Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)

[h - 169]

I'd like to see a set/getFatigueDiv command, or expand the enableFatigue[/] to use a scalar between 0-1 (in addition to the current boolean) which would basically set a divider to the accumulating fatigue (as in you would get fatigued slower) so that mission makers would have a wider range of tools to customize fatigue.

Also, add enabledFatigue command for returning the enableFatigue state (every single set should have get if in any way feasible)..

I like the fatigue feature (and won't disable it in my missions) but it becomes nuisance when you constantly have to stop and wait for your AI's to catch up as they don't know how to manage fatigue properly (I'm SP guy so talking about SP here) and in certain types of missions that require a lot of crawling which is really annoying due to the current fatigue system.

Would be nicer than having to do scripts or fsm to deal with this..

Of course this is all moot if the reworking changes things drastically....

Edited July 7, 2015 by h -

[twisted 127]

The problem isn't the lightly-equipped soldiers complaining about fatigue Quik, it's the Arnie wannabes toting around their MMG + Titan + Carryall + Grenadier vest stuffed to the brim with rockets and ammo who complain about why they cannot run any further than 200m before bitching about how they're slow.

Personally I love the vanilla fatigue system and feel it brings great tactical decision making to the individual level regarding loadouts however as you said the lack of an obvious in-your-face GUI element to reveal to those who aren't the brightest candle on the cake that perhaps their 1-man army loadout isn't the wisest decision.

this. and the panting and slowing down is a pretty intuitive and accurate indicator of fatigue as is.

I'd like to see a set/getFatigueDiv command, or expand the enableFatigue[/] to use a scalar between 0-1 (in addition to the current boolean) which would basically set a divider to the accumulating fatigue (as in you would get fatigued slower) so that mission makers would have a wider range of tools to customize fatigue.

Also, add enabledFatigue command for returning the enableFatigue state (every single set should have get if in any way feasible)..

.

nice idea, i thought there was something like this but i must be mistaken.

[Defunkt 431]

I'd like to see a set/getFatigueDiv command, or expand the enableFatigue[/] to use a scalar between 0-1 (in addition to the current boolean) which would basically set a divider to the accumulating fatigue (as in you would get fatigued slower) so that mission makers would have a wider range of tools to customize fatigue.

Don't think it should be up to the mission maker to decide player endurance, ultimately it's a playstyle choice which should be controlled by difficulty settings (i.e. the server-op in MP - the player in SP). In practice it would just lead to groups having to edit the mission so that it suits their standard settings before they can play it. It might be appropriate to have a multiplier which scales AI endurance relative to that of the players such that the mission maker can tweak the AI's ability to maintain the style of movement that the scenario requires.

[Variable 322]

Don't think it should be up to the mission maker to decide player endurance, ultimately it's a playstyle choice which should be controlled by difficulty settings (i.e. the server-op in MP - the player in SP). In practice it would just lead to groups having to edit the mission so that it suits their standard settings before they can play it. It might be appropriate to have a multiplier which scales AI endurance relative to that of the players such that the mission maker can tweak the AI's ability to maintain the style of movement that the scenario requires.

Exactly. Some things should remain fixed. It would be a nightmare for many types of players if they would have to re-adjust to new fatigue values in each and every mission they play.

Also - please don't tone down the fatigue, keep it a meaningful aspect of the game. Remember that having a meaningful fatigue helps keeping the ammo bearers a meaningful addition in coop and single play modes, it helps the game to feel real, it helps the player feel he is playing a human representation and not just a virtual entity.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Yeah, I don't get it either. Indicators of fatigue are plenty and rather obvious (i.e. nicely done).

That's another thing. IMHO it would be cool if - at least the more advanced HUD features - only would be available with special goggles/helmets. Otherwise you need to "physically" look at some gadget (like a map or other objects, e.g. the weapon itself for zeroing and such stuff) - similar to how the action menu should finally get rid of so many actions in favor of having to push actual buttons (e.g. in the interior of vehicles).

I mean, come on! It's the future! :cool:

Give those damn goggles an actual purpose already; some just for sun protection, others with pip and tricks and all kind of fancy overlays. And then you probably also have tradeoffs (nightvision vs. goggle with overlay, or different overlays/information with different goggles and such stuff) which is always a fun factor (and then make it so that such equipment can take damage and fail, bwahaha).

Oh well... maybe for the next iteration of the game?

:rolleyes:

bingo!!! Bohemia Interactive, brilliant idea. Use real character gadgets as an indicator. For example, a life band? Just add a fatigue bar integrated into the watch, simple. So if someone is walking like a snail, can't aim, is breathing heavily, and has a throbbing screen, they can pull up their watch to see if their symptoms are everything else but fatigue! =P

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

bingo!!! Bohemia Interactive, brilliant idea. Use real character gadgets as an indicator. For example, a life band? Just add a fatigue bar integrated into the watch, simple. So if someone is walking like a snail, can't aim, is breathing heavily, and has a throbbing screen, they can pull up their watch to see if their symptoms are everything else but fatigue! =P

Slight piss takes but all actually good ideas. Considering the year /setting.

---------- Post added at 12:42 ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 ----------

Plus then I have a visual cue to see who is a Noob.

[inlesco 233]

Regarding fatigue, IMO, full/medium/some partial fatigue recovery should be calculated proportionally to the number of times 'a unit' has already engaged in combat + fully ran out of stamina + suffered from others impacts/sources of trauma.

Because realistically once you get dehydrated, so to say, it's even harder to recover the second time you run out of stamina.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Depending on the situation, it's actually very punishing to maintain stamina in combat. In real life too, in fact. Having watched a handful of combat videos, it's more minor position changes here and there unless they're falling back. In fact, last night was the first time I played Arma 3 seriously in about a year. I forgot how punishing it is, and how much teamwork and coordination is required to survive.

[Alwarren 2765]

- Load should have a greater effect on movement speed (not only endurance).

I wish there was a way to have different animations instead of running the same animation slowed down. I fully agree with the points you raised, it would be nice if these were addressed, and yeah, going prone to recover looks a tad ridiculous :)

[bad benson 1733]

I wish there was a way to have different animations instead of running the same animation slowed down. I fully agree with the points you raised, it would be nice if these were addressed, and yeah, going prone to recover looks a tad ridiculous :)

agreed.

especially for heavy loads i personally would love to have 3 (or whatever) anims that get blended seamlessly so you'd slow down instead of getting exhausted and then having to stop constantly. in short. heavy load should mean slow movement and not fast exhaustion due to forced fast movement. sprinting however should exhaust you faster with heavier load obviously. that would be more realistic and feel less frustrating. win win.

it seems a little backwards to me to either have to move super slow (basically fixed walk speed) or being forced to hit exhaustion theshholds and then having to recover all the time when you carry a heavy weapon.

creates those silly cyclic play styles like "run...prone...run...prone". let's be honest, it's most effective. you get there fast and you restore steady aim fast.

pacing is overall not detailed/dynamic enough as a mechanic imho. someone made a suggestion of an additional factor of how long you've been in "exhausted mode" to apply to recovery. that's the kind of things that could make it much more believeable and feel less like a simple ACE like punishment thing. talking about arma 2 ace passing out stuff.

i think it's too easy to just resort to realistic/hardcore vs casual/arcade. if you really analyse how the game handles it you can find a lot of unrealistic things, which to me personally atleast are the most frustrating parts. immersion killers. tweaking it doesn't automatically mean making it less realistic.

as for the indication "issue". i think the thought behind a HUD bar is managing the fatigue so you don't have to wait for the effects, which turn up when you are already negatively impacted by it. it's all about managing very precisely so then you could much like in real life, where you do this when jogging for example, keep a pace that keeps you exactly at a state that you can handle long term.

if you play arma 3 longer you will automatically train yourself to memorize the time it takes in this particular game to get to that point. so you will train yourself something you should already know. that's the same as having an indication to start with except you are just compensating the lack of it and trading off info that would make total sense to have from several perspectives.

it makes sense to be conscious about the exact state of your fatigue most of the time unless you are super exhausted. a fatigue bar is not something i'm passionate about but i felt this point was kind of overlooked. i'd personally love the thing to be integrated into the watch. not the most "realistic" solution but sure interesting. everyone loves gadgets and items that have a purpose in games, right? to me such things automatically increase immersion. i suggested that before but the fatigue bar crowd didn't like it that much ;)

[Alwarren 2765]

agreed.

especially for heavy loads i personally would love to have 3 (or whatever) anims that get blended seamlessly so you'd slow down instead of getting exhausted and then having to stop constantly. in short. heavy load should mean slow movement and not fast exhaustion due to forced fast movement. sprinting however should exhaust you faster with heavier load obviously. that would be more realistic and feel less frustrating. win win.

it seems a little backwards to me to either have to move super slow (basically fixed walk speed) or being forced to hit exhaustion theshholds and then having to recover all the time when you carry a heavy weapon.

creates those silly cyclic play styles like "run...prone...run...prone". let's be honest, it's most effective. you get there fast and you restore steady aim fast.

In general, I feel that for an infantry-centric game, infantry movement could use some upgrading.

For example, inertia. Changing direction, stopping, it's all instantaneous. Weight does also not factor into rotation speed. Making a loadout that is tailored for CQB doesn't really pay off, since neither is the weapon inertia pronounced enough, nor is there any penalty for heavy equipment. While not having any loadout, Assassin's Creed did a good job at that (see for example

).

Animation speed is another issue. I think that some of the animations (especially the transition from prone to high prone) are too fast. I understand this is to overcome some limitations of the engine (non-breakable anim states), but it looks silly how fast the character can swing his legs around (dislocated hip, anyone :))

And there's that dratted bug were you lower your weapon and keep on running in spite of having stopped already.

I really think that the Infantry movement should get some love in the game.

[NeMeSiS 11]

For example, inertia. Changing direction, stopping, it's all instantaneous. Weight does also not factor into rotation speed. Making a loadout that is tailored for CQB doesn't really pay off, since neither is the weapon inertia pronounced enough, nor is there any penalty for heavy equipment. While not having any loadout, Assassin's Creed did a good job at that (see for example

).

Have you tried walking trough a doorway in AC (or GTA, or The Witcher, or any similar game)? You end up moving in circles and slamming into the side of the wall. It's fine for a 3rd person action game, but for a (mostly) first person shooter? It's like controlling a drunk character.

EDIT: Also, the 'pvp mp' crowd will probably murder you for that suggestion. :p

[Alwarren 2765]

Have you tried walking trough a doorway in AC (or GTA, or The Witcher, or any similar game)? You end up moving in circles and slamming into the side of the wall. It's fine for a 3rd person action game, but for a (mostly) first person shooter? It's like controlling a drunk character.

Not saying it is a perfect solution, but better than Tron-like movement.

EDIT: Also, the 'pvp mp' crowd will probably murder you for that suggestion. :p

It depends on whether the pvp mp crowd are simulation- or game-minded. There's plenty of people, I think, that like things realistic as opposed to gamey.

The preferable solution to all of it would be to make the degree of simulation features a server-side setting. Want more weapon inertia? Up a slider. Want less fatigue? lower this setting. The problem right now is that everybody is forced into the same system, which, as you point out yourself, doesn't suit every play style. For a game like Arma, that's an issue.

EDIT: I mean, try imagining to propose a simple flight model in DCS. I am quite sure there's going to be murder too.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Not saying it is a perfect solution, but better than Tron-like movement.

Well, i do prefer the somewhat more clunky and slow movement of older games (which didnt have inertia as a feature), but i really doubt that inertia is a good solution, i think it will most likely end up feeling like some sort of input lag.

EDIT: Example: When i want to move to the corner of a building in real life, i do not have to consciously think about when i have to start slowing down to get where i want to go. If you would introduce it to ArmA stopping at the corner of a building (which is clumsy enough as it is if you want to carefully look around the corner) you would have to be constantly aware that your character is going to end up 'somewhere over there' when you stop pressing forward.

EDIT53523: I just cannot make sentences anymore.

Edited July 7, 2015 by NeMeSiS

[bad benson 1733]

Have you tried walking trough a doorway in AC (or GTA, or The Witcher, or any similar game)? You end up moving in circles and slamming into the side of the wall. It's fine for a 3rd person action game, but for a (mostly) first person shooter? It's like controlling a drunk character.

EDIT: Also, the 'pvp mp' crowd will probably murder you for that suggestion. :p

i generally agree on that. it just doesn't work like that in 1st person and it also depends a lot on the target gameplay. arma is a shooter. yes there is optional 3rd person and all that but the focus is navigation with your weapon up in 1st person and i wish it was even closer to other shooters in terms of smoothness and responsiveness, getting there though. and i honestly think collision and its results are a far bigger problem in CQB for example.

BUT.

i think inertia and momentum can have their place in arma too. sprinting. i would totally be fine with having sprinting be a different deal than normal running. you can't shoot anyways and fatigue how it is now limits it severely anyways. so having physics based limits to it would be cool.

i really hope BIS will consider loosening the tie between fatigue and load and instead introduce slower movement speed caused by load and overall focus fatigue more on sprinting and other heavy duty movements.

it shouldn't be just about "carry x kg of gear and see how far you can sprint". at a certain load you shouldn't be sprinting at all. and not because one step pushed up your fatigue value super fast and now you also can't aim for shit. you should get an instant overall speed decrease. it's such a simple thing that many RPGs do and it makes a lot of sense imho.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

And there's that dratted bug were you lower your weapon and keep on running in spite of having stopped already.

Drives me mental!

All BI need to do to help educate people when they're playing the game in Bootcamp is have a section where the player can see all the various movement types and the associated fatigue penalties. Then they have to make it blindingly obvious[/i] how it works. I'm aware that this already exists in the VR room but because movement is so fundamental to the game it really needs to be shoved right into the players face how it works.

For example; the amount of players I talk to who are not aware that lowering your rifle significantly reduces stamina loss is shocking.

[h - 169]

Some things should remain fixed. It would be a nightmare for many types of players if they would have to re-adjust to new fatigue values in each and every mission they play.

Slightly bad argument though, I mean you can adjust the amount of ammo, the amount of damage, the amount of fuel, the amount of armor etc. and have to adjust to that as well on case by case basis ;)

Besides, what's there to adjust to if you get fatigued slower and don't have to lay around that much.

Also, you can already disable the fatigue complete, so..

If worried about MP, make the command SP only then.

Either way, just some though-play is all, I don't have high hopes for BIS implementing new scripting commands (I mean why would they, probably have better things to do).

[R3vo 2652]

Slightly bad argument though, I mean you can adjust the amount of ammo, the amount of damage, the amount of fuel, the amount of armor etc. and have to adjust to that as well on case by case basis ;)

Besides, what's there to adjust to if you get fatigued slower and don't have to lay around that much.

Also, you can already disable the fatigue complete, so..

If worried about MP, make the command SP only then.

Either way, just some though-play is all, I don't have high hopes for BIS implementing new scripting commands (I mean why would they, probably have better things to do).

Just want to remind you that they have released alot of new commands lately. Therefor it's not very unlikely that they are going to create new ones for fatigue.

[bad benson 1733]

Just want to remind you that they have released alot of new commands lately. Therefor it's not very unlikely that they are going to create new ones for fatigue.

he's got a point though in that they, understandably, mostly or probably almost exclusively add what they need themselves. i'd love to see a more detailed command too. disabling fatigue entirely just disables too much of the whole game which turns it into something even less complex than arma 2. no aim shake at all, no sprint restriction at all.

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

The problem isn't the lightly-equipped soldiers complaining about fatigue Quik, it's the Arnie wannabes toting around their MMG + Titan + Carryall + Grenadier vest stuffed to the brim with rockets and ammo who complain about why they cannot run any further than 200m before bitching about how they're slow.

Personally I love the vanilla fatigue system and feel it brings great tactical decision making to the individual level regarding loadouts however as you said the lack of an obvious in-your-face GUI element to reveal to those who aren't the brightest candle on the cake that perhaps their 1-man army loadout isn't the wisest decision.

Indeed.

I am on the same page and do not even use that fatigue modifier :) It was designed to nudge communities to use at least some fatigue rather than switching it off as most do.

Players and members of communities get grumpy when their one-man-army loadout no longer is as useful, and the reality is they can go elsewhere, and servers require members for donations in order to stay active. And so some things are done to prevent rioting/exodus, among them is 'norming' fatigue to how most other servers have it.

Some sort of GUI element is handy and allows players to not be 'beaten' by the fatigue mechanic so easily. As you say most don't understand it. We have to remember A3 already has a high learning curve for beginners. Most players have <100 hrs under their belts still. I know BIS is aware of this, and I know while we here can whisper in their ears, they are also sensitive to how things affect beginners and the majority of the peopel who purchase the game who have under 100hrs.

Bottom line for me is, if introducing some sort of fatigue indicator (prior to being fatigued) gets more people on board with actually using it, I can't see how its a bad idea. Should it be default? No. But if 20% more servers use fatigue as a result, then thats a win for realism IMO.

IRL no one willingly waits for heavy gasping/breathing and combat-ineffective aim sway before slowing their pace down or stopping for a rest. They do it beforehand, because the body has a built in indicator. We don't have that for our ingame avatar by default.

Edited July 8, 2015 by MDCCLXXVI

[Jona33 51]

In fairness a fatigue coefficient command would be lovely, I wrote a bit of code to multiply your fatigue (by anything from 0 to whatever you want), but it requires a fairly frequent loop, running that for multiple units is a pain in the arse. My current solution for a mission that requires quite a long run is to turn of the AI fatigue affects for your friendlies, then make the player experience fatigue at around 50%, that way the player can keep up with the AI but still feel some of the fatigue effects. Having a performance friendly fatigue modifier would be nice.

[R3vo 2652]

Something like:

setFatigueMultiplier: Increases/decreases the fatigue intensity

disableFatigue [true,true]: Disables fatigue for AI and or player.

Of course also the corresponding get commands for both values.

[Varanon 892]

he's got a point though in that they, understandably, mostly or probably almost exclusively add what they need themselves. i'd love to see a more detailed command too. disabling fatigue entirely just disables too much of the whole game which turns it into something even less complex than arma 2. no aim shake at all, no sprint restriction at all.

Easiest solution would probably be a command that can give a factor between 0 and some number, say, 2, with the number being a factor by which the fatigue would be scaled. So to disable, set it to 0, to make it 50 %, set it to 0.5, and to exaggerate it, set it to 2

---------- Post added at 10:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 AM ----------

disableFatigue [true,true]: Disables fatigue for AI and or player..

That would be setFatigueMultiplier 0;

[domokun 515]

I wish there was a way to have different animations instead of running the same animation slowed down. I fully agree with the points you raised, it would be nice if these were addressed, and yeah, going prone to recover looks a tad ridiculous :)

I totally agree. In real-life knowing one's limits is a skill in itself. How many times have I thought I can't take any more, only to realise that my legs can carry me a few more miles. But after a while you begin to recognise those little cues (parched mouth, wobbly knees, eyes stinging from sweat, etc.). Since Arma can't model these, subtle visual and audible cues (e.g. breathing quickening < breathing growing louder < colour draining from screen < screen edges darkening < brief by gradual black-outs) should gradually increase to indicate that your character's stamina is reaching dangerously low levels, not to mention trembling hands. Perhapsthe best example of this and the importance of recovery are bi-athletes. Obviously they're an extreme compared to your average infantryman but its probably one of the few disciplines where we can easily witness the effects of heavy physical exercise on a individual's ability to coordinate and shoot. Also I think that a player's fatigue should be externally visible. I mean how many times have you been out running, hiking or on a forced march and realised that one of your friends/comrades is beginning weaken? Typically they stop speaking, then their shoulders sag, they lean forward, sometimes they even stagger. I realise that this requires far more development than simply slowing down the animations but I think that it would really help players better appreciate the fatigue around them. Plus it would be that within a squad, it would be easier to spot signs of increasing fatigue. That said, simply slowing down characters animations isn't THAT bad. That's how it works in PayDay 2 and seems to work fairly well, i.e. heisters carrying heavy loads (money bags, body bags, heavy weapons/equipment), simply run slower than others.

Easiest solution would probably be a command that can give a factor between 0 and some number, say, 2, with the number being a factor by which the fatigue would be scaled. So to disable, set it to 0, to make it 50 %, set it to 0.5, and to exaggerate it, set it to 2

Great idea.

Edited July 10, 2015 by domokun

[bad benson 1733]

That's how it works in PayDay 2 and it works fairly well, i.e. heisters carrying heavy loads (money bags, body bags, heavy weapons/equipment), simply run slower than others.

yes that is what i meant before. not slowing down but being slower by default.