Jump to content

Recommended Posts

yea sorry for taking it out of context that much. i was in a bad mood i guess.

you still didn't get my main point though. the problem, even when just using that reasoning as a counter argument against claims of lack of realism, is that you were talking about travelling speed.

i'm pretty sure that every single complaint about fatigue is not related to travelling speed but the sway caused by it. so when you say "but you can travel the distance faster then in real life" it has still nothing to with what is being complained about (the other side being as inprecise aside...i was talking about them too partly). when people bring up SF operators then because they are trying to say that even after 6 hours of travelling they wouldn't suffer from that much sway. maybe they would after a sprint for a much shorter amount of time but currently arma is far from being able to simulate that properly.

so no. it's not realistic. and while it might prevent the feared "run and gun" it also messes up many other situations where it doesn't work well for gameplay nor to depict reality. do you really think people get frustrated with it after doing several hours marches ingame and then looking at their watch thinking "wtf. i should've been here earlier, this is bullshit"?...

and it's not easily modded out of the game. you have two options. either make a config that replaces the entire animation tree or use "_unit enablefatigue false", which let's you sprint infinitely, which sucks, a lot. it would be great if there were separate commands for recovery and increase rate. then it would actually be modular without the need of an addon that no server will run because enablefatigue is more convenient for mission makers that don't use any other addons otherwise.

another thing that could improve the system a lot would be decreasing the amplitude (or whatever) of the sway by maybe even 50%. it's just overdone no matter from what perspective you view it, because it makes it retardly difficult (pls no more videos, i can hit shit but i feel stupid while fighting the guy pulling the string that is attached to my barrel randomly) to even hit very close targets when very fatigued due to the extreme movements, when in reality you could easily hit the target just by pointing in its general direction without even squinting one eye and consciously aiming. these are the kind of details that make it feel forced and cause disconnect.

Ehhh it is easily modded, there's values you can edit in the config.

Look at Data_F

CfgFatigue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For that matter, I'm picking...

class CfgImprecision

class CfgBreathing

class CfgWeaponHandling

...will all contain highly pertinent values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when people bring up SF operators then because they are trying to say that even after 6 hours of travelling they wouldn't suffer from that much sway. maybe they would after a sprint for a much shorter amount of time but currently arma is far from being able to simulate that properly.

But what DNK is pointing out, is that you don't have to suffer from extra fatigue sway, while maintaining the "real SF" pace. Jog weapon down for 10 seconds, walk for three, repeat and you will never go above 10% fatigue, while maintaining a approx. 5min/km (8min/mi) pace, with basic gear. I know the constant stop start isn't exactly realistic, but that is not so much the fatigue system's fault, as it is the inability to go at a pace between walking and jogging. I agree with you that the effects of anaerobic vs aerobic activity should be different, but when it comes down to it, it is possible to work around without it I believe. Unless I am neglecting other situations where it is not.

another thing that could improve the system a lot would be decreasing the amplitude (or whatever) of the sway by maybe even 50%. it's just overdone no matter from what perspective you view it, because it makes it retardly difficult (pls no more videos, i can hit shit but i feel stupid while fighting the guy pulling the string that is attached to my barrel randomly) to even hit very close targets when very fatigued due to the extreme movements, when in reality you could easily hit the target just by pointing in its general direction without even squinting one eye and consciously aiming. these are the kind of details that make it feel forced and cause disconnect.

So are you talking about the sway being too much strictly when you are fatigued, or just in general? Would you want all sway cut in half, or is it just that crazy high fatigue sway?

Decreasing the amplitude, could go along with what roshnak was saying about more pattern in the other thread (crazy overlap between threads). smaller amplitude = shorter sway cycle = easier to distinguish sway pattern. At least in theory... But please, what exact parts of the sway do you dislike? Is it everything or just in certain situations (certain range of fatigue, wounds, inertia...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
another thing that could improve the system a lot would be decreasing the amplitude (or whatever) of the sway by maybe even 50%. it's just overdone no matter from what perspective you view it, because it makes it retardly difficult (pls no more videos, i can hit shit but i feel stupid while fighting the guy pulling the string that is attached to my barrel randomly) to even hit very close targets when very fatigued due to the extreme movements, when in reality you could easily hit the target just by pointing in its general direction without even squinting one eye and consciously aiming. these are the kind of details that make it feel forced and cause disconnect.

But wouldn't this have the side effect of also making long range shooting significantly easier, potentially bringing us back to a point where it's preferable to engage the enemy from 500+ meters away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ehhh it is easily modded, there's values you can edit in the config.

Look at Data_F

CfgFatigue

you can't change relation of animations and their specific recovery rates at all in there. so it's pretty useless. to really mod it properly and get rid of the flaws i meantioned you HAVE to overwrite all animation classes. thx for the hint though :rolleyes: as if i hadn't looked there first...

For that matter, I'm picking...

class CfgImprecision

class CfgBreathing

class CfgWeaponHandling

...will all contain highly pertinent values.

all of these are sway related. i fail to see how you want to mod fatigue with that. unless you want to nerf sway severely to mask the flaws in the way fatigue increases.

But what DNK is pointing out, is that you don't have to suffer from extra fatigue sway, while maintaining the "real SF" pace. Jog weapon down for 10 seconds, walk for three, repeat and you will never go above 10% fatigue, while maintaining a approx. 5min/km (8min/mi) pace, with basic gear. I know the constant stop start isn't exactly realistic, but that is not so much the fatigue system's fault

sorry i wasn't expressing myself properly but your post really helped since you point out exactly what i meant.

having to clunkily switch between anims doesn't make up for a proper longterm fatigue or proper short term stamina system. all arma 3 does is take what other games do and stretch it out over longer time and anims (other than sprinting) so it can deliver neither a reasonable stamina system nor a reasonable fatigue system.

what you describe there is just you coping with the system over long distances where nothing is happening. let's be honest. all you are doing there is managing a drawn out stamina value that isn't any different from let's say heroes and generals' sprint limiter. it's the same as if you would sprint in short intervals there. the problem with such forced cyclic behaviour is not only that it's gamey/unconvincing and comes close to forced role playing but also that it's not even close to reality. especially the mentioned direct connection to sway.

i mean i personally don't care that much about the numbers thrown around here. but if all you can give me is that it improves gameplay because it makes you "Jog weapon down for 10 seconds, walk for three, repeat" then i gotta tell you that it fails at both gameplay and realism.

for example. in your described cycle, there's a big difference if you get attacked right after the jogg or right after the walk. so you are always almost getting totally exhausted, quickly recovering and repeat. does that seem right to you? that exactly the reason for situations where your avatar is going nuts without a good justification. like when you have to actually flank someone after travelling and you just happened to be at the peak of said cyclic ritual.

that's why i think that fatigue should not happen when jogging. it's just not working right. and by leaving recovery on 0 there would be a penalty for not taking a quick breather after a sprint and keeping jogging afterwards. i also think controlling speed based on load rather than fatigue would not even be better for gameplay but also more realistic. with a big load the game forces you to get fatigued (getting drunk aim) by set animations when in real life you would just move slower.

So are you talking about the sway being too much strictly when you are fatigued, or just in general? Would you want all sway cut in half, or is it just that crazy high fatigue sway?

mostly the crazy sway. there is simply no real situation where you would move like that unless you are wounded (which the game already does) or highly intoxicated. this comes to mind

:D
But wouldn't this have the side effect of also making long range shooting significantly easier, potentially bringing us back to a point where it's preferable to engage the enemy from 500+ meters away?

yea there needs to be a balance ofc. but you bring up exactly what i think sway should have an influence on, only. longer distances. when you have to compensate sway in close quarters that much, you know there's something wrong. that should NEVER happen unless you are severely wounded maybe. it's those situations where in real life an intuitive general point in the right direction would do it, while in arma you have to carefully align.

Edited by Bad Benson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to swtich between speeds at all. You can just use the tac pace with the weapon down, and you're pretty much good to go at 0% fatigue. It's the run speed that needs to be offset by occasional periods of walk/tacpace. Tacpace gets you where you need to go at around 9.5min/mi, which is very reasonable for long-distance.

I also don't have issues hitting people in high fatigue states ***so long as I wait a couple seconds to steady my aim before firing*** not to get rid of fatigue but to avoid the "settling into position" sway. You all DO wait a couple seconds after pulling up your sights before aiming, right? Even at 0% fatigue you'd get some heavy sway if you instantly tried to hit something after stopping and pulling up sights.

Police stats show that in close quarters (<5m) cops are lucky to hit just 20% of the time at semi auto speeds. Something to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
all of these are sway related. i fail to see how you want to mod fatigue with that. unless you want to nerf sway severely to mask the flaws in the way fatigue increases

I don't want to mod fatigue at all, but you said;

"another thing that could improve the system a lot would be decreasing the amplitude (or whatever) of the sway by maybe even 50%"

"mostly the crazy sway"

So I thought it might help.

Did you actually look at any of those classes? I haven't bothered because I don't feel the need to change them but doesn't...

class CfgImprecision {
class Multipliers {
	[b]fatigue = 1;[/b]
	damage = 1;
};
};

...look like something that would go a long way toward addressing your issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's why i think that fatigue should not happen when jogging. it's just not working right. and by leaving recovery on 0 there would be a penalty for not taking a quick breather after a sprint and keeping jogging afterwards.

i mean i personally don't care that much about the numbers thrown around here. but if all you can give me is that it improves gameplay because it makes you "Jog weapon down for 10 seconds, walk for three, repeat" then i gotta tell you that it fails at both gameplay and realism.

I do care about the numbers. Right now the jogging pace is simply too fast, to have it incur zero fatigue, and claim it as realistic. Consider: You have your plate carrier, boots, ammo, helmet and rifle on you. You jog half a kilometre. At less than 5 min/km pace. You arrive and you are totally rested, as if you hadn't done anything at all. That isn't going to happen. When I was competing, with no gear on but my nice light running spikes and singlet, The heart would be pumping and breathing faster. A soldier with gear on isn't going to be able to keep that pace indefinitely. However if you could some how slow that pace down... like you suggest:

i also think controlling speed based on load rather than fatigue would not even be better for gameplay but also more realistic. with a big load the game forces you to get fatigued (getting drunk aim) by set animations when in real life you would just move slower.

Yes, that would work. In fact, that is what that whole jog 10 walk 3 is for. Its to maintain a pace that doesn't build up fatigue. If the game could do that for you, as you suggest in this idea, that would be great. This is why it is not so much the fatigue system that is the problem. Its the inability to choose an exact pace. If you could adjust your pace to slower than jog, faster than walk, and have zero fatigue at that pace, I think that would solve many of your problems no?

for example. in your described cycle, there's a big difference if you get attacked right after the jogg or right after the walk. so you are always almost getting totally exhausted, quickly recovering and repeat. does that seem right to you? that exactly the reason for situations where your avatar is going nuts without a good justification. like when you have to actually flank someone after travelling and you just happened to be at the peak of said cyclic ritual.

As I say, its just a work around way of pacing oneself. Your "slow down based on weight" would be much better. For now though, I encourage you to try it. You will always be less than 3% fatigue, and recover to 0 fatigue within 2 seconds.

Overall: If the jogging pace was slowed based on load, or you could manually slow it then I wouldn't have a problem with it being 0 fatigue, at those slower paces. Right now though, jogging it is too fast to justify 0 fatigue.

I think it would be worth it to tweak the way weight effects fatigue more. Maybe make it so that with no gear on, jogging sits nearer to or at 0 fatigue, and when weight is added, that fatigue increases.

mostly the crazy sway. there is simply no real situation where you would move like that unless you are wounded (which the game already does) or highly intoxicated. this comes to mind

Well, haha, okay. but can you be more specific? Because I don't think I have the same idea of crazy as you. If you're talking about cutting all sway in half, well, I just straight up disagree. However I would agree about reducing it in certain situations. If you can, show us this "crazy sway". (maybe best in the other thread?)

that should NEVER happen unless you are severely wounded maybe. it's those situations where in real life an intuitive general point in the right direction would do it, while in arma you have to carefully align.

You might be surprised just how hard it can be to hit in CQB. Especially in fast, high stress situations. To kind of put it in perspective, imagine if the ai were able to aim with such ease in close range, as to only to "point in the right direction would do it". I can guarantee you that there would be complaints of "ai are aimbots, its not realistic". Well the same goes for human. Even at ranges under 30 metres, shooting is not just point and hit. DNK's law enforcement stats are true. And I can attest, that rounding a corner, pulling up a rifle, acquiring a target, aiming and shooting takes time (To do accurately). Out of any video game, that time is best reflected in arma. In other games its crazy how fast you can shoot someone. Near instant. In real life shooting that fast often just results in you missing. Which is often what happens, because not many people have the nerves to slowly and calmly line up a shot when there is someone pointing a gun at them only 10 metres away. However...

The thing I don't like about the sway in CQB is: In real life, when handling a weapon at those ranges (10 - 100ft) I start off inaccurate, I eventually zero in on my target and I lock onto him. And stay locked. Where as in arma I start off inaccurate, eventually zero in... then I am taken off target again because of the sway. I have to repeat the whole process again. and again and again. This could probably be limited, to some extent, by shortening the time inertia sway sticks around for (As it is that side to side inertia sway that causes that problem mainly).

You don't have to swtich between speeds at all. You can just use the tac pace with the weapon down, and you're pretty much good to go at 0% fatigue. It's the run speed that needs to be offset by occasional periods of walk/tacpace. Tacpace gets you where you need to go at around 9.5min/mi, which is very reasonable for long-distance.

You sure? I can't find any pace that has zero fatigue, that is faster than walking...

Edited by -Coulum-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want to mod fatigue at all, but you said;

"another thing that could improve the system a lot would be decreasing the amplitude (or whatever) of the sway by maybe even 50%"

"mostly the crazy sway"

So I thought it might help.

Did you actually look at any of those classes? I haven't bothered because I don't feel the need to change them but doesn't...

class CfgImprecision {
class Multipliers {
	[b]fatigue = 1;[/b]
	damage = 1;
};
};

...look like something that would go a long way toward addressing your issues?

oh yea. misunderstanding. i'd rather have the devs tweak them to get rid of too extreme effects. otherwise i wouldn't be discussing here.

As I say, its just a work around way of pacing oneself. Your "slow down based on weight" would be much better. For now though, I encourage you to try it.

i do it. because otherwise it's a chore. you don't have to be a genius to understand that certain anims cause less fatigue. i really appreciate the helpful attitude but i think i made it clear that finding the system lacking has nothing to do with being ignorant about how it works.

I do care about the numbers. Right now the jogging pace is simply too fast, to have it incur zero fatigue, and claim it as realistic.

that's the thing though. i don't care about realism in that regard. i want logical behaviour. the problem is that it's pointless comparing realism of certain aspects, if other aspects are totally unrealistic. attempts at realism won't solve any of the system's problems. i couldn't care less how fast i get somewhere that's hours away. i simply don't do long marches ingame. it's boring. life's too short.

jogging speed is default movement speed. it's also what is used to carefully flank. no one will flank with lowered weapon and have constant weird anim switching happening when changing stance. arma just can't provide the needed fluidity that would be needed to make this work properly. it's just not practical in combat. jogg speed would not be a problem, if it would scale with load without directly causing super sway.

the problems occur in situations where you can't pace yourself due to the problems and simplicity of the system i described before. and pacing yourself like that is not fun to me at all. i'd rather have the game dictate my pace properly instead of playing minigames to avoid frustrating situations. it would be much better if the pacing would just happen and the fatigue value would be reserved to control sway and sprint limits. but looking at typical arma animation problems it's kind of a scary prospect to be forced into weapon lowering. i guess i'd be fine with speed only.

Even at ranges under 30 metres, shooting is not just point and hit. DNK's law enforcement stats are true.

not convincing, when you on the one hand agree with his numbers and then go on talking about 30 meters (which i'd call midrange at least in terms of a video game). he clearly talked about <5m. also keep in mind that we shouldn't talk about this as if we're discussing each single situation ingame. i was talking about max or near max sway. hence we emphasising that it shoudl NEVER be like that no matter how fatigued.

Police stats show that in close quarters (<5m) cops are lucky to hit just 20% of the time at semi auto speeds. Something to consider.

sorry but that's simply not what i would want a game to be like. especially if it's not done with cone of fire like in other games but with shakiness. i don't want to play a game where i hit 2 of 8 bullets at distance<5m. i won't bother looking up your numbers or finding others. if you want something like that, good for you. but i think it's safe to say that most people wouldn't want that.

besides. no offence to any cops but i'm pretty sure the average frontline soldier is more skilled with a gun than a police officer. a. due to constant real combat practice and b. due to cops training it less due to not constantly being in combat (see a.) thus not needing to (i know they have to go to the range regularily but i think the distinction is pretty obvious). the main purpose of a soldier is combat. for cops it'S different. at least in most western countries :D and before you tell me about real soldiers' every day life please remember that we are talking about arma where you WILL get shot at.

Edited by Bad Benson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the tactical consideration the fatigue enforces. It's no longer run 4km and snipe the mothers from 600m or more away.

The thing is that I find many missions have not been created with the fatigue system in mind. Either there needs to be transport to and from the battlefield or fatigue simply needs to be disabled by the mission maker, and the command for that couldn't be simpler. Plus I find the use of transport opens up even more levels of game play.

But ultimately the thing is don't overload and sprint everywhere and expect to snipe at the Drop a hat. Wait a few seconds, it settles very damn quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i really appreciate the helpful attitude but i think i made it clear that finding the system lacking has nothing to do with being ignorant about how it works.

Okay then, I didn't mean to imply you were ignorant. Just the way you described being at a disadvantage when attacked at the end of a cycle indicated that you might not have tried it. Because you really aren't.

the problems occur in situations where you can't pace yourself due to the problems and simplicity of the system i described before. and pacing yourself like that is not fun to me at all. i'd rather have the game dictate my pace properly instead of playing minigames to avoid frustrating situations. it would be much better if the pacing would just happen and the fatigue value would be reserved to control sway and sprint limits. but looking at typical arma animation problems it's kind of a scary prospect to be forced into weapon lowering. i guess i'd be fine with speed only.

So basically we both want pace to be more controlled, so we can maintain some sort of zero fatigue speed. Right? Well lets hope BIS do it some time. But for now, what if the default jog was made slower maybe 60% of what it is now and then there was zero fatigue while doing that pace (with standard kit). Would that be reasonable to you if you couldn't have the "adjust speed based on loadout"?

Personally I think that would work well. Even more so if you could have it in addition to the current jogging pace.

not convincing, when you on the one hand agree with his numbers and then go on talking about 30 meters (which i'd call midrange at least in terms of a video game). he clearly talked about <5m. also keep in mind that we shouldn't talk about this as if we're discussing each single situation ingame. i was talking about max or near max sway. hence we emphasising that it shoudl NEVER be like that no matter how fatigued.

Yeah I guess I switch between CQB and close combat pretty loosely. But I say 30m and under because I assumed that was the ranges you were talking about. Point remains. Its not neccesarily a point and win affair in reality.

But if you are talking specifically about max/near max fatigue sway... yeah it is bullshit. 60%+ fatigue and sway is way to high. Totally agree. Once it gets to 55%, sway should stop stacking up. Is that the only situation where you feel the sway is too much?

sorry but that's simply not what i would want a game to be like. especially if it's not done with cone of fire like in other games but with shakiness. i don't want to play a game where i hit 2 of 8 bullets at distance<5m. i won't bother looking up your numbers or finding others. if you want something like that, good for you. but i think it's safe to say that most people wouldn't want that.

well then it is a good thing that in the majority of arma engagements at that range, that stat does not hold true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So basically we both want pace to be more controlled, so we can maintain some sort of zero fatigue speed. Right? Well lets hope BIS do it some time. But for now, what if the default jog was made slower maybe 60% of what it is now and then there was zero fatigue while doing that pace (with standard kit). Would that be reasonable to you if you couldn't have the "adjust speed based on loadout"?

Personally I think that would work well. Even more so if you could have it in addition to the current jogging pace.

yea totally. although it's funny how you ask me as, if BI is gonna immediately take action once a consensus is found in this thread :D it's actually what i did when testing, minus the speed change. but it felt very nice. don't get me wrong, there was still a shit load of sway. but having it recover very quickly makes it feel much more convincing and less like a weird crippling effect you have to wait out. makes it feel more like having to adjust rather than fighting a disability.

well then it is a good thing that in the majority of arma engagements at that range, that stat does not hold true.

indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After playing with new fatigue for a while, this is what I think needs to be adjusted:

- Standard run speed should be reduced to more appropriate speed, and stamina loss rate greatly reduced accordingly.

- Sprint should drain stamina slightly faster.

- Sprint should be slower.

- Sprint speed should depend on weight, since sprint is the maximum speed your soldier can run at, and in real life it would depend on weight (unlike other mods which would be consistent regardless of weight but drain more/less stamina dependent on weight, so that you can keep up with your squad most of the time).

- Stamina gain while prone is way too fast while stamina gain while standing and walking is way too slow. Stance should only have a minor affect on stamina gain, and all should have pretty close stamina gain rate to something slightly faster than the current crouch stamina gain rate.

- Currently even losing just a little bit of stamina causes extensive weapon sway. The level at which you start seeing significant weapon sway should be slightly increased.

- Maximum sway is a bit too much. Especially while crouched (almost the same as standing, should be slightly better).

Jog for 15 seconds, walk for 3 and repeat until you reach the objective. You will maintain a 5 minute kilometre even with full (blufor rifleman) gear on. That is not a slow pace. And you'll never be more than 5% fatigued, (which takes seconds of rest to get rid of).

I don't think that is unreasonable. In fact, since you could do this for hours on end, without any real fatigue build up, it is actually less limited than real life.

Managing your fatigue takes a bit more than "jog with weapon lowered".

I think it's unreasonable that the default pace is not a "managed" pace, and we need to manually use a rotation to "average it out". Default pace should be made reasonable, and if you want to be extremely fatigue-efficient or extremely fast, then you should have the walk and sprint options. Jogging should not be something you have to toggle on and off to keep fatigue reasonable. Jogging should use jogging pace, and nothing else. Currently it's not that much slower than a sprint, which is in itself too fast.

What's even worse is that it seems like the best "rotation" is rotating between jogging and going prone, which makes it even less realistic. Prone fills stamina so fast that you should really just jog for a while, then go prone for a bit to refill, then jog again. Walking fills stamina too slowly to be effectively used in such a "rotation" anyway, which should not have been required in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New fatigue tries to simulate what is completely unnecessary in game .

Realistic environment , graphics , sound, how you handle weapon is fine but as goes for stamina it causes lot's of players to suffer and eventually quit the game not because he is one of those "Not your game type" but because of unnecessary psychological pain that game developers causing to the public .

So the conclusion is : if you are arma developer and reading this : you have plenty of bugs and unstable netcode to take care of, go sort it out before you even try to make things to be more realistic , you attempt with stamina and fatigue is like jumping over fence with one leg , you will always fail

Edited by excess3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
- Standard run speed should be reduced to more appropriate speed, and stamina loss rate greatly reduced accordingly.

- Sprint speed should depend on weight, since sprint is the maximum speed your soldier can run at, and in real life it would depend on weight (unlike other mods which would be consistent regardless of weight but drain more/less stamina dependent on weight, so that you can keep up with your squad most of the time).

- Stamina gain while prone is way too fast while stamina gain while standing and walking is way too slow. Stance should only have a minor affect on stamina gain, and all should have pretty close stamina gain rate to something slightly faster than the current crouch stamina gain rate.

- Maximum sway is a bit too much. Especially while crouched (almost the same as standing, should be slightly better).

Yeah I agree with all of this. It's pretty much the conclusion Bad Benson and I came to over the past few pages. Only thing I disagree strongly with is:

- Currently even losing just a little bit of stamina causes extensive weapon sway. The level at which you start seeing significant weapon sway should be slightly increased.

I feel it is fine as it is. First off, its not that bad now. do a quick sprint and you have a tiny bit of extra sway for a whole 3 seconds. And secondly it just feels real to me. You run a bit, and you aren't going to be instantly shooting accurately the moment you stop. Like I said that bit of sway lasts like five seconds max. I think it works quite well as is.

I think it's unreasonable that the default pace is not a "managed" pace, and we need to manually use a rotation to "average it out". Default pace should be made reasonable, and if you want to be extremely fatigue-efficient or extremely fast, then you should have the walk and sprint options. Jogging should not be something you have to toggle on and off to keep fatigue reasonable. Jogging should use jogging pace, and nothing else. Currently it's not that much slower than a sprint, which is in itself too fast.

Yeah, as we just discussed, that whole "rotation pacing" is not ideal. But my point was basically that it is possible to maintain a realistic pace in arma. Ergo the fatigue system is not excessively punishing. In fact its a bit lax in some respects. But that doesn't mean that the way in which we control our pace is optimal or realistic. I totally agree with you that the player should have more/better options as to how to pace themselves. I really like Bad Benson's idea of the game automatically slowing down your pace when jogging, based on weight, to prevent any fatigue build up. That would be much better than the jog walk jog walk we have to do now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
New fatigue tries to simulate what is completely unnecessary in game .

Realistic environment , graphics , sound, how you handle weapon is fine but as goes for stamina it causes lot's of players to suffer and eventually quit the game not because he is one of those "Not your game type" but because of unnecessary psychological pain that game developers causing to the public .

So the conclusion is : if you are arma developer and reading this : you have plenty of bugs and unstable netcode to take care of, go sort it out before you even try to make things to be more realistic , you attempt with stamina and fatigue is like jumping over fence with one leg , you will always fail

Not sure if this is a joke, or if this is serious.

Fatigue doesn't make players quit the game. Fatigue causes players to eaither learn to manage weight, movement and tactics in order to have an upper hand in battle. Otherwise, those that fail to do so, will lose in battle, thus becoming fed up in an Infantry Simulator, and leaving. Maybe. I can't say that they leave for that reason, there are other reasons people leave, and i highly doubt Fatigue is one of them. A number of squad mates have complained to me to bring up Fatigue, but when i compared it in game to real life, and how it can be used to win fights, it changed the perspective completely. It's the details like Fatigue that make Arma great.

Arma 2 had Fatigue, but the thing is, it was Ultra Basic, and it didn't matter what you had. I could run with an AS-50 in hand, a massive Metis on my back, a Rocket on me, 6 mags for the AS-50, eight Grenades, and sprint full speed for awhile before it slows down to a jogging speed, and stay that speed for ever, unless i rest. When your fatigued in Arma 2, your aim... You don't have any aim. That's one of the things that get me, in Arma 2, you can't shoot when your exhausted, no one complains. In Arma 3, people flip ridiculously because they can't take a shot when they've almost given there character a stroke from jogging.

Yes, Fatigue can be looked at again, to finalize what it's like in order to reasonably manage it in game. I have hopes this will be done with the Marksman DLC. It's ok now, to be honest, haven't had any issues with it. I rest when i need to, an move smart with the Terrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel it is fine as it is. First off, its not that bad now. do a quick sprint and you have a tiny bit of extra sway for a whole 3 seconds. And secondly it just feels real to me. You run a bit, and you aren't going to be instantly shooting accurately the moment you stop. Like I said that bit of sway lasts like five seconds max. I think it works quite well as is.

It's kinda bad. Running for 100m makes it significantly more difficult to hit targets 100m away. While the base accuracy (when rested and standing) is too high, the difference between fully rested and after jogging 100m is a bit too big.

Not sure if this is a joke, or if this is serious.

I think he's serious, and you should believe it when you see many servers disabling or toning down fatigue, or when you spectate new players in DTAS you see them shooting all over the place not understanding why this is happening and that going prone would quickly fix their issue.

While I don't agree with just disabling it, the current implementation is very user-unfriendly and requires deep knowledge of the system's flaws to properly manage it. This definitely does make people quit (or just disable the feature). You have to use a run-prone-run-prone rotation to maximize the speed from getting from 1 place to another, instead of just switching to "maintained jog mode" (which should be the default) which will already move at a well-balanced pace in terms of speed vs fatigue. Adjusting jog pace based on weight to result in proper pacing while jogging (default movement mode) would be a very nice additional improvement.

Arma 3 is definitely much better than Arma 2 (where the method of dealing with fatigue was similar, but more simple since the system had less non-user-friendly and non-intuitive elements that you must first learn, though it still had those), but there is a long way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's kinda bad. Running for 100m makes it significantly more difficult to hit targets 100m away. While the base accuracy (when rested and standing) is too high, the difference between fully rested and after jogging 100m is a bit too big.

I think he's serious, and you should believe it when you see many servers disabling or toning down fatigue, or when you spectate new players in DTAS you see them shooting all over the place not understanding why this is happening and that going prone would quickly fix their issue.

While I don't agree with just disabling it, the current implementation is very user-unfriendly and requires deep knowledge of the system's flaws to properly manage it. This definitely does make people quit (or just disable the feature). You have to use a run-prone-run-prone rotation to maximize the speed from getting from 1 place to another, instead of just switching to "maintained jog mode" (which should be the default) which will already move at a well-balanced pace in terms of speed vs fatigue. Adjusting jog pace based on weight to result in proper pacing while jogging (default movement mode) would be a very nice additional improvement.

Arma 3 is definitely much better than Arma 2 (where the method of dealing with fatigue was similar, but more simple since the system had less non-user-friendly and non-intuitive elements that you must first learn, though it still had those), but there is a long way to go.

Yeah, good point... Well... I guess we'll see. I mean, there is the Bootcamp. But it seems new players are literally hell bent on skipping straight to multiplayer expecting to do everything without going through the literal basics. They even cover Fatigue in Bootcamp, and shooting. You'd think new comers would use that. Well, i guess it depends, i would go through it if i were new, and the bootcamp were available then, but i've been through the ups and downs since Alpha. Maybe what they should do is have multiplayer locked until they complete bootcamp, in fact, that's a brilliant idea for a Infantry Focused sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
New fatigue tries to simulate what is completely unnecessary in game .

Realistic environment , graphics , sound, how you handle weapon is fine but as goes for stamina it causes lot's of players to suffer and eventually quit the game not because he is one of those "Not your game type" but because of unnecessary psychological pain that game developers causing to the public .

So the conclusion is : if you are arma developer and reading this : you have plenty of bugs and unstable netcode to take care of, go sort it out before you even try to make things to be more realistic , you attempt with stamina and fatigue is like jumping over fence with one leg , you will always fail

Nope most love the stamina.

If people quit because of it then thats on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boot camp teaches you of the existence of stamina. But you'll get the existence of stamina after playing for 1 minute.

Boot camp doesn't teach you how to work around the system's flaws. It doesn't teach you that the optimal way to move around is jogging->prone->jogging rotation, and it doesn't teach you to go prone and rest for a very specific amount of seconds to recover from a run of a specific distance (you need mods to let you know how much you need to rest). It doesn't tell you that resting in stand/crouch is pretty much a complete waste of time, either, since prone is much much faster recovery (though IRL I can't remember the last time I went laid down or crouched to get my breath back after a jog). This knowledge is required for being competitive in a multiplayer environment, or even just fighting the AI. It really shouldn't be - The way you lose and recover stamina should be made more realistic, and as a result also more intuitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boot camp teaches you of the existence of stamina. But you'll get the existence of stamina after playing for 1 minute.

Boot camp doesn't teach you how to work around the system's flaws. It doesn't teach you that the optimal way to move around is jogging->prone->jogging rotation, and it doesn't teach you to go prone and rest for a very specific amount of seconds to recover from a run of a specific distance (you need mods to let you know how much you need to rest). It doesn't tell you that resting in stand/crouch is pretty much a complete waste of time, either, since prone is much much faster recovery (though IRL I can't remember the last time I went laid down or crouched to get my breath back after a jog). This knowledge is required for being competitive in a multiplayer environment, or even just fighting the AI. It really shouldn't be - The way you lose and recover stamina should be made more realistic, and as a result also more intuitive.

Bootcamp also can´t teach you common sense. But then maybe Arma is the wrong game if someone doesn´t have that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to get reamed for this, but here is a fatigue modifier script which is in use on a number of servers. These servers, prior to implementation, used to have Fatigue disabled for clients. So while it is an inefficient and dastardly piece of code, it has brought some people back on board with using fatigue rather than simply disabling.

Part of me wants to say BIS should allow different levels of fatigue simulation (altitude based: Sea Level through to 8000m), while the other part says that that would just increase confusion and would be a bad idea. Regardless, many servers and communities disable fatigue and I believe that is something which could be approached to find a solution which many (more) find agreeable.

In the meantime:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?189278-RELEASE-Modified-Fatigue-System

Edited by MDCCLXXVI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Going to get reamed for this, but here is a fatigue modifier script which is in use on a number of servers. These servers, prior to implementation, used to have Fatigue disabled for clients. So while it is an inefficient and dastardly piece of code, it has brought some people back on board with using fatigue rather than simply disabling.

Ugly scripts like this wouldn't be necessary if we had script commands to modify the parameters of fatigue. I'm honestly still baffled by the fact that we don't have that...

Instead of running ugly loops of setFatigue, why can't we just "unit setFatigueParameters [p1,p2,p3,p4];" I'm sure the system must use at least some parameters internally that could be exposed via the scripting system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bootcamp also can´t teach you common sense. But then maybe Arma is the wrong game if someone doesn´t have that.

This.

I played bootcamp, and I figured that if I ran without stopping, I'd be slower than if I were to actually rest a bit, and continue. That figuring, is more common sense than anything else. It didn't teach me exactly what to do. It taught me the consequences of doing the wrong thing. Therefore, enabling me to find the best solution to getting around efficiently, that doesn't involve infinite physical drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugly scripts like this wouldn't be necessary if we had script commands to modify the parameters of fatigue. I'm honestly still baffled by the fact that we don't have that...

Instead of running ugly loops of setFatigue, why can't we just "unit setFatigueParameters [p1,p2,p3,p4];" I'm sure the system must use at least some parameters internally that could be exposed via the scripting system.

The command setSkill exists which includes the parameter "endurance".

Not sure to what extend you can influence fatigue by means of this; maybe it should be rebalanced to allow for a more extreme effect. Then again, maybe it's too late for that. Still, I don't see the need for a setFatigueParameters command or similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×