Blind Fire & Supression..would be nice...

[BeerHunter 0]

The ability to "blind fire" (going to be in RO-Stalingrad !) coupled with a REAL suppression effect that would not only effect players but AI as well would really be appreciated..would certainly enhance the tactical game play anyway.

[dmarkwick 261]

I notice the effects of suppression on AI. It makes their aim off and forces them into cover eventually. I've also noticed what might be described as "blind fire" when AI units extrapolate your position based on your earlier movements. However, I have to say that I am using both UPS and SLX addons, and I suspect they make that sort of stuff happen more.

[Murklor 10]

Yeah it does affect the AI...

The problem with blind fire isnt so much suppression, but rather the accurate weapons. There's very little point in trying to suppress the enemy when you can simply bring up your sights and kill them. Just forget about Domination/Evolution where 90% carry sniper rifles (and a SMAW).

[Fudgeblood 10]

Just forget about Domination/Evolution where 90% carry sniper rifles (and a SMAW).

Oh boy, don't get me started on all those people that run around with snipers and SMAW's.

Back on-topic, Blind fire wouldn't be all that useful, mainly because ArmA 2 is primarily about long range combat, it works in other games 'cause they're all primarily CQC.

And suppression does work, it's not extremally noticable but it works.

[That guy 10]

I have certainly noticed AIs acting differently when under fire.

the players screen blurs, and aim gets shaky when bullets come close,, so suppression works on humans as well

[NeMeSiS 11]

Back on-topic, Blind fire wouldn't be all that useful, mainly because ArmA 2 is primarily about long range combat, it works in other games 'cause they're all primarily CQC.

Exactly, just close your eyes for a second, walk around a corner and try to hit someone in ArmA2. Thats not even suppressive fire, thats just wasting ammo.

[THEBLITZ6794 10]

at long range supression should rule. since u cant hit shit...

[PeterEyres 0]

SLX does a good job of adding supression. The Ai defo get pinned by supression and will move to better cover. The ai also suppress your position

[zOMGREI 10]

at long range supression should rule. since u cant hit shit...

Are we playing the same game? One of my biggest complaints about this entire series has been the fact that the guns are actually too accurate, I've rarely had any specific firefight last longer than 1-2 minutes (usually it's more like 5-10 seconds) because everyone dies so fast.

Short-barreled guns in particular are too accurate, provided you figure out your drop compensation quick enough.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Well, it's a double egded sword. You can't have AI that constantly misses while we are able to make hits. A PC gamer will always be a lot calmer than those in the middle of a great shootout in real life. ACE did with Arma1 a change in which you got some serious hand shaking, especially in standing stance. People hated it because they were no longer able to hit like they do on the range. Yet the fighting really lasted. Sure, we had a hard time hitting anything. But so did the AI. But still the hitting was a lot better than in real life. So many complaied that the values were reduced, and we were back to square one regarding shootout durations.

The problem with short barrels is an engine limitation; the ammo drives everything. ACE for Arma1 was able to circumvent this by scripting. Barrel lenght simulation, weight simulation, and stamina simulation are probably (imho) the three most significant features of ACE1 that I hope will make a quick comeback in ACE2 for Arma2.

[zOMGREI 10]

Well, it's a double egded sword. You can't have AI that constantly misses while we are able to make hits. A PC gamer will always be a lot calmer than those in the middle of a great shootout in real life. ACE did with Arma1 a change in which you got some serious hand shaking, especially in standing stance. People hated it because they were no longer able to hit like they do on the range. Yet the fighting really lasted. Sure, we had a hard time hitting anything. But so did the AI. But still the hitting was a lot better than in real life. So many complaied that the values were reduced, and we were back to square one regarding shootout durations.

The problem with short barrels is an engine limitation; the ammo drives everything. ACE for Arma1 was able to circumvent this by scripting. Barrel lenght simulation, weight simulation, and stamina simulation are probably (imho) the three most significant features of ACE1 that I hope will make a quick comeback in ACE2 for Arma2.

I was referring to player accuracy as well, most of the guns are practically lasers with ballistic drop. I have no issues with having a harder time being able to hit things as well. I don't want PR-level inaccuracy, but something in-between PR and what we have now would be great.

I will say that I'm not a huge fan of handshake, hopefully there's a less nauseating way of simulating natural inaccuracy. Handshake isn't entirely realistic either, since a lot of accuracy issues IRL come from the trigger finger (squeezing too hard, firing during inhale or exhale, etc), rather than issues holding the rifle still before the shot.

Edited September 25, 2009 by zOMGREI

[dayglow 2]

Are weapons that innacurate in real life? Modern rifles are deadly accurate, it's just when your life is hanging in the balance in a combat situation aiming becomes the issue.

How do you simulate 'fear for life' in a game? I hate having nerfed weapons to make up for that.

[Arma-2-Guru 55]

What's CQC, don't call me a retard please.

[Fudgeblood 10]

What's CQC, don't call me a retard please.

Close Quarter Combat.

[Arma-2-Guru 55]

Oh yeah of course, I'm used to it being called CQB, that's what it's called in Halo 3 anyway.

[maturin 12]

By blind fire do you mean shooting above walls and around corners without looking?

That sounds completely pointless since you can't model a human motion like that. Not without switching into a different movement/view mode or 'locking' onto a wall, which would need a new Gears of War type engine. And then you'd still miss too horribly to worry anyone.

If you're that desperate to kill people around corners, fix the grenades.

[zOMGREI 10]

Are weapons that innacurate in real life? Modern rifles are deadly accurate, it's just when your life is hanging in the balance in a combat situation aiming becomes the issue.

How do you simulate 'fear for life' in a game? I hate having nerfed weapons to make up for that.

Deadly accurate when being fired from a vice (or from a heavily braced position) and using sniper-grade ammunition, yes.

At any rate, I'd take pretty much anything over the headache inducing twitching we get right now.

[frederf 0]

I've been playing some FPSs that manage to have plenty-accurate weapons while still giving me the feeling that I'm not some robotic sniper drone.

Forgotten Hope 2 has very accurate weapons and you do plenty of missing, lose aiming suppression, etc just because you'd rather not die, there's plenty of cover, and it's a bit hard to see the enemy. The effect is if I have a calm, clear shot I have a very good hit chance but if I'm under fire or in some kind of standoff everyone's hit chance goes way down.

Brothers in Arms is similar although I realize plenty of that is because a lot of the missing is forced by the game mechanics. Still I notice a big difference between when I am in calm sureshot mode and general maneuver and fire mode.

ArmA always feels like I'm clicking on a webpage link when I shoot. It's so lacking in feeling. Usually everyone's very exposed. You can't use the grass defensively. The AI plain doesn't see you outside of 400m or so unlike players which can spot and engage AI over huge distances. The ranges that suppression and playing the "shoot, look, duck" game with this equipment should be done over 500-600m and the AI just isn't up to that type of combat.

[dayglow 2]

Deadly accurate when being fired from a vice (or from a heavily braced position) and using sniper-grade ammunition, yes.

At any rate, I'd take pretty much anything over the headache inducing twitching we get right now.

sorry, but aiming and firing a weapon isn't that difficult and a calm person on a range can hit a man sized target from a few hundred yards without much practice. Once stress is introduced people start rushing and slapping the trigger or not getting a proper sight picture. Combat with real stress and fear for life means really rushed shots. Nerfing the guns in the game isn't the way around this. Nothing is more frustrating than lining up the perfect shot on an unsuspecting foe, only to have a random dispursion caculation make you miss.

How do you work around this? Not sure, my idea that may work

is to model the mass and center of gravity of the rifle. Long heavy weapons mean if you move them quickly gives the inursia, causing the front and rear sights to get out of alighnment ever so slighty. That way a long snap shot will most likely miss. Also would reward people who are smooth. Also smaller, shorter weapons have the same real world advantage that they have.

Would be interesting to try a system like this.

[zOMGREI 10]

sorry, but aiming and firing a weapon isn't that difficult and a calm person on a range can hit a man sized target from a few hundred yards without much practice. Once stress is introduced people start rushing and slapping the trigger or not getting a proper sight picture. Combat with real stress and fear for life means really rushed shots. Nerfing the guns in the game isn't the way around this. Nothing is more frustrating than lining up the perfect shot on an unsuspecting foe, only to have a random dispursion caculation make you miss.

Right, you keep referring to range conditions, and I'm talking about battlefield conditions with full gear and exhaustion setting in. You're also neglecting to factor in the effects of temperature and fouling on barrels which can result in this supposedly unrealistic "random" dispersion/deflection you seem to dislike so much. There's also the variability inherent in the average non-handpicked ammunition that the average grunt is typically issued as well.

How do you work around this? Not sure, my idea that may work

is to model the mass and center of gravity of the rifle. Long heavy weapons mean if you move them quickly gives the inursia, causing the front and rear sights to get out of alighnment ever so slighty. That way a long snap shot will most likely miss. Also would reward people who are smooth. Also smaller, shorter weapons have the same real world advantage that they have.

Would be interesting to try a system like this.

I think you're misunderstanding what I want---I basically want an alternative to (or at least a more organic feeling version of) the twitching/handshaking we currently have. What we have right now is basically identical to what you're against, but instead of the guns being affected by dispersion and deflection, your controls are acting against yourself equally on every gun.

The issue with your solution is that for it to work in a satisfactory matter, we would need mice (or some alternative to a mice) that are significantly more precise than what we currently have available to us. ArmA 2 already has some issues with the mouse being jumpy and less precise as it is, introducing another factor into this equation probably isn't the best idea.

[dayglow 2]

My point is that the weapon systems don't change from the range to the field, the operator does. 'Laser accuracy' of the weapon doesn't change and it shouldn't in the game. Nerfing the guns to simulate operator stress is wrong in my books.

I agree it is hard to force the player to fear for his life to cause rushed shots, but that should be the focus.

[zOMGREI 10]

My point is that the weapon systems don't change from the range to the field, the operator does. 'Laser accuracy' of the weapon doesn't change and it shouldn't in the game. Nerfing the guns to simulate operator stress is wrong in my books.

I agree it is hard to force the player to fear for his life to cause rushed shots, but that should be the focus.

It kind of does, though. Generally a rifle isn't exposed to the elements at all (or if it is, it's for brief periods of time) on a range. Dust, sand, dirt, and all kinds of fine particles accumulate over long periods (2+ hours) of time in the field, especially in a combat situation where the operator may be prone on the ground and/or using a mound of dirt/sand/etc. to assist in aiming. This also doesn't take fouling into account, which can become more of an issue depending on rounds fired (or combined with the particulates mentioned earlier).

At any rate, this looks like it may be an "agree to disagree" situation, since you really seem to be averse to the fact of environmental factors having an impact on accuracy. This is of equal importance with stress/stamina, at least imo.

Edited September 28, 2009 by zOMGREI

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@DayGlow:

Precicely. ACE gave handshake a try with Arma1, but most seemed to hate it. I loved it for bringing very long firefights. The general complaint was that you wasn't able to hit as good as you did on the range. I'm no vet, but logics alone tells me that combat is nowhere near range optimums.

So many think it is easy inflicting casualties (fatal). It's not. Like in this scenario:

2 bad guys firing 1100-1300 (mostly assault rifle) rounds. Not a single fatality, although quite a few wounded.

300 good guys firing 650 (mostly ineffective as it turned out due to body armor) rounds at the two.

The bad guys even prepped themselves with some medication to counter the effects of adrenaline on the muscles.

I'm talking about the North Hollywood shootout, a bank robbery attempt that went bad.

Of course the biggest problem in gaming is lack of stress and adrenaline effects, and simply not being afraid to die at all (for most).

So, how can this be achieved in a gaming environment, without having too much complains about missing range accuracy? My idea of ws (weapon shake) involves a few factors:

1) Closeness to enemy should affect ws, but in little amount. You shouldn't be able to figure out if you are close to enemies by observing ws effect. Maybe it should kick in only as your pulling the trigger to hide it as an exploit, simulating a rushed shot?

2) Closeness to known enemy as well, with similar little effect. Problem here is if a server uses auto reveal, or the level at which people reveals their targets to the rest of the team. If on voice only, this can be overridden completely.

3) Are there shooting nearby? More effect of enemy fires than friendly fires. But effect is more noticable.

4) Are the bullets flying near your? If so, the effect should be considerable.

5) Are you the target of these bullets? If so, further increase ws.

6) Do they 'hit' near you, i.e. your covered position? If so, further increase ws.

7) Are you being supressed? If so, further increase ws.

8) Did you take a hit (body armor absorbs the damage)? If so, further increase.

9) Did you get actually hurt? Already modelled I guess, kinda sorta.

10) Are you out of breath? Already modelled I guess, kinda sorta.

Achieving any sort of balance would require a lot of experimenting. Are some effects cumulative? If so, to what? Should the effects be linear, squared, or square root (curve shape) with the input? Should there be counters for some of the effects? Like taking a knee behind cover to ease up some of the tension? Should it be possible by mission design to tweak these values? How quickly should the effects wear off?

The point is, that if you are in a heavy firefight, your (and the AIs) aim will basically suck. Yet until the bullets or mortars starts flying your way, you can remain relatively calm as a marksman further away. The problem with ACE for Arma1 was that the effect was universal. However, these are a large number of factors, and doing it with scripts could possibly cripple your game. So if anything, unless someone is willing to experiment with scripts, I think the (controllable?) game engine should model such effects better.

[dayglow 2]

I agree a stress based system would work well. What I want to avoid is what the original Brother In Arms was like. The weapons were purposely made innacurate to force proper tactics, a few times I would be in a position less than 50 yards from an unaware enemy, with time to aim, but could not hit him. I don't find that is gameplay and highlights the downside of using the weapon accuracy to control gameplay.

[frederf 0]

Brothers in Arms is a fun game that's basically a ground level RTS almost like Full Spectrum Warrior. I wouldn't want to see ArmA go crazy trying to crassly force tactics by throwing realism out the window to the extreme that BiA does it.