Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)

[mahuja 12]

TL;DR:

Stamina CANNOT reach RiE's goals.

The announcement post explicitly stated they were working in a specific direction, which is incompatible with the stated goals.

---------------

To keep my post short(-er), I'm trying to skip what others have said where I'm not adding to it. Keep stamina (new) vs fatigue (old) systems straight as you read.

>is usual in absolute majority of other games.

Great software is sometimes made with

"Take CVS as an example of what not to do; if in doubt, make the exact opposite decision."

I consider arma better than those "other games" - I'm among the supporter 500 - because of the differences. If you systematically eliminate such differences I may as well go for a cod next time. At least they pump huge amounts of money into superficial stuff, and there won't be any deeper stuff to care about.

>Why would the devs completely replace the old system, with a totally new, extremely simplified one, if the old system was already meeting the goals they themselves set? The conclusion one might come to is that their real goal was to simplify/dumb it down all along.

And then you read the announcement post carefully, where they practically state it outright.

However, I think it goes deeper:

Reading RiE's post, I feel RiE still has the right vision for what arma is and should be. Noone seems to disagree with his goals. But I fear that vision is not shared by developers such as those responsible for the stamina system.

>the stamina system rewards tactical use of load, environment and tempo

Please write your setup, methods, and results as a research paper would, so that we can figure out what the hell you're doing to get whatever is "satisfactory" results in this matter. As you can see from the feedback, we're completely unable to reproduce it, and given the lack of a qualifier like "when finished", we should be able to.

>it took several months of prototyping and internal discussions, together with various tests of proofs of concept.

>Stamina = the time how long the sprint button has an effect. [in seconds]

Maximum stamina = (1 - load player) * 60 [in seconds]

Regeneration rate = maxStamina / 45 [seconds / second]

How many man-hours are we talking about again?

More to the point, can I get a promise from a person with the authority, that all of this will be dumped as a failed experiment should it prove to not be suitable for arma (see rie's goals) even when "finished"?

>

A) Encourages players to consider their loadout

B) Asks players to plan their movement

C) Rewards players that make objectively better choices

D) Prohibits players from selecting unrealistic loadouts

E) Is transparent and comprehensible for players

Others have already covered why stamina doesn't meet these requirements, whereas fatigue does. I'm going to take it one step further.

Here's what needs to happen to make stamina meet each goal.

A: Carrying a lot has to impact your ability to move long distances in general (explicitly prohibited*) OR their max run speed, as well as sprint speed, gets gradually lowered as a function of carried load.

B: Moving uphill drains stamina reserves (explicitly prohibited*) or you reduce speed (further) to what it would take not to tire out from moving uphill. For a given additional weight.

The stamina release post was explicit about these factors. This was what made stamina stamina, as opposed to a tweaked fatigue. This means that steep hills (stratis) can only be climbed at a (figurative) crawl, especially with a realistic load.

C: A proper discussion here would need to look at each choice the player is making. Given what's permissible in A and B, the number of choices you can make (e.g. what pace to go uphill vs how likely you are to meet enemies) are already reduced.

Why would you ever walk, except when forced down to that speed? Single-person bounding would work better.

Why would you run upright, given how much more visible that makes you? (Unless you put a hefty, unauthentic, speed penalty on crouched running.)

D: Make A and B factors strong enough; punitively so at the upper end. As a starting guess, I'd say the A-factor at full load should reach 25% of the unloaded max speed. Perhaps with a flat 5% when it exceeds the max. They could probably be curves rather than linear, too.

E: In the inventory, show the factor(A) to max movement speed along with the load% bar. Perhaps add a speedometer for walking, like seen in armory, to reveal how much speed the incline( B) is costing.

While I'm at it, I would suggest another goal: Strengthen, or at least not be detrimental to, the combined arms gameplay that arma does best of all games.

 

the new system has been released to Dev-Branch at an early stage. The team felt that, on balance, publishing the system 'in the wild' was the best route.

I have a suggestion for a better route. Make it your SOP to publish, along with (dev-branch version of) such extensive changes:

A) The full set of reasons you decided to make the change. Preferrably make it clear which ones were factors in why you started working on it in the first place, and which were added later. If they don't hold up to scrutiny, rethink the project.

B) What the goals are; what do you consider a success? (RiE's post has a good example this, but why did it take so long?)

I believe a discussion of these goals, and the current solution's room for conformance, is the best kind of feedback at this early a stage.

C) The current state of what you're publishing. Feel free to use "excessive" detail.

D) The next step, and then further planned steps towards reaching the goal. I suggest making it explicit each time that this is merely the battle plan, and plans rarely survive contact with reality.

E) Detailed comparison of finished feature as expected/envisioned with current equivalents, from mods if none exists in the vanilla game.

F) Other paths that could reach the same goal, but were not chosen. Reasons.

Here's how it has been applied in this situation:

A has been very lacking. Not only that we have been drip-fed the reasons, and even now probably don't have the whole picture (AI reasons are speculation at this point) but the reasons themselves... "respect one of the most fundamental standards" deserves particular mention for brakechuting.

The reasons have not held up to scrutiny, and a rethink of the entire project may be in order. Or give us the full set, so we can see if can stand up then.

B is not just late (RiEs post), but more importantly it set goals that is unreachable for the stamina system. The announcement post set a "mission statement" for the new system which prohibits it from meeting the goals as well as fatigue did. And that's before fatigue is upgraded with script commands and UI.

C... The information was mostly there, in between lots of markefuscation. (He IS a marketer, right?)

The values and exact mechanics of the current release, could have been there already without requiring a user to dig up the details.

(this space intentionally left blank)

E. As C was mostly written as a comparison to current, some of that could apply here - to the extent he was speaking of the finished product rather than current. In other words, he's doing either C or E, and we don't even know which.

F. The alternate this thread has been quite obvious in pointing out is to evolve fatigue with script commands and UI. Against the stated goals, this would probably do as well, if not better.

You have already turned around on the question of having a hud element for the (fatigue/)stamina system, and that decision was fatigue's achilles heel - underlying many to most parts of your reasons for replacing it.

Fix that, and you have a system that will better fullfill the goals stamina is to be measured by, than stamina can do while staying true to its mission statement.

--

It is my sincere belief that upgrading fatigue with the UI and equivalent script commands would leave us far better off, and possibly leave BI with developer time left over for more productive work, compared to continuing with stamina.

m

[old_painless 182]

It was reassuring to read RiE's success criteria for the new Stamina feature. Seems BI want the same as most others, afterall. However, still seems like good development time could have been spent fixing Glaring Problems in stead, such as AI driving and what else is on the absolute top 10 flaw list. Not some subtlety (sp?) like stamina as what was there worked more or less already

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

Funny thought I had, is that a good system is probably a blend of old Fatigue and new Stamina ...

 

Fatigue system = aerobic fatigue ... Controls non-sprint movement

 

Stamina system = anaerobic fatigue ... Controls sprint movement

 

So you'd still be able to put in a sprint, if your life is on the line.

[machineabuse 11]

To bring back the designer's conundrum that was being discussed; I do not believe that was necessarily it as the easiest solution would have simply been to make it easier to turn fatigue off.

[peegee 118]

Can someone clarify me how is fatique changing or is it going to replaced with stamina, or is fatique completely removed??
Theres such a huge backlash of comments about it.

 

English is only my second best language, so what I understood that people rage about:

 

1. Fatique being removed completely. - Is it?
2. New system will cater "arcade" gamers - how and why?

 

Also I  read that new stamina system will change infantry gameplay - Idk how yet. What we've had is we move fast, we get tired and slow down drastically and then we rest.

That means we pace ourselves and avoid the stupid drunken sway. Makes sense to me. So what is about to change? No sprinting at all when carrying too much?

[magnetar 78]

Funny thought I had, is that a good system is probably a blend of old Fatigue and new Stamina ...

 

Fatigue system = aerobic fatigue ... Controls non-sprint movement

 

Stamina system = anaerobic fatigue ... Controls sprint movement

 

So you'd still be able to put in a sprint, if your life is on the line.

 

I totally agree! And if you are out of both aerobic and anaerobic resistance you should start falling to the ground with a black screen effect.

[St. Jimmy 272]

Can someone clarify me how is fatique changing or is it going to replaced with stamina, or is fatique completely removed??

Theres such a huge backlash of comments about it.

 

English is only my second best language, so what I understood that people rage about:

 

1. Fatique being removed completely. - Is it?

2. New system will cater "arcade" gamers - how and why?

 

Also I  read that new stamina system will change infantry gameplay - Idk how yet. What we've had is we move fast, we get tired and slow down drastically and then we rest.

That means we pace ourselves and avoid the stupid drunken sway. Makes sense to me. So what is about to change? No sprinting at all when carrying too much?

You can jog forever no matter how much you carry. Only the amount of time you can sprint is reduced but it gets regenerated even when jogging. Basically it doesn't matter what your stance is (Arma 2 crouch running is back), how much you carry stuff with you, you can run on top of a mountain without getting tired.

Skyrim sprint system and how long you can sprint is affected by the amount of weight you carry. That's it simply.

Fatigue is getting removed and Stamina will replace it.

[Greenfist 1863]

• Substantially increased weapon sway gained from various movements from simple walking, through running (jogging), tactical pace and sprinting
• Decreased maximum load so over-encumbrance occurs sooner
• Changed default equipment of NATO Missile Specialists (AT/AA) so they are not overloaded by default due to decreased maximum load
• Default running (jogging) no longer regenerates stamina
• Movement in tactical pace with weapon up no longer regenerates stamina
• Being in weapon optics no longer prevents stamina regeneration
• Holding breath prevents stamina regeneration

Well, these are some good changes. Especially the massive sway penalty.

 

Now add the terrain effect next. ;)  I.e. jogging a steep slope eats stamina. At a gradual rate from 15 degrees up for example.

 

And currently, you start regenerating stamina if you lose weight, like when dropping a backpack or consuming ammo. Maybe the load should be monitored and if it changes the stamina is adjusted proportionally: 50% of stamina should still be 50% after a weight loss.

[Varanon 892]

Well, these are some good changes. Especially the massive sway penalty.

 

Agreed, glad to see some of the feedback making it back into the game

[Electricleash 133]

Tweaks today looking much better! Thank you for the hard work!

[en3x 209]

I still feel like we are reinventing wheel (Weeks, or months spent on Fatigue system, tweaks and iterations of it)

while all this time put in prototyping stamina and now configuring it could be used for something more productive.

[DancZer 65]

And currently, you start regenerating stamina if you lose weight, like when dropping a backpack or consuming ammo. Maybe the load should be monitored and if it changes the stamina is adjusted proportionally: 50% of maximum stamina is still 50% after weight loss.

 

Agree. It should regenerate slowly up to the available maximum.

 

I think the normal running should eat slowly stamina too. Not all, but some(eg. 25% of the available maximum). That would mean that if somebody constantly running everywhere would have less stamina to use for sprinting.

However if somebody running up to the hill, he should lose all his stamina slowly. This time the speed of consumption should depend on the climbing rate.

[supercereal4 29]

Well, these are some good changes. Especially the massive sway penalty.

 

Now add the terrain effect next. ;)  I.e. jogging a steep slope eats stamina. At a gradual rate from 15 degrees up for example.

 

And currently, you start regenerating stamina if you lose weight, like when dropping a backpack or consuming ammo. Maybe the load should be monitored and if it changes the stamina is adjusted proportionally: 50% of maximum stamina is still 50% after weight loss.

I still feel like they're trying to re-do what the fatigue system did better, but now with less features like you mentioned. I just really want my slowed down animations and passive stamina loss from jogging :(

[domokun 515]

Going off that- the old system addressed 4 of RiE's points perfectly

 

• Encourages players to consider their loadout
• Asks players to plan their movement
• Rewards players that make objectively better choices
• Prohibits players from selecting unrealistic loadouts

 

So I don't see what advantages this system has over the old in achieving these goals.

 

 

On another note, one of the most innovated features of the old fatigue system that I found to be the most realistic and unappreciated was the slowdown of animations when you're fatigued. To my understanding this is gone now? That would be a shame. Especially to people who are used to doing this sort of stuff IRL. In fact, I'm sure anyone can relate to that feature. We've all seen ourselves start to slow down after continuous vigorous activity. I thought that feature was one of the most realistic features in any game I've played-- truly innovative.

While I agree that it is innovative, PayDay 2 already had this implemented a while back. That said, the tension that it triggers is amazing. I really applaud its inclusion. As someone who's had to carry heavy loads whilst running, including fellow soldiers, there's nothing worse than knowing that you're gradually slowing down. So please ditch this half-baked stamina system and bring back the fatigue one. At the very least, please give us a choice of arcade/realistic. We understand that the fatigue mechanic wasn't introduced very nicely (but what feature is implemented perfect first time eh?), so give us a visual indicator on load (inventory?) + a fatigue bar and I'm sure the kids will learn to love it again :D

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

Agree. It should regenerate slowly up to the available maximum.

 

I think the normal running should eat slowly stamina too. Not all, but some(eg. 25% of the available maximum). That would mean that if somebody constantly running everywhere would have less stamina to use for sprinting.

However if somebody running up to the hill, he should lose all his stamina slowly. This time the speed of consumption should depend on the climbing rate.

 

The main mechanical gripe about the Fatigue system is that running up a hill rendered you incapable of putting in a 5 meter sprint to cover when you start taking fire. Its one thing to not be realistic, its another thing when it invariably gets you killed.

 

Its ex post facto now, but VBS 3 appeared to have a mature fatigue implementation, which did factor both aerobic and anaerobic resistances.

 

addToAerobicFatigue

addToAnaerobicFatigue

addToFatigue

addToFatigueDutyBias

getAerobicFatigue

getAnaerobicFatigue

getFatigue

getFatigueAffectsSpeed

getFatigueDutyBias

getFatigueMultiplier

getFatigueRecoveryRate

getFatigueScaling

resetFatigue

setFatigueAffectsSpeed

setFatigueMultiplier

setFatigueRecoveryRate

setFatigueScaling

[CaptainObvious 95]

I think walking should not introduce such a drastic sway, if any to be honest, that's when you stop walking of course, not when walking.

[arkhir 135]

I think many issues would be solved by a difficulty setting for stamina/fatigue, but since they decided not to introduce it they must have thought of something else.

 

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=23872

[twisted 127]

Well, these are some good changes. Especially the massive sway penalty.

 

Now add the terrain effect next. ;)  I.e. jogging a steep slope eats stamina. At a gradual rate from 15 degrees up for example.

 

And currently, you start regenerating stamina if you lose weight, like when dropping a backpack or consuming ammo. Maybe the load should be monitored and if it changes the stamina is adjusted proportionally: 50% of stamina should still be 50% after a weight loss.

 

 

agree.

 

on the subject of fatigue/stamina.

 

I much prefer where you are now taking it. demands more tactical consideration. great to see.

 

just one thing - crouch sprinting is 1) too fast and 2) should consume stamina faster than normal running due to how hard it is to do. otherwise there;s very little reason ot to run like that all the time and enjoy the benefits of a small silhouette for only a 1km/h difference. it should rather be used for sprinting between buildings, etc.

 

i like the settling effect after moving.v nice.

[machineabuse 11]

• Being in weapon optics no longer prevents stamina regeneration

Thanks BI guys! The system still needs work but this at least is a massive help!

[R3vo 2652]

Today's update was definitely a step in the right direction, it feels way better now, and I can actually imagine where this is going. Still, I feel like the weight of the loadout should have a greater impact the heavier it becomes. Loadouts like backpack + Ghillie Suit + Launcher and heavy weapons are still possible, and unfortunately even playable. In my opinion, sprinting should  disabled sooner.

 

On the other hand, I feel like the increased sway feels unnatural and adds alot of frustation to the game, but that's probably because sway is unrealistic anyway, in reality it's more shaking instead of swaying. Best example for that is photography, you won't sway with a camera, even a heavy one, but you will shake.

 

Keep the updates comin' !

[CaptainObvious 95]

Been playing quite a lot this evening, today's tweaks are indeed going to the right direction, that's nice to see.

Few thoughts; going uphill should consume stamina depending on how steep the incline is, currently it's silly to run on top of a hill regardless of the gear, it's hard even without any gear IRL.

Rolling doesn't stop stamina regeneration, I feel it should even consume it depending on the loadout.

Sway is definitely a thing to take into account now, I feel it's even a tad too much, smallest of movements result in increased sway at all speeds, I think walking should be free of it altogether depending on your stamina.

Keep the tweaks coming!

[ppitm 43]

So are we going to see A3's animation slowdowns come back at all? Those were the most marvellous feature. Take out the gasping sounds and weapon sway; I don't really care. They were impossible to balance and make immersive. But the progressively sluggish movement -- that's the whole ballgame.

[five_seven5-7 56]

Run speed looks the same regardless the loadout;

long time in the red status bar should bring some kind of penalty to the player to stop and regenerate stamina;

heavy loadouts should decrease player movement and rotation;

weight/loadout bar its poorly distributed, clothes and only a pistol it shouldnt occupy almost 1/4 bar;

regeneration should be higher with the weapon lowered then raised (static muscle fatigue) or let the player decide to remove some items in order to increase stamina regenaration and then put them on again.

Optic view should consume stamina (muscle fatigue) on stand up position a little bid less on crouch and none on prone.

 

This feedback is in line with the end goal of royaltyinexile

[St. Jimmy 272]

Maybe introduce animation slow downs different way this time. The more you carry, the slower animations. So 100% loaded player moves like 100% fatigued in the old system, just for example. I also liked the slow down feature but some people disagree heavily. That way the weight should matter a lot again. Then the only problem is the environmental penalties like moving uphill because they don't exist.

[dsi24 12]

Funny thought I had, is that a good system is probably a blend of old Fatigue and new Stamina ...

 

Fatigue system = aerobic fatigue ... Controls non-sprint movement

 

Stamina system = anaerobic fatigue ... Controls sprint movement

 

So you'd still be able to put in a sprint, if your life is on the line.

 

I have to say I hope this idea doesn't fall to the wayside in this thread. It's interesting how not having realistic fatigue/stamina has resulted in so many problems over the years, to the point where many people remove it entirely (or at least, effectively remove it), and how introducing a realistic system would add so much.