Built in Revives in ArmA 2!?

[Maddmatt 1]

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.

It is the same system, just controlled by the mission designer. It's still 'teamswitch'.

It's just that it's done more like how it should be

The way the campaign missions used it was sometimes pretty bad, but the missions themselves weren't much good anyway. I don't believe that simply removing teamswitch would have made the campaign good

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Quote[/b] ]And didn't Maruk just say that we should stop using the word "revive"?

Maybe, but I'm doing changes to todays revive system dayly, so I guess it's a force of habit that is hard to change

Quote[/b] ]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!

With todays revive system, this is indeed the case. It could have added a hit (or damaged?) eventhandler that checked the severity of the wound and where it occured to lower the possible revive timer. Then the system would in my opinion be close to perfect. The reasoning being that far too many "kills" in ArmA as of today are fatal. I mean, you fire at some guy from 400 meters away. The AI next to him hit the ground immediately and smacks you in the face with a PK while hitting the ground (animation not even completed), with no aiming or stabilizing whatsoever. AI response times are just hilarious and gives you no chance whatsoever.

What we need are much better control of the servers/missions diffuculty controls (now only skill and accuracy). I think most people want a high tactical skill (flanking manouvers, overwatch, using cover and concealment properly, good leadership etc), but without the now insane response.

Similar with tanks (although I haven't read the actual field manuals to verify, but it does feel a bit weird). When you fire at a tank and hit it but no kill, it just sits there waiting for you to pop up again so it can take you out. If I'm ever in a tank and get an RPG hit, I would have had no idea where the shot came from, and my immediate response would have been to pop smoke and just floor it to get away and into a safer place! But part of blame here goes to mission designers for not leaving AI a proper support system which could have been called for. They've basically go no other option than to counterattack even if damaged.

Todays revive system that "brings back the dead" should be more thought of as a "way of bring back those who were shot that shouldn't be dead because of it). Firefights in real life doesn't cause the fatality levels we see in ArmA, so a revive system was made to counter the effect. It is, however, a bit too kind at the moment, but I hope to see improvements in the future.

[Variable 322]

Firefights in real life doesn't cause the fatality levels we see in ArmA, so a revive system was made to counter the effect.

Bringing back the dead as a work around solution!? Some way to counter batlefield fatalities.. Give me a break, if a player got killed but shouldn't have (like an AI shooting from inside a building wall or behind a bush) just fix the AI accuracy and its line of sight problems.

Reviving is just simply the wrong way to do it.

Apart from that, I play a lot of MP and 99% of the times when I get killed, I deserve it. Reviving a player against "injustice deaths" is a wild overshoot.

[Maddmatt 1]

...

With todays revive system, this is indeed the case. It could have added a hit (or damaged?) eventhandler that checked the severity of the wound and where it occured to lower the possible revive timer. Then the system would in my opinion be close to perfect. The reasoning being that far too many "kills" in ArmA as of today are fatal. I mean, you fire at some guy from 400 meters away. The AI next to him hit the ground immediately and smacks you in the face with a PK while hitting the ground (animation not even completed), with no aiming or stabilizing whatsoever. AI response times are just hilarious and gives you no chance whatsoever.

...

"Todays revive system" that you seem to be referring to is built into missions, it doesn't mod the game. So of course it is limited, bringing back the dead is pretty much how it simulates being wounded.

But have you seen the SLX wounding and read about the ACE wounding system? It's not really "revive" since you don't bring back the dead. It's just adding some extra stuff between 'healthy' and 'dead'. That I think could make gameplay so much better if done well.

That's why I (and hopefully the devs) don't like seeing people using the word "revive"

[CarlGustaffa 4]

No, I haven't seen SLX or ACE. I'm hacking the Domination mission using ECS bleeding and own produced firstaid kits (no uberkits to fix all damage, making medics more desired).

I'm just saying that many like todays revive system, except I think it is a bit too powerful. However, having a built in system allows for ArmA2 based scripted revives to be less flawed (causing desyncs) than today. Most likely these issues will no longer be an issue with ArmA2.

[Stendac 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.

Oh, you said it, man.

I stopped playing the campaign because it was no fun. Things have somehow gotten worse since OFP.

Teamswitch? I didn't like it at first either, but like most people, i just accepted it grudgingly.

However, it shouldn't never have been used to make up for a shoddy campaign that was way difficult for all the wrong reasons.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

Revive doesn't mean resurrect, I'm guessing.

In other words, "bring back to consciousness" from an unconscious state?

That's one thing OFP hasn't been good at simulating, states of unconsciousness. You're either conscious or dead in OFP.

[Brendon 0]

Personally, I think it could be used in a Good way.

Lets say a main character to the story that you're not playing is Injured, instead of having him killed and messing up the story (ALA Queens Gambit), you revive him and bandage him, but he cannot help you in combat for the duration of the mission, so he stays behind, tells you to keep on fighting, and gets an Evac back to a Medic once the area is confirmed clear.

I think this would be an excellent idea.

[Messiah 2]

as long as the feature can makea distinction between cause of death, they I like the possible implications.

Essentially I don't expect to be revived by a medic If I've been hit by a 1000lb bomb, but if I've been shot, why not.

[baddo 0]

Hmm that gives me an idea.

In a mission if you get wounded badly. So that you lose consciousness, or almost, right away. The screen can go partly black and fully black at times. When the screen is partly black, the player would hear medics rushing to help him, and taking him to stretchers. The player would be taken to a field hospital to receive treatment.

Then the player can either survive or die at the field hospital.

The medical staff working around the player would be talking "Quick, he's bleeding to death!" and so on. Blood would be on the screen. The player character would make sounds of dying. The player could hear how the pulse is getting slower and slower. The breathing would become more and more difficult, this could be heard as well.

The player character would start to cry for mama if he can. He would tell the people around him to tell his loved ones that he loves them, if he can. Et cetera.

All this could be simulated in the game. Surviving at the field hospital could become one crucial thing in the game.

In campaign mode dying at the field hospital could mean that the whole campaign for that character will end right there and then. The storyline would be changed from that dead character into someone else, who would continue the campaign, but so that it is distinctly different from what the campaign would have been if the earlier character would have survived.

You could start the campaign as a machine gun man. Once that character has died (for the first time which is also the final time), you would have to jump into another character, which could be a sniper for example. The storyline would adjust accordingly.

It would not only be important to avoid being shot in the battlefield, but also the time it takes from the troops to take you to the field hospital, and what kind of field hospital it is (there can be badly-equipped or well-equipped field hospitals, and bad and good staff, this all can make a difference and it could depend on the situation in the campaign what kind of field hospitals you have at the area), would decide if you survive in the mission or not.

[Second 0]

What if player's unit has been encircled and evac can't get there?

[Messiah 2]

I'm not sure with that Baddo. You're in danger of taking it a little too far I think.

The main plus for me, would be depth to MP, where if one of your squad gets shot, you can drag him back to safety, and attempt to revive him.

[boneboys 0]

The main plus for me, would be depth to MP, where if one of your squad gets shot, you can drag him back to safety, and attempt to revive him.

That is only one face of the coin...

I was the GI that got shot and wounded last night (revive scripted mission).

The enemy had the area covered making myself an unacceptable risk for my team mates to come to my aid and fix me up.

The stress lying there, hoping and preying that someone could get to me, was (to term a modern expression) Mega.

I know also that my team mates were greatly affected by the situation.

If in any way this is what the developers will be trying to achieve, I'm all for it (mind you its not really funny lying there in front of my computer waiting to be healed).

I think that the fear factor will be immense.

Team play will be improved.

The word simulator will become a little more merited.

Did anybody from BIS use the word revive, I don't remember so.

I was so impressed that I thought it would be worthwhile writing a post taking the view from another perspective.

Thanks.

[Soldat32 0]

Thats all we need in this game,jumping so all the morons out there can bunny hop like they did in BF2.I do NOT want that kind of exploit in Arma.

[Messiah 2]

whats that got to do with reviving fallen team mates?

[pathetic_berserker 4]

I think norins revive has added a great aspect to MP play. As told previously the depth of play added by risking your self to save a team mate realy adds to the experience. Playtested a great mission recently that used revives but no re-spawn and it worked a treat, if everyone is dead, mission failed. I know that it may not be entirely realistic, but those who still want the lethality can design or play missions that don't use it.

And I think the realy good thing about BIS doing it, is that it's then a feature of the engine, and not an overlying script. I just hope that they keep it flexible enough for mission makers and scripters to use as they want.