Aiming Accuracy in Arma 3

[batto 17]

As Liquidpinky said. Suppression enhancements concerns only AI, no?

@MadDogX: Still I think this shouldn't be punishment for such behaviour. Loosing credit/gear/rank, respawn delay, ... will do fine IMO and you'll be ready to shoot when you need it.

Edited April 17, 2012 by batto

[maddogx 13]

As Liquidpinky said. Suppression enhancements concerns only AI, no?

Why should they? This thread is about shooting accurary in general, so any related topics are fair game.

[liquidpinky 11]

As Liquidpinky said. Suppression enhancements concerns only AI, no?

@MadDogX: Still I think this shouldn't be punishment for such behaviour. Loosing credit/gear/rank, respawn delay, ... will do fine IMO and you'll be ready to shoot when you need it.

A lengthy respawn time will make you think long and hard about gung-ho tacticts indeed, but then it can chase away players as well.

But I do agree that there are better punishments than making your avatar act drunk, unless they find a way to pass the efect on to the player.

Then people can shoot at me and miss all day long and I won't complain one bit. :)

[antoineflemming 14]

As Liquidpinky said. Suppression enhancements concerns only AI, no?

@MadDogX: Still I think this shouldn't be punishment for such behaviour. Loosing credit/gear/rank, respawn delay, ... will do fine IMO and you'll be ready to shoot when you need it.

Now, it's more important that suppression enhancements affect AI IMO, but there should be some kind of effect on human players too.

@Liquidpinky: the obsession with suppression is that it's a much more realistic way of fighting. In most engagements, half the time you're not lining up your sights with the enemy. You're firing in a general direction to suppress the enemy. There have been so many times in ArmA2 where I really wish there was a suppression system in place at least for the AI. And I mean a really good one, where they were taking cover because I was firing my M249 in their direction. Had a similar situation last night.

BIS either needs to implement some kind of blur and slight screen shake system, or they need to add much better (read: distinct, noticeable) audio cues to when bullets hit really close, kinda how COD unrealistically has a different sound for when you are shooting someone (unrealistic because there's no way you'd hear a sound difference from 500 m away). But, just as COD has a unique sound letting you know that you're hitting someone, BIS should have some distinct, noticeable sound for bullets that hit close to you.

Edited April 17, 2012 by antoineflemming

[liquidpinky 11]

Thats the real problem, they need to create better awareness of incoming rounds although it isn't that bad at times.

Punishing you because someone is firing and missing is not on though, you are already in the shit and you don't need some BS visual effect to add to the drama. Half the time you don't know where you are being shot at from anyway, like real life situations and not like BF3 where you can pretty much see everyone on the map who can shoot at you.

Again, the AI while under suppressive fire should adapt their tactics to suit and not just have their aim messed with.

I would rather see them using real manoeuvres as apposed to just being gimped.

[batto 17]

But, just as COD has a unique sound letting you know that you're hitting someone, BIS should have some distinct, noticeable sound for bullets that hit close to you.

Not sure what you mean. I hear bullet hits close to me very clearly. That's enough for me to stay in / move to cover.

Maybe there could be difficulty setting for it. When enabled your avatar would shout "WTF?!" on every nearby bullet hit. Vulgarity of those statements would depend on closeness of bullet hit. :p

[antoineflemming 14]

Thats the real problem, they need to create better awareness of incoming rounds although it isn't that bad at times.

Punishing you because someone is firing and missing is not on though, you are already in the shit and you don't need some BS visual effect to add to the drama. Half the time you don't know where you are being shot at from anyway, like real life situations and not like BF3 where you can pretty much see everyone on the map who can shoot at you.

Again, the AI while under suppressive fire should adapt their tactics to suit and not just have their aim messed with.

I would rather see them using real manoeuvres as apposed to just being gimped.

Same here. And I don't want them still shooting at me while I'm suppressing them, unless they're blindfiring or something.

---------- Post added at 10:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 AM ----------

Not sure what you mean. I hear bullet hits close to me very clearly. That's enough for me to stay in / move to cover.

Maybe there could be difficulty setting for it. When enabled your avatar would shout "WTF?!" on every nearby bullet hit. Vulgarity of those statements would depend on closeness of bullet hit. :p

I don't always hear them. Maybe it's just my sound or something. Honestly, I just want something different than my screen getting super bright. Can't stand that. The effect is like I'm dehydrated or something.

[dmarkwick 261]

The main thing about suppression effects for a player is not that it looks "realistic", because there is no visual representation of what it's trying to simulate, which is fear. So the only thing it can do is to give some compelling reason to seek cover. If suppression effe ts only affected the AI then it would give players an advantage in that once under fire, all the player would need to do is to quickly fire a few wild bullets back, and then enjoy the advantage of accurately firing back against innaccurate enemy.

So IMO the effects themselves is not important, only that it gives an appropriate disadvantage similar to fear.

[liquidpinky 11]

The main thing about suppression effects for a player is not that it looks "realistic", because there is no visual representation of what it's trying to simulate, which is fear. So the only thing it can do is to give some compelling reason to seek cover. If suppression effe ts only affected the AI then it would give players an advantage in that once under fire, all the player would need to do is to quickly fire a few wild bullets back, and then enjoy the advantage of accurately firing back against innaccurate enemy.

So IMO the effects themselves is not important, only that it gives an appropriate disadvantage similar to fear.

Not everyone handles fear in the same way, suppression effects railroads everyone into the same behaviour bracket which for myself I find unacceptable.

They should maybe have it as an option so those that want it can and those who don't can turn it off.

Even a server side option is fine, will stop all the bickering over whether it is fair or not if it is a server wide rule.

[Panda_pl 0]

So IMO the effects themselves is not important, only that it gives an appropriate disadvantage similar to fear.

Well, I think just bumping stamina up is fine.

From my Mp experiences it literally does nothing to include a very restricting supression effect if respawn time is 5 seconds (Insurgency mod). People would ignore the effects and do their stuff, the effects were just there to annoy me (this blurr)...

On the other hand I remember people panicking and getting agitated in Arma, because a death usually means you wait another hour for mission to end and that is a large penalty.

I have also noticed being able to see enemy or having an indicator of where the hit came from (in case of more casual style games where first hit does not kill) will greatly encourage player to fire back. This is not necessarily bad since this is natural reaction: panic when you don't see enemy, aggression when you do and he's close.

I'd just leave it as it is since some people already loose it during coop matches.

[-Coulum- 35]

Suppressive fire needs to effect ai. It is absolutely necessary to creating realistic firefights against them. I think we can all agree on that. And these suppressive effects should include running to and hiding fully behind cover, suffering an aiming penalty and a spotting penalty.

Again, the AI while under suppressive fire should adapt their tactics to suit and not just have their aim messed with.

I would rather see them using real manoeuvres as apposed to just being gimped.

You are right, the ai maneuvers should change – that is vital, but I strongly believe their accuracy should be decreased as well. When under fire, especially heavy suppressive fire, soldiers will tend to pop off quick unaimed shots rather than aimed and precise shots due to panic and the fact that they are usually trying to peak out, shoot and get down as fast as they can. There is no time to aim and thus their aiming skill should be decreased. Of course more experienced/trained soldiers will panic less and react more calmly – So ideally the amount of aiming penalty would be proportional to the suppressed unit’s skill. But really this would only have a noticeable effect when concerning special operators. The basic US soldier would still decrease in aim significantly.

The same thing applies to spotting. When under fire soldiers tend to be much more tunnelvisioned and don’t have enough time to spot efficiently.

I think this kind of system would be more than fair and would stop ai from being suppressed, suddenly popping out of cover for a brief moment and sniping you which is for the most part unrealistic. Do you agree?

As for suppression effects to the player. I believe they should be implemented. If nothing else, your breathing rate should increase while under suppressive fire, making aiming harder. Most soldiers, although not all, are afraid of incoming fire, and their heart rate and breath rate will increase significantly. So in my opinion a little extra sway due to breathing isn’t at all unrealistic. Admittedly, the suppressed sway of a2 is way to sporadic and unpredictable - Something more like the vbs2 sway would be perfect though.

Adrenaline actually make your vision sharper as well as your muscle control, suppression effects are as far off the mark as the real thing as possible.

So should we make it so that you get more accurate and halve better sight when under fire? Then we would have firefights where you try to shoot someone, miss, and get shot yourself because you made the other guy more accurate. Not even close to what real firefights are like. The question is do you want realistic firefights, or realistic suppression effects? Personally, I wouldn’t mind having a bit of blurred vision while under serious fire in order to get a more realistic firefight.

Not everyone handles fear in the same way, suppression effects railroads everyone into the same behaviour bracket which for myself I find unacceptable.

You are absolutely right. Everyone reacts to fear differently… just like everyone reacts to pain differently, everyone can shoot with different levels of accuracy, everyone has different levels of stamina etc. etc. The thing is, At some point BIS needs to decide how proficient every soldier will be. When it comes to suppression effects, they must decide how much fear should be “simulated†for every soldier. If one degree of fear had to be picked I would much rather depict the majority of soldiers rather than the minority. Most soldiers are more likely to duck into cover because they are scared shitless than because they are consciously making the decision to do so.

They should maybe have it as an option so those that want it can and those who don't can turn it off.

Even a server side option is fine, will stop all the bickering over whether it is fair or not if it is a server wide rule.

This would work, although I think it would be better if the degree of fear is related to the skill of the soldier. So if you place a high skill soldier in the editor and the player plays as him he will not see any suppression effects. If the player plays as a low skilled unit he will experience severe suppression effects. I think it would be neat if this would also apply to stamina, weaponsway etc. and it would stop people from debating on things like how accurate, tough, fast etc. etc. the average soldier is.

Edited April 17, 2012 by -Coulum-

[dmarkwick 261]

Not everyone handles fear in the same way, suppression effects railroads everyone into the same behaviour bracket which for myself I find unacceptable.

Well what we're talking about here is a gameplay feature, so making an attempt at simulating something so esoteric as fear seems, as you say, subject to subjectivity :) If suppression effects are to be desired (and it seems most people seem to like the general idea) then it needs to have some sort of effect that makes the player act in self preservation rather than gameplay heroism. If NO suppression effect is applied to the player, he gets to fire as well under fire as not under fire. If he has some sort of disablement under fire, he might act differently in order to preserve his gameplay time, which is as close to fear as we can expect. I would expect an effective suppression system to be less effective after a short while, in order to promote active gameplay. So that, although a player might decide to suppress an enemy/enemy player, that suppression will not be permanent, and each player will need to think about what happens when it wears down.

They should maybe have it as an option so those that want it can and those who don't can turn it off.

Even a server side option is fine, will stop all the bickering over whether it is fair or not if it is a server wide rule.

As ever, options are good :)

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well I would not want that somekind of those "OMG special effects" dictate what I have to see/feel or how much shaky aiming is while trying to overcome such a nasty situation on my own. Hear the bullets zip close around, hear the yelling of your buddy and wounded soldiers, watching all this mess - finding a way to move out of this situation or getting the initiative back. Most soldiers are trained and do know what to do or not - at least the squad/platoon leader should act accordingly. Guess that (instant) respawns are one of the main reasons why players don't care much about their ingame characters and like to see more "immersive" SFX instead.... maybe even the missions are too easy or they don't want to risk to play missions with no respawn/revive eg "KIA" = wait until the current mission is finished? Imo an option would be ok eg "visual cue of suppression/pinned down status - activated/deactivated".

[fabrizio_t 58]

Suppressive fire needs to effect AI

It already does affect AI, in my opinion.

It affects AI aiming precision, even at max skill, for instance.

I bet it affects morale too, but morale itself looks a bit broken.

[-Coulum- 35]

It already does affect AI, in my opinion.

It affects AI aiming precision, even at max skill, for instance.

I bet it affects morale too, but morale itself looks a bit broken.

Yes there is but those effects are very hard to trigger because:

->Sonic cracks don't trigger ai suppression

->only impacts .5 metres or so away trigger suppression - should be more like 5 metres

These would simply be fixed by making bullets that snap by cause suppression and making the suppression radius of a unit larger. Right now the small window to suppress a unit is far to hard to hit and it ends up being easier to hit the ai than suppress them, thus making suppression basically an invalid tactic agains ai.

Ontop of that the suppression effects don't seem be totally "complete" imo. they need not only to decrease ai accuracy (which is done well now) but also to

-> temporarily decrease ai spotting ability

-> Force the ai to go prone for a few seconds if they were previously stationary

-> Force the suppressed unit to go crouched or prone if they were moving

-> The only movements a suppressed unit should be able to make are those towards cover for a period of time

-> The suppressed unit should fully hide himself behind cover if possible

Your right there are suppression effects but they don't really help improve firefights as of now. I think that some of the things I mentioned would help but obviously it would be more complicated in order to not ruin certain things such as CQB.

[dmarkwick 261]

It would be difficult to apply suppression effects to any event other than a near miss impact (as you say 5-10m or so would be appropriate). Near misses that do not impact would be a much harder event to detect.

[Panda_pl 0]

It would be difficult to apply suppression effects to any event other than a near miss impact (as you say 5-10m or so would be appropriate). Near misses that do not impact would be a much harder event to detect.

Nah. Just add a bigger hitbox around unit that tests for impact just like the normal hit boxes (except it does not count as a hit and allows the simulated bullet to pass).

Then you'd just need to perform a LOS check when bullet hits the box to see if it didn't pass behind wall or something.

[-Coulum- 35]

It would be difficult to apply suppression effects to any event other than a near miss impact (as you say 5-10m or so would be appropriate). Near misses that do not impact would be a much harder event to detect.

Not nessacarily...

like you say near misses that impact are possible and really all that needs to be fixed is the distance they must land away to create suppression. 5 - 10 metres is much more realistic than .5 metres. This alone would probably make suppression effects for both player and ai easier to trigger and thus make suppressive fire a more useful tactic.

But when it comes to bullets that snap by but don't impact near the ai it is possible to track whether they came close enough to the player. I tried doing it via scripts and eventhandlers and got it to work - problem is a script needed to be fired up every time a shot was fired, and I was told that would get really messy... But this just means this kind of thing just needs to be built directly into the game by the devs. And my evidence that it is possible is once again from... VBS2. VBS2 has the ability to track whether a round has passed by a unit and how close it came.

Or Bis could do something like what Panda_Pl suggested although I think a suppressed eventhandler like VBS2 would be cleaner.

And I strongly feel that sonic snaps need to cause suppression as it would be impossible to suppress certain units when you are at an odd angle with the ground around them. Ie. if you were on a flat plane it would be near impossible to go prone and supress someone unles sonic snaps also caused suppression.

Anyways I made an a3 ticket for improved suppressive effects on the ai if anyones interested.

Edited April 19, 2012 by -Coulum-

[maturin 12]

Sonic snaps shouldn't cause full suppression effects, though. If you had the presence aim shake go on for five or ten seconds every time a round went past, frankly the game would be no fun.

I am, however, in favor of making your character suddenly jolt, throwing off your shot if you are trying to aim carefully.

Then the trick would be creating a fair effect for the AI. If you could shoot a bullet into the air and make the enemy fall on their faces in mid-bound to cover, it would be exploitative.

[Panda_pl 0]

I am, however, in favor of making your character suddenly jolt, throwing off your shot if you are trying to aim carefully.

This cannot work well.

Any multiplayer game that had it suffered the same issue: the player with higher ping had an advantage in combat because he could get off a shot before being suppressed.

Remember Arma has client side hit detection, which would make it worse.

It would also make CQC fullauto combats kinda weird.

[dmarkwick 261]

Not nessacarily...

like you say near misses that impact are possible and really all that needs to be fixed is the distance they must land away to create suppression. 5 - 10 metres is much more realistic than .5 metres. This alone would probably make suppression effects for both player and ai easier to trigger and thus make suppressive fire a more useful tactic.

But when it comes to bullets that snap by but don't impact near the ai it is possible to track whether they came close enough to the player. I tried doing it via scripts and eventhandlers and got it to work - problem is a script needed to be fired up every time a shot was fired, and I was told that would get really messy... But this just means this kind of thing just needs to be built directly into the game by the devs. And my evidence that it is possible is once again from... VBS2. VBS2 has the ability to track whether a round has passed by a unit and how close it came.

Or Bis could do something like what Panda_Pl suggested although I think a suppressed eventhandler like VBS2 would be cleaner.

And I strongly feel that sonic snaps need to cause suppression as it would be impossible to suppress certain units when you are at an odd angle with the ground around them. Ie. if you were on a flat plane it would be near impossible to go prone and supress someone unles sonic snaps also caused suppression.

Anyways I made an a3 ticket for improved suppressive effects on the ai if anyones interested.

Bullet impact distance from the player is not a problem :) but I'd maintain that near misses that do not impact remain a problem. VBS2 may have the ability you mentioned, but I'd suspect that's a result of post-analysis, not real-time. The only way I could see a near-miss being detected would be to have each round have a secondary collision object shaped to represent it's flight over the time period and it's "range" to suppress. It'd look like a cylinder. Either the entire flight of the bullet would need to be processed upon impact, or each frame rendered would need to have a smaller collision area to process. Each has their issues but I'd suspect the processing of the entire flight might just be preferable as it can be done several cycles late, allowing for efficient scheduling during hectic moments. I doubt a player would notice a suppression effect delay of even a couple of seconds, and could easily put it down to natural delayed reaction.

[fabrizio_t 58]

Yes there is but those effects are very hard to trigger because:

->Sonic cracks don't trigger ai suppression

->only impacts .5 metres or so away trigger suppression - should be more like 5 metres

These would simply be fixed by making bullets that snap by cause suppression and making the suppression radius of a unit larger. Right now the small window to suppress a unit is far to hard to hit and it ends up being easier to hit the ai than suppress them, thus making suppression basically an invalid tactic agains ai.

Ontop of that the suppression effects don't seem be totally "complete" imo. they need not only to decrease ai accuracy (which is done well now) but also to

-> temporarily decrease ai spotting ability

-> Force the ai to go prone for a few seconds if they were previously stationary

-> Force the suppressed unit to go crouched or prone if they were moving

-> The only movements a suppressed unit should be able to make are those towards cover for a period of time

-> The suppressed unit should fully hide himself behind cover if possible

Your right there are suppression effects but they don't really help improve firefights as of now. I think that some of the things I mentioned would help but obviously it would be more complicated in order to not ruin certain things such as CQB.

Some interesting points here.

I'd highly appreciate having these features coded into ArmA3 vanilla AI, but i fear that won't be the case.

However, some stuff, namely:

-> temporarily decrease ai spotting ability

-> Force the ai to go prone for a few seconds if they were previously stationary

-> Force the suppressed unit to go crouched or prone if they were moving

can be achieved by scripting. I've already done this kind of stuff same time ago.

Sure it's a sub-optimal solution, since it adds quite some overhead, due to the need to trace by script in real time hundreds / thousands of bullet positions.

Things like:

-> The only movements a suppressed unit should be able to make are those towards cover for a period of time

-> The suppressed unit should fully hide himself behind cover if possible

would be hard to do by script, since AI in combat mode is quite reluctant to be moved toward any position.

To achieve this by script we definetely need some abitity to override combat behaviour.

This would be a key feature in ArmA3!

---------- Post added at 10:36 ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 ----------

Bullet impact distance from the player is not a problem :) but I'd maintain that near misses that do not impact remain a problem. VBS2 may have the ability you mentioned, but I'd suspect that's a result of post-analysis, not real-time. The only way I could see a near-miss being detected would be to have each round have a secondary collision object shaped to represent it's flight over the time period and it's "range" to suppress. It'd look like a cylinder. Either the entire flight of the bullet would need to be processed upon impact, or each frame rendered would need to have a smaller collision area to process. Each has their issues but I'd suspect the processing of the entire flight might just be preferable as it can be done several cycles late, allowing for efficient scheduling during hectic moments. I doubt a player would notice a suppression effect delay of even a couple of seconds, and could easily put it down to natural delayed reaction.

I tried detecting bullet impact, but had problems: did so by attaching an EH to any bullets and it did not work as expected, many impacts were missed. Ended up tracking the entire bullet trajectory, with around .01secs. polling and some simplifying.

It worked better than expected, at least with up to one hundred units on the field and other routines running.

Edited April 19, 2012 by fabrizio_T

[-Coulum- 35]

Sonic snaps shouldn't cause full suppression effects, though. If you had the presence aim shake go on for five or ten seconds every time a round went past, frankly the game would be no fun.

I am, however, in favor of making your character suddenly jolt, throwing off your shot if you are trying to aim carefully.

Then the trick would be creating a fair effect for the AI. If you could shoot a bullet into the air and make the enemy fall on their faces in mid-bound to cover, it would be exploitative.

Yes it would be kind of annoying if every time a shot wizzed by your weapon shook. Thats why I think snaps would only create a increase in breathing and have some other quick visual effect like a blurring or darkening the edges of the screen. I would hat to have the current suppression effects (random jumpy sway) caused by sonic snaps. That would be beyond annoying. your idea of a jerk in aim might work but as Panda pointed out it would ruin some CQB with full auto. Maybe making it so suppression ca't be cause by unit within 10m or so of you would fix this?

As for the ai, your right it would have to be a bit more complex than the ai simply dropping everytime you put a round past them... although even this would probably be better than what we have now. For running it would have to be something like

If ai was walking while suppressed, make him go prone, then make a move to cover after a random (0-5sec) time,

If ai was running to cover while suppressed, make him sprint or crouch run and go prone when he arrives,

If ai was running to complete an engage order or something while suppressed, then make a move to cover after a random (0-5sec) time,

Some interesting points here.

I'd highly appreciate having these features coded into ArmA3 vanilla AI, but i fear that won't be the case.

However, some stuff, namely:

-> temporarily decrease ai spotting ability

-> Force the ai to go prone for a few seconds if they were previously stationary

-> Force the suppressed unit to go crouched or prone if they were moving

can be achieved by scripting. I've already done this kind of stuff same time ago.

Sure it's a sub-optimal solution, since it adds quite some overhead, due to the need to trace by script in real time hundreds / thousands of bullet positions.

Things like:

-> The only movements a suppressed unit should be able to make are those towards cover for a period of time

-> The suppressed unit should fully hide himself behind cover if possible

would be hard to do by script, since AI in combat mode is quite reluctant to be moved toward any position.

To achieve this by script we definetely need some abitity to override combat behaviour.

This would be a key feature in ArmA3!

Yep some of it is possible through scripting. But like you say some of it isn't and needs to be implemented into the base game by the devs - and of course these happen to be some of the Most needed things.

I tried detecting bullet impact, but had problems: did so by attaching an EH to any bullets and it did not work as expected, many impacts were missed. Ended up tracking the entire bullet trajectory, with around .01secs. polling and some simplifying.

It worked better than expected, at least with up to one hundred units on the field and other routines running.

So you actually tracked every shot fired and determined if it came close enough to suppress an ai. It didn't cause your computer to blow up? I tried making a script that did something similar but I assumed if used in a big firefight all the bullets flying around would crash the game.

Bullet impact distance from the player is not a problem but I'd maintain that near misses that do not impact remain a problem. VBS2 may have the ability you mentioned, but I'd suspect that's a result of post-analysis, not real-time. The only way I could see a near-miss being detected would be to have each round have a secondary collision object shaped to represent it's flight over the time period and it's "range" to suppress. It'd look like a cylinder. Either the entire flight of the bullet would need to be processed upon impact, or each frame rendered would need to have a smaller collision area to process. Each has their issues but I'd suspect the processing of the entire flight might just be preferable as it can be done several cycles late, allowing for efficient scheduling during hectic moments. I doubt a player would notice a suppression effect delay of even a couple of seconds, and could easily put it down to natural delayed reaction.

So what's so bad about post analysis assuming thats vbs2 does it? Would what Panda suggested work? Making a huge invisible hit box around each Unit and when hit, count the unit as suppressed. ***

But it must be possible one way or another, otherwise how would the sonic cracking sounds be triggered for the player? Maybe I'm just ignorant though:)

Edited April 19, 2012 by -Coulum-

[fabrizio_t 58]

So you actually tracked every shot fired and determined if it came close enough to suppress an ai. It didn't cause your computer to blow up? I tried making a script that did something similar but I assumed if used in a big firefight all the bullets flying around would crash the game.

Yes, i did it and it worked almost fine. I did some simplifications though:

* i tracked no more than 1 fired bullet for a single unit in 0.1s, which is acceptable i think.

* also i tracked bullets just for the first 500m. of flight, so in average my spawned "ballistic" scripts started and ended in a fraction of second.

* i dynamically blacklisted already "suppressed" units not to reprocess them on each close-bullet detection.

I've run this script along with other heavy custom AI routines (smoke throwing script, CQB grenade lobbing script, stance/speed handling script, weapons accuracy scripts, radio script, ...) in 100 vs 100 infantry scenarios and they were yet playable, albeit with occasional stutters.

Edited April 19, 2012 by fabrizio_T

[dmarkwick 261]

So what's so bad about post analysis assuming thats vbs2 does it? Would what Panda suggested work? Making a huge invisible hit box around each Unit and when hit, count the unit as suppressed.

Well I meant post analysis as in the after battle report feature. I don't know if VBS2 can report how close a bullet passed during a mission or not :)

A large hitbox just for suppression would work fine I think.

But it must be possible one way or another, otherwise how would the sonic cracking sounds be triggered for the player? Maybe I'm just ignorant though:)

As I understand it the sonic crack appears within a firing cone, and only has to be calculated for the player, no other entity. I don't know how expensive this procedure is, otherwise assuming a very inexpensive procedure, it'd work too I suppose. Of the two I'd suggest a large suppression hitbox to be more efficient. I'd still be in favour of suppression effects having a lifetime though, to promote active gameplay.