There are some things the engine can sense. Then (from what I know) you'd end up writing code that would convert certain reported data into effects that let's call the "Fear Calculation" although it is better thought of as stress induced fatigue.
Let's say the engine can detect:
the volume of fire arriving in your immediate area
Distance from the enemy
Losing the battle
rate of friendly casualties taken
These are the things I believe are detected/reported (in some form)by the engine. There are probably a lot more. This creates two questions:
What should these calculations translate to? About all I can think of is a physical representation of stress in the form of fatigue. For example: Loss of fine muscle movement control is a indicator of fatigue. So, accuracy would suffer as an example and speed of reloading..you get the idea.
What NON-physical effects could be generated to represent fear/stress.
The second question is Game Play or player satisfaction related. A lot of players want their in game "soldier" to be one Hell of a guy! Brave, courageous and bold!
Able to shrug off the pains that would slow down LESSER MEN.They want their soldier to IGNORE the very things that Dix listed. Be full of resolve and determined to win. The worse things are going...the harder they fight!!!! [/COLOR]:mad:
Look at the most popular games out there. The player strength and stamina is ridiculously high and doesn't fade easily. When it does, seems like there is always some sort of "Health Pack" to bring the player back to jumping over six foot walls. So....how do you expect the player base to respond to "playing hurt"? To me it is realistic and adds suspense and immersion but, am I the small minority? We do want to have a large player base and lots of full servers.
So there is a tension here. Great games solve it in some way. Stupid games blow it.
MANY Players would dislike Playing Hurt. I'm pretty sure of this. So, in a way this would induce fear. Not of death but, of reduction in "super-soldierness". You would IMHO have to enforce a strict penalty for suicide. RO seemed to allow this with little cost. If suicide cost your side dearly in reinforcements (as an example) then...the player would either have to bear his injuries and "shakes" or QUIT the map and go to another. I'm sure a certain amount of players would do this.
This is pretty much what I'm thinking in terms of prospective players' take on this. Also interesting to have some insight on things from a coding point of view.
I'd just like to expand on the fact that, in order to see "realistic" behaviour, we don't need to induce actual fear in the players. The important part of this, as I see it, is that players keep their heads down when under fire. We want to be able to say, "Hit those windows while the rest of the squad sneak round behind the wall", or, "Set up the MG to cover the approach up the road". IRL if an MG42 was covering an open section of road, it would be almost like a physical barrier - you would hunker down and call up smoke, mortars or armour to sort out the problem, unless there was absolutely no alternative to dashing across. In DH we dash across as the first solution, maybe with smoke. It's not so much about the actual modelling or inducement of fear in players or avatars, but that they should appear to be in that state from the point of view of the opposition. I'm not after something as gamey as the suppression indicator of BiA, but it is from that point of view that fear needs to work in terms of gameplay.
So I'm with you on the saddling players with an irritating time if they get hurt or are deemed "scared". They don't have to be actually scared, there just has to be something which dissuades them from getting into situations where one would reasonably expect a soldier to take more interest in life-preservation than shooting the enemy. Again, this isn't for the immersion of the player under fire, but rather so that those doing the firing get some tactical value for doing so.