Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gibonez

Is there a gameplay reason why there is no medical system ?

Recommended Posts

I disagree. You already need a medic in singleplayer anyways because FAKs don't quite cut it- even when you treated yourself, you will still suffer from increased sway and constant wheezing. It'd be pretty much what we have now, except more immersive.

The part I take issue with is the idea of needing to evacuate wounded units from the battlefield in order to treat them, not the idea of advanced wounds. Evil Koala suggested that neither light nor heavy wounds should be fixable in the field.

You've brushed upon something that's intrigued me for a while now: that being scripts and addons that are later introduced into vanilla. But BIS and its devs won't give credit because that'll be an admission that they've based their ideas and work on other people's creations, and then there's the legal implications as there's an universal agreement that people's work is automatically copyrighted. "Every poet's a thief" but morally it could be argued that sooner or later BIS would have thought of the idea anyway, hence why patents are time limited.

How I see it is BIS and its devs have time and budget restraints that prioritise what they develop and such features are planned but not yet released due to this.

What ideas do you think BIS took from modders? Because I suspect that any modders who you think deserve credit for their ideas either took those ideas from other modders or other games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And they are out our mercy as well. If we don't find their game amenable then we dont buy it and their company fails. This isn't a one way street, its in their best interests to treat their customer base well. For us 1.42 is a huge step back in capabilities because the release has broken a large swathe of mods and introduced worse implementations in their place but designed in a very similar way. I don't see this as progress and I can understand why some of the mod writers would be pretty annoyed with how this has happened. To me it shows a continued direction of BI wanting to shun the mod and milsim communities that sustained their franchise for so long.

To take a few of your points one at a time:

"For us 1.42 is a huge step back in capabilities because the release has broken a large swathe of mods"

So what would you have them do? Not release patches and hope the bugs their patches fix go ahead and fix themselves? Not introduce new WIP features that the community has been wanting/asking/begging to have introduced for the past decade? As to the mod breakage, that is often the case with many games (Total War series, Company of Heroes, Dragon Age, even Half Life). The changes BI made were not to deliberately break mods (a stance you seem to believe is true - "it shows a continued direction of BI wanting to shun the mod and milsim communities"). The changes were made to help facilitate more stable, engine level implementations (which I'll admit, are not perfect) of popular addon themes (e.g. mirroring the sound systems various sound mods introduced, as well as the more obvious weapon resting/deployment of ACE/AGM/CSE/TPW/OBGYN).

"I don't see this as progress and I can understand why some of the mod writers would be pretty annoyed with how this has happened"

Its understandable addon authors are annoyed that they need to go back and re-do certain parts of their addons to bring them up to spec with recent changes/additions. As an addon creator myself, I've recently had to go about editing over 60 weapon models for a pack I've been working on. Am I annoyed about this? A bit, yes. Do I complain about it? No - because I realise why BI have made the changes they have, and I understand those changes are for the betterment of the entire game, and my enjoyment of it. I'm frankly very pleased BI put so much effort into listening to the community and garnering what feedback they get and implementing suggestions and in some cases requests into future versions. Moreover, the changes they make are in the most part fully documented and also available for a drop-in basis on the devbranch for addon authors, the sensible ones at least, to get their addons ready for when new versions hit the stable branch. This way they can push updates as soon as possible without having to rush around in the days or weeks proceeding a patch.

"To me it shows a continued direction of BI wanting to shun the mod and milsim communities that sustained their franchise for so long"

I've pretty much already covered this point. But if after reading my reply you still think that this is the case, maybe you should consider changing the "Bright" part of your name...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm thinking correctly here, aren't many of the 'devs', ex mod makers ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ChrisB: That is correct. Even the project lead Joris-Jan van't Land was part of the modding community once upon a time, during the Operation Flashpoint era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me it shows a continued direction of BI wanting to shun the mod and milsim communities that sustained their franchise for so long.

Any mod maker would understand that these things happen, its just how the cycle goes, something new is added, things break because they change, you get a chance to take advantage of the new kit.

It is normal and has been what has happened since Operation Flashpoint.

The more complex you make something be it a structure of addons or a single addon with very complex functions (double so if it includes gameplay alteration) the more chances something breaks, that is just par for the course.

Also why are people not directly tied to a mod bringing up legal concerns regarding said mod because something in the game appears to function in a similar fashion to said mod?

Perhaps I'm mistaken but I swear there was a time in early alpha or beta where modders themselves were asking BI to use their code to better the game.

Edited by NodUnit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would buy faster a DLC with a proper medical system than a DLC with helis or rifles.

Then fatigue could make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same with Zeus, credit should have been given to MCC.
I guess you haven't heard of TOP1 or TOP2? Moricky's had the underlying idea all the way back from the OFP days.
If I'm thinking correctly here, aren't many of the 'devs', ex mod makers ?
Moricky's but one of the several who are, Smookie's another that I can name off the top of myself, Zipper5 was known in the community not too long ago, and one of the jurists on the MANW jury was a former dev who had won a OFP modding competition back in the day himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moricky's but one of the several who are, Smookie's another that I can name off the top of myself, Zipper5 was known in the community not too long ago, and one of the jurists on the MANW jury was a former dev who had won a OFP modding competition back in the day himself.

Yes I know.;) It was sort of a question I already knew the answer too. But its an in-joke thing, with someone, when it comes to problems and or features, in the series. :D

Thanks to you and @Brisse though. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And they are out our mercy as well. If we don't find their game amenable then we dont buy it and their company fails. This isn't a one way street, its in their best interests to treat their customer base well. For us 1.42 is a huge step back in capabilities because the release has broken a large swathe of mods and introduced worse implementations in their place but designed in a very similar way. I don't see this as progress and I can understand why some of the mod writers would be pretty annoyed with how this has happened. To me it shows a continued direction of BI wanting to shun the mod and milsim communities that sustained their franchise for so long.

what do you need to use the plural form for "i"?

what is a mod writer?

how many mod milsim communities to do you see bickering about? what about "milsim" ones?

are you a community on your own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And they are out our mercy as well. If we don't find their game amenable then we dont buy it and their company fails.
This hasn't been the case ever since said "custom base" expanded in a big way.
I do know there is a public ticket out in the feed back tracker for a new damage model / medical system.

They have acknowledged it and perhaps it gives us something to look forward to in the expansion.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3002

... that "acknowledgment" (assigning) was two years ago as of Monday, and that ticket lists a bunch of other similar tickets or overlapping that were also assigned without visible influence on the outcome. Of course, I recognize that at one point this was also the case for #bipods... :lol:

More immediately useful to me are these posts by Zipper5 about End Game's revive system, because they're the only clue I recall seeing of what any BI designer-able-to-speak-publicly thinks of an official incapacitate/revive system in general, as opposed to just the implementation in End Game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×