Shaky hands & blurred vision

[celery 8]

Insurgency suppression.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zOzyuOEyWY&fmt=18

Looks very annoying.

[POTS 0]

I have a feeling a lot of people here might be visualizing it way to extreme. And if it is, let it be known to BIS that it be served in a very small portion.

[max power 21]

Insurgency suppression.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zOzyuOEyWY&fmt=18

Looks very annoying.

+1

I am looking forward to seeing this feature, though.

[mr.g-c 6]

Proper made it can be very good and immersive experience.

But it should be able to disable it.

[zinc 0]

Insurgency suppression.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zOzyuOEyWY&fmt=18

Thanks for posting that link. Well, I hope the developers aren't sticking that sort of rubbish in Arma 2, because that's the 'corner cutting' I was worried about and belongs in a third rate game. Naff at best.

[Second 0]

Insurgency suppression.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zOzyuOEyWY&fmt=18

I don't see suppression or fear reactions to near misses. I just see blur and trip after getting hit. I could be wrong thou.

Brothers in Arms forexample throws various effects (like mud, grass or splash of air?!?!?! ) to screen and possibly character said something like "ouch!" to make clear to player that it was close. I'd be interested in something like that.

Well interesting to see how BIS does it... And how fast someone mods it to more pleasing

[Jensen1 0]

I Second that, no pun intended

[sparks50 0]

Basically, your screen becomes unclear a nano second, and the very loud noise of a bullet impacting or passing right by you can be heard. I have not met anyone who has played it and commented it as being annoying, so how someone can say that after watching a clip is beyond me.

[NoRailgunner 0]

I must say most game developers go too far with this blurred vision and shaking hands/heads. Many times its like seeing all those splashes, muds, scratches etc through a camera lense not with real human eyes. Imho it should be an optional effect.

[Second 0]

Basically, your screen becomes unclear a nano second, and the very loud noise of a bullet impacting or passing right by you can be heard. I have not met anyone who has played it and commented it as being annoying, so how someone can say that after watching a clip is beyond me.

Okay. That sounds already totally different than what video showed. Sounds good.

[ahmedjbh 0]

Well for those who havent played PR and the suppression system, yet comment on it, shame on you.

I have played it and before they introduced it suppression fire was pointless, as it didnt suppress anything.

Now if a machine gun lays down covering fire, it actually works. The game plays really well and is popular. Arma 2 could learn a lot from PR.

[Jensen1 0]

Well for those who havent played PR and the suppression system, yet comment on it, shame on you.

I have played it and before they introduced it suppression fire was pointless, as it didnt suppress anything.

Now if a machine gun lays down covering fire, it actually works. The game plays really well and is popular. Arma 2 could learn a lot from PR.

Exactly! I mean that's just it, no one is suppressed when it has no effect on you.

IE: in a game are you actually truly afraid of getting shot? No, which causes you to act differently than you would in war.

So to counter the lack of fear in a game from being essentially "shot" they add the effect that they have described!

[celery 8]

Are there any airsoft or laser tag people in here? I've tried the latter quite a few times and never got a blurred vision or a suppressed panic reaction when shots came close to me and believe me, that game involves a lot of adrenaline.

When someone's shooting at you with a real gun, the only hints of near misses you get are bullets whizzing by you or landing just next to you and when you actually get hit, you may not even notice it until you die or start bleeding. What you do under fire depends on you both in RL and in a game. If your nerves aren't very good, you probably curl up and call for mommy but that doesn't mean that professional soldiers wouldn't know better.

Good sounds can do the same thing better. I also wonder what's the point in suppressing fire anyway. If you see an enemy, you take aim and shoot to kill which is all the more effective if you have a machine gun. You can suppress them however by shooting at a corner you know they're behind so they'll think twice about peeking. Thinking that missing your target makes him immobile is overestimating the psychological side of combat.

[mr.g-c 6]

Are there any airsoft or laser tag people in here? I've tried the latter quite a few times and never got a blurred vision or a suppressed panic reaction when shots came close to me and believe me, that game involves a lot of adrenaline.

When someone's shooting at you with a real gun, the only hints of near misses you get are bullets whizzing by you or landing just next to you and when you actually get hit, you may not even notice it until you die or start bleeding. What you do under fire depends on you both in RL and in a game. If your nerves aren't very good, you probably curl up and call for mommy but that doesn't mean that professional soldiers wouldn't know better.

Good sounds can do the same thing better. I also wonder what's the point in suppressing fire anyway. If you see an enemy, you take aim and shoot to kill which is all the more effective if you have a machine gun. You can suppress them however by shooting at a corner you know they're behind so they'll think twice about peeking. Thinking that missing your target makes him immobile is overestimating the psychological side of combat.

Hi,

1. the hints of near misses are no "whizzing"m but rather very loud suopersonic cracks which really keeps you down.

Clap your hands as loud as you can, then multiply the loudness and annoyance time 3 or times 5 and imagine that 1 meter above you head, multiple times.

It keeps you down.

2. Point of suppression? Are you serious?

In modern combat i think everything is about conquering parts of land and you don't need to kill anyone for that.

Just suppress the enemy until a point they think that they have no chance and retreat/flee.

Like in football where you conquer yards for yards.

I saw recently some Afghanistan Videos from some British Grenadiers and they fought for over 9 hours without major breaks and at the end not anyone was killed by gunfire.

It was rather that each side SUPPRESSED the other side.

Sounds strange but it appeared to be like in a game - one hour the British troops suppressed the Talibans more and the Talibans retreated a a mile or more, then a few hours later Taliban suppressed the British guys very strongly and so they had to retreat/hide in abandoned houses.

[4 IN 1 0]

the sound is more like a very very loud, short whizzing that came very shortly after the very very loud supersonic crack mixed together, in ARMA its simply volume tuned down version of it, also the real thing sound more solid then what we have in ARMA now

and trust me, that sound really jumps you

AND PLEASE, DO NOT compare airsoft or laser tag or any games to the real thing

[celery 8]

Hi,

1. the hints of near misses are no "whizzing"m but rather very loud suopersonic cracks which really keeps you down.

Clap your hands as loud as you can, then multiply the loudness and annoyance time 3 or times 5 and imagine that 1 meter above you head, multiple times.

It keeps you down.

Hearing it hundreds of times over and over again makes it a bit old. Ask anyone who's been at a firing range more than a couple of times.

2. Point of suppression? Are you serious?

In modern combat i think everything is about conquering parts of land and you don't need to kill anyone for that.

Just suppress the enemy until a point they think that they have no chance and retreat/flee.

Like in football where you conquer yards for yards.

I saw recently some Afghanistan Videos from some British Grenadiers and they fought for over 9 hours without major breaks and at the end not anyone was killed by gunfire.

It was rather that each side SUPPRESSED the other side.

Sounds strange but it appeared to be like in a game - one hour the British troops suppressed the Talibans more and the Talibans retreated a a mile or more, then a few hours later Taliban suppressed the British guys very strongly and so they had to retreat/hide in abandoned houses.

I'm talking about the game. There simply isn't such a scenario where leaving your enemy alive in a fight is better than killing him, much less in PvP where all enemies are intelligent and deadly.

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]Hearing it hundreds of times over and over again makes it a bit old. Ask anyone who's been at a firing range more than a couple of times.

At firing ranges people fire at each other or over each other?

I can only tell you what German Bundeswehr Soldiers told me which were in Afghanistan and were in ambush situations.

It starts to get down to a "whizzing" as soon as it goes below supersonic speed, but above its a very loud crack.

Quote[/b] ]I'm talking about the game. There simply isn't such a scenario where leaving your enemy alive in a fight is better than killing him, much less in PvP where all enemies are intelligent and deadly.

I partially agree, but i think its like always up the the mission-maker if the goals are kill or conquer/suppress.

I could imagine 100 of great SP/MP coop missions where you could suppress the enemy to the point that he retreats.

[4 IN 1 0]

DO NOT ask someone who only been behind of the lines of fire

ask someone who were "lucky" enought to been within the lines of fire and walkout alive to tell the storys

notice too that all of this depend on the distance between the passing through bullets and the listener as the wave energy decrease over distance

infact its much more easy to understand with some basic physics knowledge

[paragraphic l 2]

Quote[/b] ]I'm talking about the game. There simply isn't such a scenario where leaving your enemy alive in a fight is better than killing him, much less in PvP where all enemies are intelligent and deadly.

I partially agree, but i think its like always up the the mission-maker if the goals are kill or conquer/suppress.

I could imagine 100 of great SP/MP coop missions where you could suppress the enemy to the point that he retreats.

We might need some new mission goals to put suppression to use, so instead of CTF it should be Conquer the flag Area (CTFA) or something like that. But offcourse this would rather keep PvP gamers away than attract them I guess.

[Second 0]

I'm talking about the game. There simply isn't such a scenario where leaving your enemy alive in a fight is better than killing him, much less in PvP where all enemies are intelligent and deadly.

Well yes. That just tells how badly deformed current MP is.

[mr.g-c 6]

I'm talking about the game. There simply isn't such a scenario where leaving your enemy alive in a fight is better than killing him, much less in PvP where all enemies are intelligent and deadly.

Well yes. That just tells how badly deformed current MP is.

100% agree! And its not only the fault that there are not such maps out there for those "other goals", no its also the wide variety of players.

Hating to play on public coop/PvP Server because to many arcade players are out there, they are so smart and fire with their M4 against an approaching "little" Army consiting of BMP and 8+ Soldiers And then of course flaming and cursing when they die....

[celery 8]

We might need some new mission goals to put suppression to use, so instead of CTF it should be Conquer the flag Area (CTFA) or something like that. But offcourse this would rather keep PvP gamers away than attract them I guess.

You make it sound like there can only be either CTF or some other game mode. You can make any kind of mission you want with the rules you want. Those rules affect how the mission is played given that they're easy enough to understand. What you call CTFA is already done and its name is Capture & Hold.

I'm talking about the game. There simply isn't such a scenario where leaving your enemy alive in a fight is better than killing him, much less in PvP where all enemies are intelligent and deadly.

Well yes. That just tells how badly deformed current MP is.

Please explain to me what kind of working and well-formed MP game mode has players firing at each other without the intention to kill the enemy. What happens when someone actually gets killed and what stops people from simply shooting to kill? Is it fun to play?

[paragraphic l 2]

We might need some new mission goals to put suppression to use, so instead of CTF it should be Conquer the flag Area (CTFA) or something like that. But offcourse this would rather keep PvP gamers away than attract them I guess.

You make it sound like there can only be either CTF or some other game mode. You can make any kind of mission you want with the rules you want. Those rules affect how the mission is played given that they're easy enough to understand. What you call CTFA is already done and its name is Capture & Hold.

I'm talking about the game. There simply isn't such a scenario where leaving your enemy alive in a fight is better than killing him, much less in PvP where all enemies are intelligent and deadly.

Well yes. That just tells how badly deformed current MP is.

Please explain to me what kind of working and well-formed MP game mode has players firing at each other without the intention to kill the enemy. What happens when someone actually gets killed and what stops people from simply shooting to kill? Is it fun to play?

It was just an example mate, and Second actually needed less words to explain what I meant.

This could just as well start an revolution in MP gameplay as you might actually start playing to conquer the objective while keeping yourself and offcourse the rest of your team safe/alive.

It's not about not killing the enemy, it's about not getting killed while doing your 'job'.

But this should appeal to you, if not there are always the current game modes to play.

But I guess with suppression being simulated normal PvP will most likely change gameplay wise. No mather how the suppression is done.

[Second 0]

I'm talking about the game. There simply isn't such a scenario where leaving your enemy alive in a fight is better than killing him, much less in PvP where all enemies are intelligent and deadly.

Well yes. That just tells how badly deformed current MP is.

Please explain to me what kind of working and well-formed MP game mode has players firing at each other without the intention to kill the enemy. What happens when someone actually gets killed and what stops people from simply shooting to kill? Is it fun to play?

Okay i explain by one TDM (or was it C&H?) back in OFP days. We had about 10-15 guys in both teams. My team, Finns, task was to take out immobilized T-80 in middle of ruins, while opposing side, rebel troop of that FDF's desert island, were to keep it intact.

Idea was that you probably didnt' see anyone. There was alot of cover close to ruins where rebels could hide, while it wasn't easy task to get to ruin for attacker as it was mostly open with just few covering spots. No respawn (oh those days! ) made it difficult matter to approach the target. Our side used alot of fire trying to create opprtunity to get close to that T-80 (or destroy it from distance with AT-weapons). Opportunity always wasn't created so much by killing your enemy but to tie and catch it's attention to another location, and trying to gain possibility to destroy T-80 from another direction. Basically that could be called decoy&deception.

For example i did tie down opponent's UAZ armed with SPG-9. My goal wasn't to kill it (heck i didnt' even know where it was), rushing across open field would have been suicide. So i just popped up, fired few shots at random locations and hit the dirt behind cover (usually SPG-9's round landing somewhere close to me). Same happened elsewhere by others. Then suddenly T-80 went off. Maybe it was finnish UAZ with recoiless rifle flanking defences, or small team actually working it's ways thru rebel's defences i dont' know.

Sure i would have killed some one if it would have popped to my iron sights, but that wasn't my main objective. And my main objective wasn't activelly seeking enemies. Common MP-game isn't like this. Everyone are running in amok. You got fired at... It only means that you have some-one to kill and you better to that soon or someone else does it. Ranges are short so firefight tends to last less than second, and players kill-or-be-killed mind set doesn't support the cautious playing style. It hard to form coherent playing style or "tactical" pattern when players are joining and respawning in random pattern. And "death" really is not a issue.

[twisted 128]

Quote[/b] ]I'm talking about the game. There simply isn't such a scenario where leaving your enemy alive in a fight is better than killing him, much less in PvP where all enemies are intelligent and deadly.

I partially agree, but i think its like always up the the mission-maker if the goals are kill or conquer/suppress.

I could imagine 100 of great SP/MP coop missions where you could suppress the enemy to the point that he retreats.

We might need some new mission goals to put suppression to use, so instead of CTF it should be Conquer the flag Area (CTFA) or something like that. But offcourse this would rather keep PvP gamers away than attract them I guess.

i agree with parapgraphic on this and his subsequent post. suppression is going to add a whole new dimension in arma and i look forward to it.

people have been asking for the ai to be suppressed for a long time as a feature. but now that there's chance they as players can get suppressed under fire they moan.

I'd really enjoy missions where suppressing the enemy makes all the difference between winning and dying.

then there'll be less rambo running in to save the day and more teamwork - actual tactics like machinegun squad suppresses the enemy while the other half of our team flanks them to take them out.

it's still all about killing the enemy, but about doing it tactically as a squad.

of course, some people will not like being vulnerable or being affected by incoming fire. can't please all the people. can't force opinions on them either. thankfully.