Shaky hands & blurred vision

[celery 8]

@Second

As you clearly proved with your story, players don't need blurry vision or shaky hands for suppressive fire to work when the situation calls for it. Letting a fight stagnate in a normal PvP game makes no sense and forcing suppression when you aren't suppressed is just irritating.

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.

And just how does a graphical effect force me to stay behind cover and not kill my enemy who is clearly a bad shot? The things I've seen in Insurgency and Red Orchestra are just annoyances that do little to how players play the game.

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.

Of course, some people will want the game to simulate panic reactions upon themselves that not everyone has, overemphasizing psychology in a physical firefight. Can't please all the people but thankfully they can play Brothers in Arms.

[JeRK 0]

@Second

As you clearly proved with your story, players don't need blurry vision or shaky hands for suppressive fire to work when the situation calls for it. Letting a fight stagnate in a normal PvP game makes no sense and forcing suppression when you aren't suppressed is just irritating.

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.

And just how does a graphical effect force me to stay behind cover and not kill my enemy who is clearly a bad shot? The things I've seen in Insurgency and Red Orchestra are just annoyances that do little to how players play the game.

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.

Of course, some people will want the game to simulate panic reactions upon themselves that not everyone has, overemphasizing psychology in a physical firefight. Can't please all the people but thankfully they can play Brothers in Arms.

Dude, what you're saying is pretty damn wrong.

I play in IC-ArmA too (I'm Rasden on BLUFOR) and suppression NEVER EVER EVER works on me unless it's done by an armored vehicle. Why? Because you can keep your head cool and not nearly soil yourself because it's a video game. You don't die or get a horrible injury for real. Sure, it may take you up to 5 minutes to get back on the field if you die, but you still get back on the field. I never get truly pinned down because I know most guys don't aim well enough to hit me if I were to pop up. I can almost always shoot right back.

Suppressive fire is not realistic enough in ArmA. The effect IS a good addition. If the player isn't afraid in a situation that would scare the crap out of someone in real life, the character has to be. A good suppression effect can do this.

[celery 8]

Dude, what you're saying is pretty damn wrong.

I play in IC-ArmA too (I'm Rasden on BLUFOR) and suppression NEVER EVER EVER works on me unless it's done by an armored vehicle. Why? Because you can keep your head cool and not nearly soil yourself because it's a video game. You don't die or get a horrible injury for real. Sure, it may take you up to 5 minutes to get back on the field if you die, but you still get back on the field. I never get truly pinned down because I know most guys don't aim well enough to hit me if I were to pop up. I can almost always shoot right back.

Suppressive fire is not realistic enough in ArmA. The effect IS a good addition. If the player isn't afraid in a situation that would scare the crap out of someone in real life, the character has to be. A good suppression effect can do this.

No... you're wrong dude.

How do you suppose that a blurry screen makes you too scared to fire back all of a sudden? It sure doesn't in Red Orchestra. Do you want the game to decide for you that you can't keep your head cool and get tears in your eyes instead? If you'd get injured for real, there's all the more reason to keep calm and kill your enemy if there's no cover nearby, being unable to function for what you have been training for is embracing your own death.

[twisted 127]

Dude, what you're saying is pretty damn wrong.

I play in IC-ArmA too (I'm Rasden on BLUFOR) and suppression NEVER EVER EVER works on me unless it's done by an armored vehicle. Why? Because you can keep your head cool and not nearly soil yourself because it's a video game. You don't die or get a horrible injury for real. Sure, it may take you up to 5 minutes to get back on the field if you die, but you still get back on the field. I never get truly pinned down because I know most guys don't aim well enough to hit me if I were to pop up. I can almost always shoot right back.

Suppressive fire is not realistic enough in ArmA. The effect IS a good addition. If the player isn't afraid in a situation that would scare the crap out of someone in real life, the character has to be. A good suppression effect can do this.

No... you're wrong dude.

How do you suppose that a blurry screen makes you too scared to fire back all of a sudden? It sure doesn't in Red Orchestra. Do you want the game to decide for you that you can't keep your head cool and get tears in your eyes instead? If you'd get injured for real, there's all the more reason to keep calm and kill your enemy if there's no cover nearby, being unable to function for what you have been training for is embracing your own death.

mate, you're taking this very personally.

suppression effects seem to be in arma2. and your being arrogant isn't going to change that.

[celery 8]

mate, you're taking this very personally.

suppression effects seem to be in arma2. and your being arrogant isn't going to change that.

You show much arrogance by dismissing the text and judging the person instead. Were the questions I asked in the earlier post too hard to answer, mate?

[opteryx 1562]

I think tinnitus/sound reduction and visual distortion should be implemented to simulate sensory distortion when the body is exposed to pressure waves emitted from explosions, this of course would be in close proximity to the blast radius.

As for bullets alone causing sensory distortion to simulate a need to seek cover, I think it should be limited to audio and only when supersonic projectiles pass very close to your ears. The way it is right now in ArmA makes it very hard to determine how close incoming fire is, if your perception of the combat environment was enhanced in such a manner I think the desire to take cover would come more naturally.

As for simulated reduction in accuracy to operate weapons, I disagree. If your awareness (as stated above) of the level of danger you're in was enhanced, I think stress and reduction in precision would come naturally and it would depend on the psyche of each individual how well they handle the situation, not predetermined by the game.

[JeRK 0]

Dude, what you're saying is pretty damn wrong.

I play in IC-ArmA too (I'm Rasden on BLUFOR) and suppression NEVER EVER EVER works on me unless it's done by an armored vehicle. Why? Because you can keep your head cool and not nearly soil yourself because it's a video game. You don't die or get a horrible injury for real. Sure, it may take you up to 5 minutes to get back on the field if you die, but you still get back on the field. I never get truly pinned down because I know most guys don't aim well enough to hit me if I were to pop up. I can almost always shoot right back.

Suppressive fire is not realistic enough in ArmA. The effect IS a good addition. If the player isn't afraid in a situation that would scare the crap out of someone in real life, the character has to be. A good suppression effect can do this.

No... you're wrong dude.

How do you suppose that a blurry screen makes you too scared to fire back all of a sudden? It sure doesn't in Red Orchestra. Do you want the game to decide for you that you can't keep your head cool and get tears in your eyes instead? If you'd get injured for real, there's all the more reason to keep calm and kill your enemy if there's no cover nearby, being unable to function for what you have been training for is embracing your own death.

mate, you're taking this very personally.

suppression effects seem to be in arma2. and your being arrogant isn't going to change that.

You have to know that Celery once whined to the staff in IC saying they're biased because his side wasn't doing too well at the time. Don't mind him, he tends to take things too far.

[Second 0]

@Second

As you clearly proved with your story, players don't need blurry vision or shaky hands for suppressive fire to work when the situation calls for it. Letting a fight stagnate in a normal PvP game makes no sense and forcing suppression when you aren't suppressed is just irritating.

Yes. I'm not saying that suppression effect would (much) prolong PvP matches happening from short shooting distances. Longer might be different: If you are suppressed and enemy is not, you might think things differently as you probably won't hit him, while he (more) probably hits you. Or then it doesn't matter as you will respawn in 15 seconds even if you got killed.

Mostly i'm for Blur+hand shake because most new games does that (well just blur mostly) and it's cool and usable + AI gets suppression model too. I get it that you dont' like it, but like i would care

To my understandment we still don't know what kind it will be. Blur when getting hit and hands shaking when near miss? Or both on both cases?

[JeRK 0]

I think tinnitus/sound reduction and visual distortion should be implemented to simulate sensory distortion when the body is exposed to pressure waves emitted from explosions, this of course would be in close proximity to the blast radius.

As for bullets alone causing sensory distortion to simulate a need to seek cover, I think it should be limited to audio and only when supersonic projectiles pass very close to your ears. The way it is right now in ArmA makes it very hard to determine how close incoming fire is, if your perception of the combat environment was enhanced in such a manner I think the desire to take cover would come more naturally.

As for simulated reduction in accuracy to operate weapons, I disagree. If your awareness (as stated above) of the level of danger you're in was enhanced, I think stress and reduction in precision would come naturally and it would depend on the psyche of each individual how well they handle the situation, not predetermined by the game.

Ever been really scared to death? When I was a kid I once nearly fell to my death (I'm not gonna tell the whole story, but it involves a totally iced up chairlift). Believe me, I was so damn afraid that I was shaking so mad even my head was shaking around and my eyes were flinching.

I imagine bullets going past your head to make you a whole lot scared than that, no matter what training you go through. Of course you shouldn't be able to see, let alone aim right in such a situation. You'd most likely try to leg it for cover.

[twisted 127]

@Second

As you clearly proved with your story, players don't need blurry vision or shaky hands for suppressive fire to work when the situation calls for it. Letting a fight stagnate in a normal PvP game makes no sense and forcing suppression when you aren't suppressed is just irritating.

Yes. I'm not saying that suppression effect would (much) prolong PvP matches happening from short shooting distances. Longer might be different: If you are suppressed and enemy is not, you might think things differently as you probably won't hit him, while he (more) probably hits you. Or then it doesn't matter as you will respawn in 15 seconds even if you got killed.

Mostly i'm for Blur+hand shake because most new games does that (well just blur mostly) and it's cool and usable + AI gets suppression model too. I get it that you dont' like it, but like i would care

To my understandment we still don't know what kind it will be. Blur when getting hit and hands shaking when near miss? Or both on both cases?

i have seen both stated in reviews.

from an interview with Marek on videogamer.com

Quote[/b] ]Players are now affected by incoming fire, so even if I'm hidden in cover, the effect of bullets coming so close to me will result in blurred in vision and shaking hands...

sounds great.

[froggyluv 2130]

I hope troop rank has some bearing on this as I doubt a well-seasoned combat vet would have the same reaction as a green recruit when under fire.

[NoRailgunner 0]

It depends all on situation - if you are hiding and waiting for the opponent or if you are running away and trying to save your life.  

Trained soldiers dont get so much of blurred vision and shaking hands if there is incoming fire or near miss. Its only a "cool" feature and trendy eyecandy in most shooters. Guess BIS would like to attract those people to buy ArmA2.

[PuFu 4591]

@Celery, while i agree that blurry vision does nothing but add to immersion, shaky hands will defo do the job.

I kind of feel it is a pretty good decision from BIS part tbh. Why? because in a chair, relaxed, as any person that plays a game to relax should be, you cannot actually feel what is suppose to be when you are getting fired upon...I am not saying that everyone, even in a real fight feels the same, as the adrenaline rush has different effects on ppl. It is not about fear here.

But lets be honest, in a PvP game that has respawn, how would you care for your life, or panic, or whatever when you usually care for how many kills you got? Same goes for most Coop games.

I agree with the ones that said PvP should be accomplishing a higher goal rather then killing as many as you can, and that against live enemy, and not AI. My feeling is that this suppression would work towards that goal.

I am playing in one of the few ArmA tournaments where there is no respawn: when you are dead, you can as well disconnect. That is the only place where there would such a feature would not be needed. But again, there is a huge problem with disconnecting etc, that could be solved by having a limited number of lives or whatever, but have have a similar effect on immersion

@Rasden, there is no point in washing the laundry in public, no matter how clean those are suppose to be. So please keep such comments in PMs next time

[Maddmatt 1]

I think when bullets are landing near you in real life it will make it hard to focus and hold your rifle steady, so shaky hands is a good thing IMO.

In real life you would feel bits of dirt and particles hit you from nearby bullet impacts and you would probably feel a bullet whiz by your head, you can't get that in a game so visual effects like a bit of blur and gameplay effects like shaky hands are there to simulate it in a way.

Having bullets land near you should really encourage you to get into cover

[-Total- 0]

There was this same debate when they added the blur effect to the Insurgency mod in HL2 a couple of months ago.

All in all, it adds to the game rather than detract.

From personal experience, a bullet passing close enough to you at head level can cause the vision to blur. It's not a panic reaction, it's a phyical reaction to the sonic aura the bullet has as it passes by.

Granted, it has to pass VERY close for it to happen, but it does happen. If they set it to where if it hits within 1 meter and you blur, that's unrealistic. I'm talking about 5 cm or less at head level to cause the effect.

[max power 21]

I find it hard to believe that people aren't getting that the suppression effects are for simulating emotional effects rather than an actual distorted sensorium.  America's Army did the same thing by reducing your 'combat effectiveness' stat, which increased the amount of dispersion the player experienced when shooting.  This technique is simply an attempt to attack the player's effectiveness to simulate some kind of realistic emotional life, as opposed to manipulating some kind of abstract, amalgamate statistic.  Lots of involuntary stuff happens when you're startled or your senses are overwhelmed.  You blink, start, your heart rate and blood pressure rise, eyes dialate- all kinds of things that aren't conducive to shooting accurately.  I think that suppression- especially the ability to suppress the AI, is a good thing.  Area denial and pinning down the opposition is a big thing.  I hope that this feature makes battles a little more static.  Hopefully this plus the micro AI frees the AI controlled soldiers from their lemming-like psychopathic behaviour we see in ArmA now.

[lwlooz 0]

Hello there,

since this has become an opinion-poll,I thought I throw my own in.

I am not a realism guy , more of the gameplay type. For that reason I can't comment what would be more "realistic"(that being a highly relative term anyways).

But it seems redundant to me to have both "blurry vision" and "shaky aim" to discourage people from standing in a hail of fire slowly picking target after target.

Considering I absolutely detest stupid irritating graphic effects that are uneasy to the eye , I rather go with "Shaky Aim".

In my opinion it also serves the purpose better. The player is hindered in any attacking moves towards his suppressor , while

with "blurry vision" to my knowledge even looking for cover is hindered which seems odd.

Another advantage of "Shaky Aim" is that it can be seamlessy integrated into the "Shaky Aim" effects of being tired(from sprinting)

or being hurt in the arm/hands (from shrapnels I assume).

One sidecomment: I think its funny trying to assume that one can make CTF,DM more realistic with "supression effects".I have to agree with Celery here.

People won't care.The unrealistic part in CTF,DM that makes people not care about their virtual lives is the frequent respawn and the lack of a bonus for staying alive.

So if you are looking for a more "realistic" combat experience, you rather go look for various forms of CTI or A&D that handle respawn in a manner

that punishes stupid people that run into fire a lot.

[mrcash2009 0]

I cant see how a bullet landing near you burrs your eye site in real life, so blurring isn't great (plus the fact that blur in a firefight would be more in this case and blur can take some FPS with high graphics).

But a mild shake and having to hold breath like sniper would be good, but I think that this should be switchable in settings "gun inertia" amount and on/off and same for servers.

[ahmedjbh 0]

mrcash,

Have you read the thread?

the effect is there to simulate emotional effects, peoples eyes dont go fuzzy if a bullet lands near them....

I think it will be a very good idea, and as it was intorduced in other games, and people tried it, and loved it, im sure the same will be true in ARMA 2.

Someone else had a good suggestion though. Make the effect slightly less as your player goes up the ranks.

[gsleighter 0]

It's not supposed to simulate your eye blurring, it's supposed to simulate panic. You guys unhappy about this should at least try Insurgency, it does add a lot to the immersion when you have a visual aid for suppression. You can say the player should just react how they want based on their own response, but nobody is going to actually panic when they're almost shot in a game. The visual feedback does help to create a sense of immediate danger and also create a great incentive to get away from wherever you are at that time.

[Cannon Fodder 0]

Anything that makes the overall experience of combat in game closer to that of the nearest possible depiction comparable to real life - in terms of immersion - is alright by me. This is a means to an end - it is to stop people behaving in a way that runs contrary to the expected behaviour of soldiers in real life warfare. If it is an option that cannot be switched off, it WILL impact on the fluidity of a game of DM or CTF - people will be far less likely to move out into an enemy's field of fire regardless of whether or not they feel they have the opportunity to fight back. Games will slow down. Combat, as has been mentioned, will become more static.

People are perhaps forgetting that one of the major elements of BIS' design philosophy is that of fAIr. If the AI is capable of being suppressed in such a way that they cannot reasonably fight back, so too must an analogous situation be applied to the player.

[jmcorp 0]

I am very happy with this addition, and believe that those that aren't are seriously nitpicking...sure your eyes don't blur when bullets land near you, but what do you think happens to your heart rate, skin pores and mind?

sitting behind a computer and complaining about this won't help, because very few of us have experienced anything like being shot at, but I do feel that for the game to convey a sense of emotional stress and panic when near misses occur, shaky hands and blurred vision is a great thing!

sure a commander as hard as nails may not suffer the same reactions to bullets, but they are few and far between, i can assure you a greater number of people WILL be affected by sudden-near death...

just my opinion...

[DaSquade 0]

Again VBS2, i know, tried to simulate panic and stress awareness. They did this by adding a tunnelvision/blur effect. Imho they did it very good. Afaik it doesn't overlay when under suppressive fire but when you keep running and also when you hit a friendly (with friendly fire it kicks in instantly, with running it fades in).

The tunnelvision works very good as you still keep a good focussed center view, only the sides gets blurry and strecthed.

Although i have never had any combat experience etc and never read a book about it (i know from a friend there is at least some good books about this), i don't think shaky hands fits in this picture. I always thought adrenaline have you more focus and controle.....only after the adrenaline rush your brain reacts and you start to shake. I suppose maybe have once had an accident or something related where after the event all emotions comes loose and you shake like a leaf.

Additionally again VBS2 did a nice effect job when you are near a large explosion or very close to a grenade. Your player gets immobile for a small moment (with a black fade-in screen + ring-in-the-ears effect), then your vision starts to work again but your unit is very unbalanced...and this effect slowly fades out again.

If Bert allows me to post his movie (large explosion, afaik a grenade dpesn't knock you you that long):

VBS2 knocked out

Anyway, just showing what is out there as effects (BIS should be aware of it ).

On the other hand, i suppose anyone that has been in the right envirement with a good senario with a good teamplay group have had those moments of jumping of your chait if a bullet (sound only) comes close. So i join those that think a game should controle your unit (hands), but reather visual effects only could do the trick in case of close bullets.

[max power 21]

There are only 3 ways to engage the player in a videogame... sight, sound, and control. There isn't a way to consistently engage the player psychologically because players get used to whatever you throw at them fairly quickly. Here I guess they are going for a visual / control sort of engagement, which is more experiential than just increasing some dispersion.

LOL @ the wobbliness after the knockout in the VBS video. That looks funny, the way he wiggles around. Finally I know what the world looks like to a dog when he's wagging his tail!

[POTS 0]

They should make it a server side or single player option. That way the server dictates whether it is on or not. Kind of like view distance i guess.