Game Version number: 1.3.0.25
Modded?: No
Issue Description:
Arma 3 has cool suppression effects that I think Arma Reforger should have. Something like: flinches or edges of the screen going dark (to simulate eyes closing natural reaction).
Weapon and character animations could be improved in my opinion.
We crave cinematic fights.
I bought "Squad" at the same time I bought "Arma Reforger", and I'll be honest, I played Squad and I did not like it. I tried to like it but I could not.
Arma Reforger, on the other hand, I loved it. Within 2 hours I was hooked, that's why I have 17h in Squad and almost 900h in Arma Reforger.
Though, one thing I enjoyed in "Squad" was the gun play and suppression effects.
Arma Reforger's gun movement is sort of clunky and suppression is not that impactful, aiming down sights is sort of arcade and I presume that that's not the game direction.
Example: One guy behind a tree taking heavy fire, the last thing he would think of is tilting his head and shoot the guy firing at him, but in this game he can do that and easily. He can tilt his head and aim down sights normally like he would on a field full of flowers and butterflies on a sunny day with nobody nearby. No twitching, no "fear" effects, therefore he can clearly see where and who is shooting at him if he decides to shoot back.
To make gun fights more "realistic", enjoyable, take more time and awesome you guys should not copy Squad but take inspiration from it and other games and make it better.
I love this game and all I want is help in making it better and more popular.
This would definitely make the game more appealing and enjoyable and would definitely attract buyers.
Here's a comparison I made between Arma 3 and Arma Reforger.
Here's a comparison I made between Squad and Arma Reforger.
Youtube link of the video below
Check these mods for ideas:
TLDR:
-Better Suppression;
-Better Weapon immersion;
-Better Character movement.
Check these mods for ideas:
Reforger definetly needs improvements on those sides which you suggest, but not for the rpg. But not to the point of squads ico because that is really bad along with the squads skinny arms which you cant aim at anything.
I think I understand what you are saying. You want suppression mechanics because you hope that such a mechanic would make realistic tactics more effective in gameplay. Giving the game more depth/fun.
My counter point to that is this.
I love the way the Arma franchise balances authenticity with a kind of humility that comes from understanding that the video game medium can not simulate every aspect of combat.
The psychological effects of being shot at is one of those things that I don't think Arma should attempt to simulate. The reason being that it is a subjective experience. I believe Armas strength is that it sticks to things that can be simulated in an objective/authentic manner.
By some metrics that means that the gunplay will be more arcady than other milsims, but ultimately I think that is ok. Because at the end of the day this is a video game. The game is serious fun as I've heard Bohemia call it. And not perfectly realistic fun.
I'm not confident suppression effect adds more tactical/strategic depth the gameplay. In other words, I'm not confident it makes the game more fun. Why are you so confident that this is the case? Perhaps changing gameplay flow is not the goal.
P.S. I put this in the discord chat but I am putting it here as well so that it can be somewhere more permanent/continue the conversation long term.
The goal is cinematic experiences, immersiveness, make it slower paced and make gunfights more distant.
You would use the ammo not only to shoot at contacts but to suppress aswell making ammo more valuable and giving importance to ammo bearers.
It would make you grab ammo from the dead bodies, ressuply or ask for a convoy to deliver ammo to your group frequently because you now actually use the ammo not only at contacts but to locations where they are, making it more valuable.
Right now it is not valuable because people only shoot when they see the enemy's face and it's simply because having no suppression effects makes the one receiving the fire the upper hand in the fight for he can simply look and hear where the fire is coming from clearly whether he is taking fire form 5 ak's, grenades and in the future mortars.
I ask you how many times have you ressuplied? How many times have you asked for ammo in remote areas? I remember once or twice I asked for ammo to a mate in ~400 hours because you die before you use yours.
Suppression makes sense and can cause the enemy to think twice about attacking due to the overwhelming (immersive) firepower you and your mates have.
It turns the game from a CSGO shooter to an immersive arma shooter, a next gen immersive ArmA that would look and feel insane and awesome when compared to previous titles and current competitors.
We want to shoot and bomb multiple times (because it releases dopamine) at the enemy position knowing they can't see shit because dirt and smoke is on their face, their ears are ringing and their bodies are shaking due to the overwhelming sounds and earth-shacking powerful bombs give. Their squad leader would need to yell his lungs out to retreat so his mates could hear him under such circumstances -> making the gunfight longer -> making ammo valuable -> making players hide, think twice and value their lives
I understand that suppression effects can be subjective but in war most of the people fighting do not have decades long experience and AFAIK veterans still struggle trying to diminish flinches. Flinching is a natural response, even for seasoned shooters. Bombs will cause your ears to ring (if people disable tinittus in the game options, make it so that there's no sound), smoke and dirt will be on your face whether you are seasoned or not.
To me the audio is what Arma uses as suppression. When i hear shots going over my head and landing right next to me or an RPG/40mm going over my head I'm not going to peek because i know they have me pinned. I know that one or two hits is all it takes. Getting off the x or popping smoke is going to give me a better chance then trying to be that guy who thinks he's the main character. My experiences and how i react or how quickly i react dictates my response, if i even have a chance to respond.
In my experience Suppression is already effective. If I'm laying down fire with a 249 or a PKM the guy isn't going to be combat able because he's going to be busting his ass just trying to get cover. I will spam last known positions because i know the guys on the other side are going to be feeling that close call, even more so if they don't have hard cover and their buddy just got shredded. I will move and reposition for a flank on overwhelming forces to try pick them off or even the odds. I use tracers tactically to mark targets for my squad, to scare the person on the other end, try to over stimulate them, or even draw their attention. That sniper on the next valley over doesn't care when the shots are landing way low, i bet you he moves when you zero it in and he starts to feel that closeness. 1v1 situations are different, and as much as I'm able to return fire and hit my attacker, i also get domed often. It's choices you make, with a consequence that either is in your favor or not.
IRL people don't always make perfect tactical decisions even when they have extensive training and experience, nor do we. Players and People do stupid shit based on pure reaction; They will stick their head out when they should not, or pick the wrong time to return fire. Sometimes even when we feel like we played tactically and "correct" they still get lucky and dome us with spray. Sometimes they out shoot you because they have over 9000 hours, a one gig connection, top end PC, they live with the server, and used to be MLG. Players have to live with their choices, and by extension they create unique interactions which you simply do not get with any other mil sim game.
Squad tries too hard to force players to play a certain way, and i understand why, but at the same time i don't play that game anymore for that reason.
I do think there is more room to encourage players to value their life more. I have played with self imposed "1 life" or "first life" rules and sometimes it's crazy how far you can go when you put more value on your characters life or gear. Any time i steal a radio or get a desired gear piece i instantly value that character more. Anytime i live through an intense firefight or barely escape death i feel responsible for that character continuing on. I feel the devs can really look at ways to encourage players to put more value on their character as "not wanting to die" is a strong motivator. DayZ is a good example of this idea, as is Tarkov to a lesser extent.
I do understand the desire to have a performance based suppression system, but from my experience in not just Squad, it always takes control away from the player, and it feels like you are fighting your own character as much as you are fighting the enemy. I'm not saying it isn't possible to develop a nuanced system and small flinches and dirt or debris i don't have any issue with, but full on "suppression" is controversial at the very least and abhorrent in the worst examples.
Not trying to hate on your ideas, i appreciate you putting the time in and sharing your opinions. We need more of those opinions and discussions to get us where we are going.
As I said, take inspiration from Squad and other games, it does not need to be full blur you can't see your hand in front of your face. Weapons should be less arcade and have a learning curve. Right now they feel like lasers.
Flinches, debris, weapon sway, time to aim down sights, harder to control when tired from running and when moving, grenades that give more effects than just a simple smoke effect when exploded, a way to see that you are landing shots on your enemy (blood, smoke effects) are all some ideas BI can use to make the game more immersive and cinematic.
Current weapon movement is clunky especially when Low Ready does not work. Make it's movements more natural and player movement more natural - currently they look like mannequins running around going full speed while being shot at.
Go into 3rd person and move left to right repeatedly | Aim down sights and move your weapon form one point to another repeatedly and fast - it's binary like a machine, it goes from point A to B like a laser, there's no "smoothing" like it would happen in real life, looks silly and cheap.
If you are lazy here's a video:
Vanilla:
Take ideas, improve and make it better
@Laxemann wrote some of the most widely-used immersion mods for ArmA 3, collected here: LAxemann's immersion essentials.
There is also:
Alright let me try to summarize the goals of the changes that you have proposed.
The goal is to have the average conflict player use suppression to win fights in an average game. Hence making the game more fun by requiring players to engage with the field resupply mechanics already in the game and making fights longer, and more intense throughout.
Another goal is to make the game visually and auditorily more intense. Causing fights to be more dopaminergic all around.
Is this a fair summary?
One thing I do agree with right away is that it would be super cool to have dynamic animations for changes in player movement direction. Animation like in this video
https://youtu.be/4ag7fSlEeKA?si=809UlFhUDuU4z0qo
One can only dream to have an ArmA game with such smooth animations!
Basically, yes. speedwaystar covers almost everything on the comment above yours.
The video that made me buy ArmA 3 was this one.
Applying forced suppression screen effects and control effects is a cheap method to fundamentally apply a bandaid on a problem which is solved if you disable respawns or make dying actually a threat to a players gameplay experience. Would it work for quick session, rapid gameplay like conflict? Yes for sure. If you actually want this to be impactful and you are playing "MILSIM", turn off your respawns and see how that changes up the way players take part in a session. If they genuinely care about the experience of both themselves and those around them, they'll start working hard to not die and things like suppression will then just work even moreso than it already does, without forcing game-y filters over the player.
Here-in lies the great thing about ARMA, we've got mods so players can hand tune what they want. If they want to make it far more cinematic and arguably completely over the top, its available and done very well by modders.
You are using the terms MILSIM and realism and then referring to the current situation with gun handling as "CSGO"-like when realistically, a lot of the weapon handling in game is on par with how handling a firearm in real life works. Sure weapon inertia and sight misalignment are things that happen, but it really isnt as severe as Squad makes it out to be. The ICO update made it feel like the someone who should have experience using a weapon, has literally no training or control over his weapon. As for inertia when turning like in the A3 video, yes it should be turned up a bit more, especially with heavier weapons but again, Squad is a poor representation to use as its so exaggerated and over the top. Ive used a full length, very heavy M60 in a blank fire reenactment and even though Im not very strong, I had the ability to keep it from wildly swinging when I turned with it like Squad seems to show with a weapon as light as an M4. Squad characters also have little control over recoil as opposed to even civilian shooters in the real world.
ARMA is already cinematic and not to mention, compelling experience. You dont need to slam it with overtly exaggerated visual effects which is effectively boiling down to the game telling you how you should be feeling by blurring and darkening your screen.
The problem with a lot of these arguments is a lot of people dont have actual experience shooting or even just holding real world firearms. You talk about weapons being lasers? Generally they pretty much are. One of the reasons for Squad's ICO was because of this and its a crutch to force the player to not be so lethal which in my opinion is a cheap way of solving the issue. Firefights ARE lethal, especially if fought anywhere inside of 500 meters. There is a reason why CQB is the most feared scenario in combat.
Solutions to work with this lethality that are realistic and not gamey? Increasing weapon inertia would help somewhat. Adding better body inertia (which is almost impossible without making controls feel janky) to stop people being able to strafe. Bring back fatigue and make movement considerations, equipment weight and positioning really matter. Possibly add Ground Branch or Tarkovs arm strength system akin to LAxemann's mod to stop players being able to keep weapons raised for an unlimited period, ESPECIALLY heavy weapons. Finally, play on a mode where respawns are either off or a huge inconvenience and play with a team of people working together and then see how much more focused you get on staying alive, get suppressed, etc.
@Khaosmatic
The developers should aim to create engaging gameplay while still capturing elements of real-world combat.
Squad's ICO attempts to simulate the weariness, fear, and stress experienced by soldiers during combat. This can affect weapon accuracy, as real-life shooting under duress (adrenaline rush and physiological responses in high-pressure situations), is indeed challenging, because, shooting at guys when your getting shot at is kind of hard , nothing like firing on a shooting range.
When playing as infantry, you’re not a highly trained special forces operative. Instead, you represent the average (18-25 yo) soldier with basic week-long training and the game aims to simulate this experience.
Players using a mouse have much higher accuracy than real-life soldiers, therefore, to balance this, the game has to introduce mechanics like recoil, sway, and fatigue to make shooting more challenging. People in real life are nowhere near as accurate as people using a mouse.
Unlike real soldiers, players don’t fear actual death in games and this affects behaviour. Players accumulate more gunfight experience than any real soldier would during their service.
The combination of mouse accuracy, no fear of death and players having more gunfight experience than any real soldier would mean that players need to be nerfed somehow.
To make the combat play out closer to how it does IRL you need to make the gunplay more harder/unrealistic? than irl.
Striking a balance between realism and fun is crucial - Maybe ICO is too much but pre ICO is just lasers just like Arma Reforger is now. A mix in between the two could be perfect.
One of thing i tried to talk about in my overly long post above is the connection between the character in the game and the player as the controller. How i as a player act and how my character reacts are different. We as players are not military personal. Some of us are, and some of us were, but i will make a large assumption in saying that 'most' of us are not. We vary in age, abilities, skills, language, culture, and even control method or platform. How we as a player react and the choices we make dictate the experience of our character in the game.
Our character experiences all the consequences we as a player give them, both good and bad. How we value that character is largely up to us, much like how in DayZ we can choose how that character progresses by the actions we choose. We can choose to play as a Soldier or as close as we can, or we can jump in a chopper with an Australian who is blaring AC/DC and doesn't seem to value his life (or ours) in the slightest. We can watch in horror, or in hilarity as he loudly states "is that an enemy choppa? I'm going to ram him!".
Or we can join a mil sim server where everyone has a rank, they intend to play the game in that way, and they have built the server with mods tailored to exactly the experience they as a collective want.
There is no wrong answer. Arma gives you the freedom to experience it how you want.
The balance is between the freedom of the player and the limits set to the character.
Now i do agree that we can give players more incentive to value their characters life. But different people are incentivized by different things. Reforger has a strong base to work from in that regard, and in my opinion it's easier to give players a reason to stay alive rather then try to force them to.
We have a medical system with an unconscious state, blood loss types, and debuff status. Some ways to incentivize players here is with longer lasting status effects requiring higher level care to fully heal. This means taking damage has a larger consequence over time as you can't just be your own medic. It means seeking out medical attention (or even another player playing as a medic) suddenly becomes vital to staying in the fight, and keeping your character in good health gives you an advantage, and if there is one thing we know about players it's that they like having an advantage.
Reforger also has a great inventory and gear system that lets you quickly pick items and take the things you think you will need. We have ammo types, attachments, clothing, and of course weapons. We are able to spawn with nothing but basics and loot our way to gear if we so choose (or we are budget oriented). The issue is it's almost too easy to get your ideal gear right from the start. Yes you have supply cost, but one thing we know about players is that they like and value their specific gear. Gear could be better tied into the rank system. limiting certain things to rank can give those things more value. If i as a private don't have access to certain cosmetics, ammo types, or even weapons, then when i do find those in game suddenly i have something worth keeping my character alive for longer. Likewise i am encouraged to engage in team play activities to boost my rank.
Speaking of Rank we already have a good start there as well. Base building and vehicles are both tied in. Transport is an incentive to stay alive. If for example you are 3km out or more from the nearest base, radio, or command truck suddenly the journey alone can be an incentive to stay alive. What we use to transport could have more depth. Players like ownership. I like "my car" even if it's the same as yours. Giving players some light customization options can encourage them to keep those vehicles and maybe even repair them when they are damaged.
Issues with Rank as it exists currently is that it's far easier to get it at the start of the game then later on. Capping just 2 or 3 bases from FIA while staying alive with a veterancy bonus gives you almost all you need. Throw some resupplying in and I'm probably Sergent. If i join late i don't have that advantage and i really have to fight for that XP or go out of the way into under used bases. Transparency in rank and a more even distribution of it could really help players joining at different points in the game progress and encourage them to do so, especially when staying alive. Veterancy could even have tiers with unique unlocks requiring players to keep their player alive through multiple combat engagements. Because as we all know players like their character to look and be unique.
All of these give value to the character without taking control away from the player and they do it by factoring in different play styles or incentives.