rye1

Does for some techniques, but then again if there wasn't the same opening for each building maybe we could see slightly bigger openings where it was at least possible. Then again if we are allowed, through character collisions, to maintain closer spacing during a stack or entry then that would work too but not to the best extent of gameplay.

Have BIS mentioned anything about gun AND character collision? (Because it needs characters to be able to get through tight(er) spaces without randomly getting injured as they do now.

Haha I like it Liquidpinky, "Arma's own case of natural selection". :D OK maybe artificially built up by killing everyone methodically selection. I agree with Iroquois, as I stated it would be too bloody easy is they went down because of a few bursts from my LMG. A fireteam could then out-do a section of AI. If you're WOUNDED I can agree with blacking out or losing some amount of vision. The hunter turns into the hunted. Your character already gets the shakes, already breathes heavily and loses accuracy. Except maybe in vehicles. I also hate this term suppressive fire, it reminds me of movies when you hear the lead hero shout it to his troops and these 19 year old idiots fire everywhere with all their magazines. I prefer the term preventative fire, to prevent the enemy moving upon you or conducting a tactical maneuver. If they were to fire over your heads as seen currently, I also wish they would fire at exit points and lock you into buildings or use grenades on that target area. Of course, knowing AI they'll stand in the open to throw a grenade or set up an MG 20 meters from you. :D I think suppression effects could be linked to having the surprise, i.e. you've not been caught -- that first engagement should give you a big pro instead of AI automatically adopting their readiness. I.e. flinch, stutter, hesitate, they may adopt random positions and leave themselves at a disadvantage, they may scatter, flee or shoot randomly. http://www.slideshare.net/trevthrasher/behavior-based-cqb-short Video removed due to problematic content Very interesting how people react, huh?

Well you have more efficient ways of doing things. Tactical pace could, potentially, allow for bursting into the room. But the environment should allow for 2 operators to fit through a door, or at least be able to get really close to each other so they can squeeze in within a good time limit; at the same time getting really close would allow for a better stack and less time between operators into the room and through the FF. Every second counts. Get what I mean by player functions to operate adequately?

;)

Haha kind of agree, but I mean the same with ACE wounding. Good and bad, depends what mood you're in because sometimes you can't be fucked waiting even 2 minutes just to be fucking revived. :D

Metalcraze, options are what makes missions flexible. Such controversial topics as this, due to the fact that they could be easily 'done wrong', bugged or not suit your conditions means that you have to either do it right and the way a majority would want, allow for options or ignore your player base. Domination, the MSO, other missions ARE a success because of OPTIONS allowing the game to suit player, not the player to suit game. So to be honest I'd come up with the goods, preferably in list form of what suppression effects people want to see and start a poll based on them.

Yeah so basically, what Celery said plus "have player functions to allow the players to adequately operate in the CQB environment".

Yeah it's down to the players, DMarkwick is spot on, ARMA is good that way for a mix and match offering. Suppression is a funny thing though. In PVP's I can't be suppressed 500 meters out unless it's by a fireteam plus element or heavy machinegun. Sometimes I've just ran randomly (serpentine style, all the GK stuff is coming out today!) and skimmed everything that came at me, other times I've shrugged it off and played a headgame until I could go because I knew it was to no effect (i.e. no one was moving on my position). Sometimes I've let myself be seen for them to become fixated (target fixation) with me as another group went about appropriately killing who was engaging me. :cool: The only times I've been REALLY suppressed is say if I held up a corner and they pushed me behind it, so I have limited options to where I can come out, and their triangulation of fire means I have limited space to move and either way I'll probably be seen so I either hid up, RUN or fight back (normally to a lesser survival effect, i.e. you die a lot doing that unless it's done right or your enemy makes a mistake). The other time I was REALLY, REALLY (wish I filmed it really) suppressed was when I was pinned down in a house, to my own fault being caught walking in the door, and I was being engaged by members of a tactical squad in the Australian community; pinging everywhere! Every single entrance, window, opening was being shot. Grenades and M203 were going off. :bounce3: Was great.... I died by the way if you want to know. :D They moved upon me and I was like a kitten. Meow? The best I got was camping the stairwell and killing one. :o Suppression is interesting too to: 1) Minimize gaps of coverage (i.e. angles where they can escape from or try it on) 2) Lull times during reload (Dynamically changing ROF, angles of coverage, primary and secondary responsibilities of fire) 3) Cover all potential threat areas and engage known threat areas 4) Moves upon the enemy or break contact AI I don't think could handle that stuff. On the other hand us engaging AI. I believe: 1) Suppressing them for some means making them go prone, which would make the game too easy -- Prone then you outmaneuver or another element moves on them, sitting ducks! 2) Suppressing should be making them take cover, kept in a small area or making them FIGHT YOU with all they have, i.e. if there is one rock in a field, you're not going to play it like Monty Python but if the AI were scripted to use any cover then they would be predictable to try grab and hog that instead of spread out, assault or break contact 3) Therefore I believe the AI in order to be suppressed must be able to either retreat or maneuver back and therefore be able to suppress back; what that would consist of would be suppression effects as stated in this thread -- We already see some of them for instance shaking hands, loss of accuracy My2c.

Pfft. You never know. "During the Cold War, there were contingency plans in case the Soviet Union attempted to roll their tanks across Europe. The goal would be to stop them at all costs, and this would require obliterating key highways, tunnels, airfields, and bridges. While conventional explosives might do the job, it would take hours to achieve, and only slow the Soviet advance by days at best, when weeks were needed. Project GREENLIGHT sought to address this problem. The fastest, most effective, most surreptitious way to target enemy infrastructure would be to parachute bomb-toting Special Forces soldiers to their objectives. But there was a catch. In his autobiography, Sergeant Major Joe Garner described his work with the project. There was a heavy rucksack attached to him when he test jumped from a military helicopter. The landing was rough, but he walked away from it. It was proof-positive that the plan would work, but it wasn’t until much later that he learned what GREENLIGHT was. “It was a man-carried nuclear device. That’s when the realization hit me. I was probably the first soldier to free-fall strapped to an atomic bomb.†Read the full text here: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/133848#ixzz24H58pDnu --brought to you by mental_floss!"

Other facts I've found across time. There are quite good documentaries on killology and death which state a lot of these combat happenings and get down and gritty with the truth of human exposure to almost certain death. Up to a 1/4 of soldiers piss themselves on contact say some reports (WW2 era). I even remember the Generation Kill (GK) scene where they make the journalist buy them adult diapers from the PX (Post Exchange) due to this battleground fact that it happens. Only 25% of soldiers in WW2 shot to kill say others; a lot of soldiers shot high, low, you name it. That figure is apparently at 95% in modern warfare (Afghanistan, Iraq). Fight or flight response (sympathetic system, adrenaline) kicks in. Getting the shakes is common of occurrence. Lower centre of gravity automatically and hands come up to protect the face. The jump or startle (gotta learn to ride it instead of try to control it). Legs feel heavy. Heavy breathing, chest hurts. Feeling of wanting to curl up as distress signals go nuts (for some, mainly the untrained). Wanting to flee; survival instinct kicks in. Cases of hysterical blindness and so on. Brain freeze, helmet fire. Distortion of time. Smaller peripheral vision. Fear breeding paranoia which has stated the case of hallucinations and miss-sightings. Heart rate jacked, 145bpm! Over time you can learn to adjust these instinctive patterns: Look at Mike Tyson. Everyone else in the ring may flinch, stutter, hesitate, get startled, etc. I don't know about you but I feel fear in PVP, I have been startled, I have wanted to GTFO a situation, I've had helmet fire x 1,000,000 (May stem from leading the unleadable?), my heart rates been bumped but not that high. I've knocked a few off that list. :D OH ARMA. Interesting discussion none the less, I don't have a clue what's going on, I just popped my head in but GOODBYE!

^ Lol, playing too much mount and blade?? :p

They should add a piss your pants effect.

You mean... tracking?

They're going to clone him... Bastards!!!

No it won't have them. I don't think. I played around with DayZ and the hatchet(s) today and I must admit it was pretty fun. I want to try that in a battle against insurgents. The future looks more applicable for it, for modders or those interested though. :party: Well to a point it does and it doesn't. ARMA steps itself above the grade by providing more realism than other games (compare to COD, BF3, other shooters) and actually being able to play with some amount of real-life elements. Say for instance with the ACE 2 mod and wind, unlike any other game for civilians that isn't dedicated to a specific (say hunting game with windage, pfft so what!). In that said sentence, it still matters what is in ARMA 3 but if BIS want to maintain those elements, realism and believability or authenticity which attract people and keep the game as a whole a step above others in my opinion then it has to take into account what is can offer and deliver in a quality fashion. I think personally BIS are more focused on authenticity rather than 'realism' (as realistic elements can be the top limit of the spectrum, most times over the top), and they are more focused on what would, could work in ARMA, what could improve and what could expand the game; at the same time if they keep parallel to realism then they concrete that authentic foundation, even with a 'future setting' you can make it believable and well ironed out which will be like a magnet for gamers. For example as we've seen with the animations: Believable - visual pro, gameplay pro, realistic and gives you that feel of quality. So, the circles the same old? Hold it down and it'll expand then you throw. It'll go in a curve, very inaccurate and unpredictable. Rather a disappointment but I've lived without grenades this far... The last time I used one I killed three team mates.

Melee isn't just because of jams, as stated previously. And 4 IN 1 instead of indirectly passive aggressively blowing off steam with your point why don't you ask the person directly who said it. Panda. If the grenade form is in a curvature again then it'll be very hard to get it in windows unless it had an 'aiming point' instead of a circle, AA3 has the finger as an aiming point, VBS2 has a line.

Agreed&Agreed. One smooth animation for all is ++. I think we talked about this. :D The less steps to an animation, the more efficient for virtual combat in A3. Speaking of anims, anyone seen the grenade throwing one yet? I saw one where the player through a chemlight and it went DIRECTLY forward which made me think -- hey maybe we can actually throw it in openings now like windows etc without missing. :D But then again I haven't seen grenades thrown post-E3.

MG's and Grenadiers: MG to fix in place, most advantageous position. Grenadiers to hit the hard targets. Rifleman and TL can direct or move upon, Grenadier could break off with. Those kind of fireteam, up, section, etc, elements would be quite dramatic to see. I've only ever seen it a few times and I think it was more of a fluke. I think ARMA does well with Grenadiers, they are pretty good. MG's can pin you down for buggery but when they move, that's where the problems begin. They have to move quick, no pauses or stopping randomly to lean or look towards your position, etc. They move infront of you or in a predictable nature, they don't set up on good firing lanes sometimes. But good none the less. My thoughts anyhow.

Keep it to player because if it was whilst aiming then the scout would be hella pissed off! @Mr.G-C Lowering pistols? Where? :D

It may work for driving, etc, I suppose. I'd feel sorry for BIS wasting their time on this though. overworked developers

Pics or it never happened.

Yeah, then take Crysis for example. Extract it, read over. Arma 3 Crysis DLC!

Pfft, we're all new and "non-experienced" in Arma 3.