Built in Revives in ArmA 2!?

[gsleighter 0]

Cool thing about features is you don't have to use them, so they won't impact your enjoyment in any way. Like I was saying, though, being a seagull for an hour has a pretty profound impact on my enjoyment of the game, so kudos to BIS for making a couple of sensible concessions for gameplay.

Also, I recall there are quite a few of us who stated we're excited about the prospect of having two tactical shooters released within a year of each other, especially shooters with modding and mission editing touted as some of the major features. You really should read some of the other threads before claiming we're all blindly loyal to one company or the other. I recommend the troubleshooting forum or 1.14 feedback threads, personally, if you want to find people who are complaining about a BIS game (And some with good reasons. I still can't stand that my throttle doesn't work properly with airplanes). Those threads are also full of people who criticize just fine without being a troll.

Way to keep flamebaiting with your last three lines instead of trying be more pragmatic or actually have a conversation, too.

[kernriver 4]

.........

And now they are focusing on ubber medics that will revive a dead soldier in a matter of second. I see they learned a lot from quake wars. Good for them!

Lamont, have you read the entire thread?

To give you more insight, let's stick with the following terms from now on that are more representative to our vision in this particular area for gamplay in ArmA 2:

- Injury Simulation

- First Aid

- Battlefield Clearance

Wording I used about reviving is a little bit confusing (despite in the context it really was primarily describing first aid system). And yes, this is primarily approach we use in the campaign because of our focus on coop gameplay.

I don't think revive would be instant, rather there would be something (i hope) like guys from ACE mod are implementing for ArmA1, a "medic simulation".

EDIT:

It seems to me that it's pointless to talk about this feature like we can change something, i think it's too late for suggestions now.

[Variable 322]

I don't know if any of you know, but in OFP, many custom made coop missions had revive scripted in them.  Those missions were fun and very long.  But for the average coop, think what such a feature will do....

So I'm a troll because I criticize?  You guys ever wonder what happened to half the community?  You ever think about why the only people left on this board are people who never criticize, never question, and are loyal no matter what?

Back in the day, you guys made a huge fuss about ARMA being on steam.  Anyone that dared to mention steam was flamed and called a troll.  A year later what happens? Arma goes on steam.  

The good thing about OFP coops is that when you died, you stayed dead.  Now they want to hard code a feature in that basically gives you unlimited respawn.  You will end up seeing coops full of Rambo's because they never die.

I have to agree now that I think about it, that teamswitch was a really good feature that saved BIS from investing in a good campaign.  

Teamswitch was the perfect excuse for a poor story, no character building, no atmosphere, nothing that will make you remember anything from the campaign a month after you play it.

And now they are focusing on ubber medics that will revive a dead soldier in a matter of second.  I see they learned a lot from quake wars.  Good for them!  

I have to agree with Lamont on this. Lamont, you are not alone. You are one of the last guardians of realism and authenticity in this community and I'm very glad that community members that strive for that still exist.

And for all of those who claim that this topic deals with "take it or leave it" features I suggest you read the first pages of it in which we explained that as far as SP is concerned, this is definitely not the case. Team switch and revives will affect SP developement and will probably make the campaign much worse.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

I don't fear stuff like this.

I fear the good old '10 years old' bugs like:

- not be able to "jump" over 10cm high obstacles

- enemy AI that can see through smoke, bushes, trees, grass..

- enemy AI walking through wall, houses, vehicles..

or

- arcardish controls like the current throttle in planes.

- no support for multiple joysticks/steering wheels, etc.

In short, all the hundrets of bugs, glitches, little annoyances we talked about a zillion times but are still there.

Let's hope the best.

MfG Lee

[Deadfast 43]

So I'm a troll because I criticize?

You weren't called a troll because you criticized.

You were called a troll because you came into ArmA2 thread and started mouthing off how ArmA2 will suck and OFP2 will be total miracle

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]I have to agree with Lamont on this. Lamont, you are not alone. You are one of the last guardians of realism and authenticity in this community and I'm very glad that community members that strive for that still exist.

Sorry, I just found this hilarious.

[Variable 322]

Quote[/b] ]I have to agree with Lamont on this. Lamont, you are not alone. You are one of the last guardians of realism and authenticity in this community and I'm very glad that community members that strive for that still exist.

Sorry, I just found this hilarious.

hehe of course you do snafu! You, after all, make missions with body armor and "stunned" soldiers that need to be waken up after they get shot. So I would be surprised if you didn't... You probably still wonder what the hell do we all talk about here.

[-Snafu- 77]

Errr, ok.

I appreciated Wolfrug taking the time to make such a nice script that added a new element of gameplay. It saved the mission being a simple move here kill everyone, suffer heavy casualties and then go and attack this place yourself sort of thing (I added a trigger that detects if you have enough soldiers left that a hidden objective will appear). Without the script the mission did get a little boring, and the AI took ridiculous and unrealistic amount of casualties. Wolfrug's script corrected this: he made it to the best of his ability fighting ArmA's engine constraints. Also why is body armour got quotation marks? It does exist and soldiers do wear them. In addition my mission got a decent enough review from OFPEC.

I just don't get why people criticize BIS decision for this despite knowing little about its implementation.

[Variable 322]

Errr, ok.

I appreciated Wolfrug taking the time to make such a nice script that added a new element of gameplay. It saved the mission being a simple move here kill everyone, suffer heavy casualties and then go and attack this place yourself sort of thing (I added a trigger that detects if you have enough soldiers left that a hidden objective will appear). Without the script the mission did get a little boring, and the AI took ridiculous and unrealistic amount of casualties. Wolfrug's script corrected this: he made it to the best of his ability fighting ArmA's engine constraints. Also why is body armour got quotation marks? It does exist and soldiers do wear them. In addition my mission got a decent enough review from OFPEC.

I just don't get why you slander BIS decision for this despite knowing little about its implementation.

Got your comment about the quotation marks, ill ommit them.

My point was that I don't expect players who enjoy revives (or any other unrealistic features) to sympathize with those who call for realistic gameplay (I now refer only to SP).

I have nothing against those who enjoy these features but I do believe that as long as BIS will try to please them, they will create worse game.

I don't remember me slandring BIS but I do pleaded them, along with those who share my perspective, to change their approach inorder to create a more realistic war simulation.

[-Snafu- 77]

Slandering was a bit harsh, sorry about that.

You have a good point. I like realism as much as the next guy, for me, it depends on how this revive thing is implemented.

- Relatively realistic

- Optional

[CarlGustaffa 4]

If you're going to discuss "realistic" gameplay, you also have to take into account the reasons "non-realistic-gamers" enable certain kinds of help.

Say 3rd person view for example. Yes I agree that it's not realistic at all to use, but I sometimes use it to counter the fact that AI doesn't suffer from the human players view obstructions in the game, such as being able to magically see straight through fallen trees, smoke, tree leaves, and vegetation. I tend to enable 3rd person view at least for SP gaming just to counter this fact and maybe be able to spot that one enemy that will open fire 20 meters away from me who I can't see because a tank has previously dropped a tree.

For those who want "uber-realism", join a clan that plays this way with all the help disabled, and quit complaining. I'm sorry, but BIS needs a bigger audience than only the uber-serious.

I know I would never play on public servers if I became a seagull after getting killed - where is the fun in that? I don't expect the level of teamplay to reach the same level we do when playing as a clan and playing serious. Then and only then do I expect to stay alive because of having other eyes scanning the other directions since I'm no good at scanning 360° all the time being a loner.

I agree that having such features built into the singleplayer campaign could "hurt" it compared to OFP, but again: is singleplayer the reason you're playing? The singleplayer mode needs to attract new people and a bigger audience, not only the existing ones that will buy the game alomst regardless which is striving solely for uber-realism.

And I have to agree with Lee_H._Oswald who have listed a couple of 10 year old bugs that are much more important to me than the revive system.

[Variable 322]

Quote[/b] ]For those who want "uber-realism", join a clan that plays this way with all the help disabled, and quit complaining. I'm sorry, but BIS needs a bigger audience than only the uber-serious

Then BIS must not position its upcoming game as "The most realistic war simulation ever".

And if it does, it needs to live up to its promise.

Quote[/b] ]I agree that having such features built into the singleplayer campaign could "hurt" it compared to OFP, but again: is singleplayer the reason you're playing?

Yes. Part of the reason I pay good cash for is the SP experience. And I think I'm not expressing a minority opinion here.

Quote[/b] ]I know I would never play on public servers if I became a seagull after getting killed where is the fun in that?

Then I am sorry for you since you would never feel the magnificent rush of completing successfuly a one hour and 30 minutes co-op mission after suffering casualties and being scared shitless for your life. Of course it's not fun being dead, but there is no challenge if it's not an option. Where is the fun in that?

[NoRailgunner 0]

Variable wait until ArmA2 is released maybe this new "first aid system" isn't that bad. If player and mission designer can customize this "medic system" too its imho ok. Lets see if BIS is making some nice wiki/documentations/tutorials for new audience.

Like CarlGustaffa said its all about economic success and why people should go & buy games.

[Variable 322]

Variable wait until ArmA2 is released maybe this new "first aid system" isn't that bad. If player and mission designer can customize this "medic system" too its imho ok. Lets see if BIS is making some nice wiki/documentations/tutorials for new audience.

Like CarlGustaffa said its all about economic success and why people should go & buy games.

Quote[/b] ]Variable wait until ArmA2 is released maybe this new "first aid system" isn't that bad.

Yes, you are right, after reading Maruk clarification reply I think that it might be even a good addition that will add to immersion if implemented correctly. The reason I keep on debating it here is it because it become a "principle inside community matter".

Quote[/b] ]Like CarlGustaffa said its all about economic success and why people should go & buy games.

I would like to think BIS looks after not only economic success but also want to please its community, that is still comprised of many "uber serious players", as CarlGustaffa definition.

[kernriver 4]

Variable, now i see why you're worried about "revive", it's about SP original campaign(s)? I'm right there with you mate, although i'm more of a MP player myself (i still like a good SP mission/campaign).

But since Maruk said (and you noticed it too) that "revive" will be more like a first aid system, i think we can be fairly certain that it won't ruin the gameplay/realism.

OFFTOPIC

What worries me more than "revive", concerning gameplay and realism, is IMHO one single most important feature (for infantry combat anyway) ArmA2 should have:

Supression

I won't elaborate on it, because i'm sure you know what i'm talking about.

I know it can be modded in, but i want it in original content by default.

[Variable 322]

Variable, now i see why you're worried about "revive", it's about SP original campaign(s)? I'm right there with you mate, although i'm more of a MP player myself (i still like a good SP mission/campaign).

But since Maruk said (and you noticed it too) that "revive" will be more like a first aid system, i think we can be fairly certain that it won't ruin the gameplay/realism.

OFFTOPIC

What worries me more than "revive", concerning gameplay and realism, is IMHO one single most important feature (for infantry combat anyway) ArmA2 should have:

Supression

I won't elaborate on it, because i'm sure you know what i'm talking about.

I know it can be modded in, but i want it in original content by default.

Kernriver, your words are all carved in stone. I consider my self mainly an MP player (check the links below in my profile) but I still remember the fantastic feeling I had when I played CWC and Resistance campaigns.

About suppression, I completely agre. this is exactly the feature I posted as "the most important feature arma 2 needs to have" in one of the posts about it.

[kernriver 4]

We're on the same page here, i see.

I just hope our concern about campaign in ArmA2 is not in vain, meaning that there would be a good original campaign worth playing in the first place.

Regarding OFP campaigns, i can't wait for CWR mod.

[The_Captain 0]

I think ANY sort of medical and first aid system beats the hell out of "crouch behind a sandbag to magically heal multiple bullet wounds" system that many other games seem to be using.

But that is neither here nor there.

On topic, I would be quite happy if BIS implements proper dragging/healing AI (which SLX had to a degree), so your AI squadmates in the SP campaign could drag you behind cover and then attempt to bandage you. That would be a bit more interesting to me than dying, reloading, and memorizing the positions of enemies.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Quote[/b] ]Then I am sorry for you since you would never feel the magnificent rush of completing successfuly a one hour and 30 minutes co-op mission after suffering casualties and being scared shitless for your life. Of course it's not fun being dead, but there is no challenge if it's not an option. Where is the fun in that?

Sure I do. I consider myself having played a good game whenever I have minimum a 10:1 ratio in kills vs deaths. Playing mostly on public servers, it's hard to do much better (pure infantry role, no tank driving or aircraft bombing) due to the lack of teamplay, overwatch, and so on. When you reach a high ratio, THEN you start playing extremely safe in order to keep it.

If you do something stupid on your own, you pay for that crime: AI will hunt you down and there is no way to conceal your movement with smoke. AI can see right through trees (leaves and fallen trees) but the player can not. Until those elements are gone, I'm not considering playing a game against AI where I'm out for good if I'm killed.

I usually play Domination, and prefer servers running ECS which can really keep us pinned down with supression. I completely agree that Dominations main targets are way above the force you would consider attacking in real life or in a "serious game". But who is stopping the serious gamers from modding Domination to suit their own realistic needs? (I'm doing it myself, but my sense of realism does not match yours):

1. Reduce the amount of armor to manageable amount given the playing size of the clan. Just change the number of groups and units per group entries in x_createguardpatrolgroups.sqf.

2. Change the revive system. Only one life for you guys, but I'm using 2 lives per remaining target pluss 6 extras for early joiners. In addition I only loose life when respawn, not upon revival. But you are revived with great damage so medic is still much desired. Timer can be set to whatever you choose.

3. Play with reduced weapons swicthed on and set the contents to your liking. This is a must for those who roleplay.

4. Don't like teleporting or that fancy HALO script? Turn it off or lock the vehicles in the editor so they cannot be used. (Think that will work, but haven't tested). Or just move them to some remote island.

You now have a mission that even a "serious clan" could have fun with. Don't blame the mission itself for not being realistic enough, and also don't blame the mission for using the scripting tools available. Any good clan would have someone you can hack the mission into their liking.

Sure Domination revive systemisn't realistic, but nothing is stopping you from making it so. Okay, so let the modders do it, you say (making a revive system)? Yes, that is what we have in ArmA now, but it has some severe problems such as almost always causing desync and can be a bit buggy at times (it's quite advanced if you haven't tested it).

Which brings me to the conclusion: If BIS implements a new toolset such as a builtin revive system, why is this bad for you serious players who can change the contents of a mission anyways? Let those who want the revive system have it. And let the modders have a new toolset available which may be used to make a better and less buggy revive system than what is available today.

[Variable 322]

For the love of god, and for the 10th time i say that here:

I don't mind a revive feature to MP games. I do mind a campaign with implemented revives since this will be unrealistic (and as we explained many times back in this topic- even the option to do so will affect the campaign design and make it worse, like Teamswitch has done to the missions it was implemented in in ArmA 1).

So please everybody, stop saying "what do you care you won't have to use it if you don't want to in custom made missions" since the argument is against SP only.

[gsleighter 0]

Arma's campaign sucked because it was a sloppy mess, not teamswitch. The final assault on Bagango was poorly done, period, had nothing to do with teamswitch. If all the campaign missions were put together with the same love and attention to detail as "Blood Sweat and Tears," which was built around a player switch, it would be a different story.

There's no feature in gaming inherently bad enough to destroy a game on it's own, it's a combination of botched ideas that killed Arma's single player campaign, not teamswitch.

[Maddmatt 1]

Arma's campaign sucked because it was a sloppy mess, not teamswitch. The final assault on Bagango was poorly done, period, had nothing to do with teamswitch. If all the campaign missions were put together with the same love and attention to detail as "Blood Sweat and Tears," which was built around a player switch, it would be a different story.

There's no feature in gaming inherently bad enough to destroy a game on it's own, it's a combination of botched ideas that killed Arma's single player campaign, not teamswitch.

Exactly!

Well almost, I think the main reason the campaign turned out bad was that it was rushed. But that doesn't matter now.

And didn't Maruk just say that we should stop using the word "revive"?

Nobody said it would be some magical ability to bring back the dead.

If it's an improved medical system then it could really enhance gameplay. Dragging wounded, bleeding, being incapacitated when shot...

Some of you are talking about it as if it means that dead people will come back to life. Of course it would be crap if that was the case!

Some arguments about teamswitch are bullshit IMO. It doesn't make missions crap. It's badly done missions that are crap, nothing more. It's up to the mission designer on how it is implemented.

Look at "Blood, Sweat and Tears" (official BIS mission) as an example of a mission that made use of teamswitch, but was still pretty good

[Praelium 0]

Nobody said it would be some magical ability to bring back the dead.

If it's an improved medical system then it could really enhance gameplay. Dragging wounded, bleeding, being incapacitated when shot...

Some of you are talking about it as if it means that dead people will come back to life. Of course it would be crap if that was the case!

Exactly. No one said that it would be like that, people simply assumed that it was implied. At this point I wish people would just wait until this is explained in much further detail before continuing complaining.

[Variable 322]

Arma's campaign sucked because it was a sloppy mess, not teamswitch. The final assault on Bagango was poorly done, period, had nothing to do with teamswitch. If all the campaign missions were put together with the same love and attention to detail as "Blood Sweat and Tears," which was built around a player switch, it would be a different story.

There's no feature in gaming inherently bad enough to destroy a game on it's own, it's a combination of botched ideas that killed Arma's single player campaign, not teamswitch.

Exactly!

Well almost, I think the main reason the campaign turned out bad was that it was rushed. But that doesn't matter now.

And didn't Maruk just say that we should stop using the word "revive"?

Nobody said it would be some magical ability to bring back the dead.

If it's an improved medical system then it could really enhance gameplay. Dragging wounded, bleeding, being incapacitated when shot...

Some of you are talking about it as if it means that dead people will come back to life. Of course it would be crap if that was the case!

Some arguments about teamswitch are bullshit IMO. It doesn't make missions crap. It's badly done missions that are crap, nothing more. It's up to the mission designer on how it is implemented.

Look at "Blood, Sweat and Tears" (official BIS mission) as an example of a mission that made use of teamswitch, but was still pretty good

The fact that "Blood sweat and Tears" used more than one character does not count it as a teamswitch mission since you couldn't just hectically switch between them whenever you wanted. The switch between characters happened at several crossroads, and that was cool. But this is not what we are takling about.

[The_Captain 0]

I actually think teamswitch helps the more advanced casualty model Arma2 is supposed to have.

As far as I know, teamswitch is only within your own squad of ~5 recon marines, and if not outright killed, they can likely be dragged to safety and possibly patched up, perhaps more to stop bleeding than restore health.

This means that they are roughly in the same area (probably in formation), and equipped with a good selection of weapons. As long as you keep all of them alive and healthy, you can make use of all of the weapons. dug in infantry? Use M249. Enemy taking cover in a building? M203. Light armored vehicle? Switch to the AT4. Being in the same proximity as your squadmates allows you to use their weapons without relying on them to do so, and also gives you an incentive to keep your formation together (so you can switch easily). Also, being close to the people you're switching to and having them in the same squad prevents some of the teamswitch disorientation that plagued some Arma missions. (switching long distances into troops in an unfamiliar situation is a big immersion breaker, and probably worse than just dying and respawning). I know same-squad teamswitch seems like an immersion breaker, but to me it actually enhances the squad feeling: you feel like a part of a functional squad, not a single human in a swarm of dumb AI robots.

Now, in regards to the casualty model: If one of your soldiers is wounded, you can switch to another soldier and attempt to drag him to safety and patch him up. if killed, you can switch his weapons with those of another squad member. As you take casualties, your job as a player will become more difficult: your firepower will diminish, you'll have more wounded and dead to attend to, and your pool of available weapons shrinks... as well as potential targets, so remaining enemies are probably focusing more on you as one of the few remaining squad members. Each time a squad member dies or is wounded (or you die, and respawn into a marine), you get a new 'chance' but in a new, and probably more difficult situation: troops dead, advancing enemies, etc. You have the opportunity to fail a few times before you can succeed, hopefully making the success even better if you manage it.

Sounds suitably intense, and different enough from die>reload>die to me.

Maybe same-squad teamswitch and some of the casualty stuff will make its way into the difficulty screen, in any case.