has no impact of stamina cost. Expected: Holding weapon ready should cost slightly more stamina.
• Holding a pistol increases movement speed, while holding a launcher reduces movement speeds. Neither has any impact on stamina. Expected: The stamina cost of holding a weapon in a readied position should be relative to the weight of that weapon. Equipment only affects stamina through load.

Aiming/Weapon Sway:

• Having low stamina has little to no impact on the pattern or severity of weapon sway, despite the sway being apparently designed to look like the rhythm of the player's breathing. Expected: Weapon sway should be significantly increased by low fatigue.
• Stamina has a minor effect on the player's hold breath ability. At low stamina, duration of hold is shorter and recovery longer. Expected: Player should be unable to hold breath when extremely fatigued.
• Holding breath pauses stamina change (no cost or recovery). Expected: holding breath should cost stamina.

Water:

• Stamina recovers while the player is treading water at the surface or underwater without any breathing apparatus. Expected: Stamina should reduce while player is underwater.
• Swimming in or under water has the same stamina cost as jogging (-0.1/s). Expected: Stamina cost of swimming underwater should be severe.
• The length of time the player can hold his breath underwater is not affected by stamina when entering the water. Expected: Starting a dive with low stamina should result in reduced time before drowning.
• Load carried affects the available stamina of diving units. Expected: scuba gear has buoyancy control, divers make no exertion to remain neutrally buoyant.

 

 

nicely thought through list. If this were implemenetd itd go a long way.

 

i'd add that:

 

jogging shoud slowly eat the stamina bar to better tie the sway effects with percieved tiredness. if it does so now i do not see it.

 

and breathing should be more noticeable.

 

AND running/jogging while crouched should eat up stamina faster than running while upright becuase simply it is super hard to do.

 

jogging should not happen when exhausted but walking is fine.

[domokun 515]

AND running/jogging while crouched should eat up stamina faster than running while upright becuase simply it is super hard to do.

Why don't more games simulate this?

It's not hard to simulate and significantly increases tactical choices (reduced silhouette vs reduced fatigue & increased speed)

[galzohar 31]

I think that the new system has some nice improvements, but really needs to absurd parts fixed. Namely, those that make you behave in game opposite to what you would in real life, like prefering to run with weapon up, or preferring to start your marathon with a sprint.

 

I actually like the new bar, it might be a bit confusing, but at least it gives you all the information, which was previously hidden or needed mods to display. It should be possible to enable both the stamina bar and the stance indicator in elite mode, though, and they should be default on in elite. There is no realism lost by displaying them.

[gippo 38]

It should be possible to enable both the stamina bar and the stance indicator in elite mode, though, and they should be default on in elite. There is no realism lost by displaying them.

It should be a actually fully customizable. I still don't get why we need to stick with these presets and their "intended" limitations.

[galzohar 31]

It should be a actually fully customizable. I still don't get why we need to stick with these presets and their "intended" limitations.

 

Because you need the game to work realistically in vanilla. It's already a nightmare that every server has its own rules that you have to re-learn. When basic physics and physiology are changed from server to server, that totally kills your ability to enjoy all servers without having to re-learn the game on every different server.

 

There is really no justification for the vanilla system to be so bad that everyone feel the need to modify it. It should at least be good enough so that at least most servers feel they can use it as-is without ruining their game.

 

This isn't a "realism vs casual arcade" argument, or else I could somewhat understand the need to use options and modifications. The things complained about are mostly just things that are both bad gameplay and bad realism - They make the game more complicated while also making it less realistic. Those, at the very least, should be addressed as soon as possible.

[gippo 38]

Oh cmon... it's Arma, you can change a lot of other things already. Players always need to adapt, a custom difficulty setting wouldn't make a lot more difference. If you go on a new server -> new mission -> new gamemode, new rules, new everything.

[roshnak 41]

Oh cmon... it's Arma, you can change a lot of other things already. Players always need to adapt, a custom difficulty setting wouldn't make a lot more difference. If you go on a new server -> new mission -> new gamemode, new rules, new everything.

 

This is not really true. Difficulty settings do not dramatically affect core gameplay mechanics in Arma 3. The closest they come is the Extended Armor setting or the AFM for helicopters (which honestly feels like a bonus feature). Almost every one of the difficulty settings in Arma either changes AI difficulty or what HUD elements are visible or whether certain things are displayed on the map. 

 

And gamemodes usually just change what you do, not how you do it. Bullets always drop the same amount, penetrate the same materials, etc. The basic rules of interacting with the game are almost always the same.

 

Edit: Like, sure Life, KOTH, and a huge scale co-op mission may provide very different experiences, but the basic rules for interacting with the game are the same in each of them.

[qantaqa1987 10]

This new fatigue system is so annoying. I can move few meters and then i have to listen my character breathing. It gets to nerves very quickly. Try to be AT soldier now! they are the fat internet warriors who can move 10 m and die to hyperventilation on the spot. Bohemia can only make 3 sound samples for sounds. Foot steps and breathing omg!!! thomp thomp thomp............................................ uuhh ahhhh huuuuhuuhu uuhhh.. and I'm off to play something else.

[old_painless 182]

Came to think if you can replace the heavy breathing sound with something else - is it as simple as replacing one sound file with another ?

 

And true, the sound really can get to you, also because there is so little variation. In Arma2, I hated the clonking sound when running, presumably the canteen dangling against your player character. Jeesh, make those sounds optional or replaceable please

[INF_MIke64 53]

Maybe less of a fatigue issue its self but a UI issue to managing weight. Many units use arsenal to set-up players loadouts but there is no feedback for overall weight it would be really valuable to have a bar that fills up and changes colour as weight changes and its affects mount. a numerical value would also be useful in arsenal and inventory as it allows people to recommend weight limits e.g. In our ACE3 group we have a 35 - 40kg limit so we can move about but we have to come out of arsenal each time we want to check our weight.