Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reviving

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Reviving

    For you mission makers... there are 3 ways to set the revive script to:

    1) Only medics can revive
    2) Medkit required to revive
    3) Medkit or FAK (consumable) required to revive

    I set my Stratis Zeus mission to the third option for good reasons, I don't want to sit there peaking into backpacks for a medkit, dropping all the stuff I have in my pack to fit it, this and that... If we want it to take 3 minutes for someone to revive who isn't a medic, we could just set it to third option and 180 seconds for reviving without being medic, as long as I don't need a Medkit.

    First option is also ok with me as well as Third, but I feel like the Second one makes it more difficult than it has to be both for TG and newcomers.

    Let me know if you think differently and why.
    - Current ArmA Pathfinder

    sigpic

  • #2
    Re: Reviving

    Third option with the consumable FAK is the way to go IMO. Make the revive duration time, the penalty for choosing to revive rather than delegating it to a medic. Make the medic so much more efficient in doing it. something like 1 minute for grunts who use up their FAK against 5 seconds for a medic with a medikit. This is doable in the parameters in the script if I remember correctly.

    I do want to address one thing as this topic is created. I am moving away from the revive script because of the new personal protection system that BIS has implemented. I have said it before, that my revive script handles damage in its own simplified way. A while back some complaints of being too easy to fall unconscious, I am converting all my mission to non-revive which will use the default BIS damage handling. This includes visual feedback when getting shot, like shaking your camera, blood splatter when getting hit. While the revive I put together does not do that. Further testing is needed, but also I believe a player falls unconscious with comparably much less damage, compared to BIS damage handling.

    Once the BIS revive development finishes up, I would love to bring it back. There was a changelog of major optimization in the last patch, but from what I saw, it still does not support all respawn types.
    Last edited by hedgehog; 02-21-2016, 03:31 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Reviving

      Originally posted by |TG| B View Post
      I am converting all my mission to non-revive which will use the default BIS damage handling. This includes visual feedback when getting shot, like shaking your camera, blood splatter when getting hit. While the revive I put together does not do that. Further testing is needed, but also I believe a player falls unconscious with comparably much less damage, compared to BIS damage handling.
      Looking forward to this in action. I may just scour the internet for it in the mean time. But the BIS option would be more visually receptive. Rather than being suddenly knocked down, which is also okay but for immersive purposes the BIS methods seems more receptive for me from what B said.

      I too agree with B on the timer penalty. The role/usage of the role (medic) should be rewarded and punished (Albeit in a small way) also. The current timer may be annoying, however from what we're used to so far (thanks to our in house mission makers, no sarcasm in this statement) the player base are receptive and have got used to it.
      Sure, once we get our future missions with alternate methods and widely used. Our players will adopt to it, as we all have over the years.

      TGU Instructor · TG Pathfinder

      Former TGU Dean · Former ARMA Admin · Former Irregulars Officer

      "Do not seek death. Death will find you. But seek the road which makes death a fulfillment." - Dag Hammarskjold

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Reviving

        I guess the only reason to require the medikit is to still limit who can revive. Generally only the medics do so and someone else grabs a kit if the lone medic may disconnect.

        This is a preferred option in my opinion and also provides the benifit of players using their faks to stabilize. This I find works well for resources and time penalties.

        Got to run...but I also love the gameplay with no revive.
        |TG-189th| Unkl
        ArmA 3 Game Officer
        Dean of Tactical Gamer University
        189th Infantry Brigade Member
        SUBMIT A RIBBON NOMINATION OR CONTACT AN ARMA ADMIN
        "We quickly advance in the opposite direction and take cover in a house on the SW side of town." - BadStache

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Reviving

          I use option 2 mainly for the reason's Unkl mentioned above if real life gets in the way of a medic then another person can take over until a new medic logs on or its convienent for a re-slot. I made my 1st mission with option 1 and realized I didn't like it as if medics went down, essentially game over. never tried option 3 as I feel there needs to be a separation between med kit or FAK and a time penalty while it works I feel it would bog the play down if it were more than the default 10 for medic and 30 for other.

          On another note I cannot stand no revive missions, although the missions themselves are great, mostly due to the fact that I tend to get shot allot. Does not having revive make us better players? I don't think so, I think it just slows game progression. Just my opinion and I realize that at times revive slows game play at times as well.

          Either way if TG want's to head in a certain direction on this topic I will follow the lead as always.
          May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won’t.
          -- Gen. George S. Patton


          |TG189th| Cody

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Reviving

            I prefer the revive capability over ease of action for the purposes of immersion.

            Cody hit the nail on the head with the question of whether or not a lack of revive makes us better players and it absolutely strips away some of the quasi-realism that the game offers.

            I truly hope the missions that we make going forward will not be divided into those who prefer revive over those who do not, meaning, I do hope there are players who will not bow out of missions if there is a medical system in place.

            Everyone has their own taste in mission design, I anticipate this is just a preference and not an aspect that will influence patronage in future missions.

            Otherwise, what's the point of the medic, and what about the people who Want to fill in that role? Too bad? Or are they relegated to making the flashy green dot go away?

            My compromise is the length of time it takes a soldier to revive, medics can do it in seconds, the average soldier takes two minutes.

            This has been on my mind awhile and this seems like a good thread for the discussion.

            I prefer medics for a myriad of reasons, but everyone is different.

            Current ARMA Development Project: No Current Project

            "An infantryman needs a leader to be the standard against which he can judge all soldiers."

            Friend of |TG| Chief

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Reviving

              I've played my share of missions with no revive, no respawn and I enjoy the thrill of high stakes ArmA. There is an emotion, the slow ramping tension, that comes as the men around you drop and don't magically get back up. Sure it sucks when your the first guy to die, but it's still fun!

              The trick is making sure missions of this type are tightly focused and fast. 30 minutes or so, that way early casualties are endlessly sidelined. Spectator mode is also critical, so the dead can mock the living (in separate channels).

              All that aside, if revive is present I like a short revive times for the medic as a way to give an advantage to the medic class. I don't like medic only revive because it makes a break point that the mission usually can't handle.

              It's been awhile since TG ArmA had a revive system that used up FAKs per revive. As I recall we moved away from it because it tended to make people spend too much time looting dead EI for spare FAKs. :)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Reviving

                Originally posted by |TG| B View Post
                I do want to address one thing as this topic is created. I am moving away from the revive script because of the new personal protection system that BIS has implemented...This includes visual feedback when getting shot, like shaking your camera, blood splatter when getting hit...Once the BIS revive development finishes up, I would love to bring it back...
                We are not in any danger of going one way or the other with this issue. The fact is that none of the current options really capture "the way to go". At the moment, we have some missions with the revive that B did so much work on and some that do not. Which system is being used is a mission makers choice and comes down to balancing a number of factors within the mission.

                These missions that have no revive are generally smaller missions, or have options for redeployment from addition player slots, or otherwise they have a spectator script. I personally would love to have an instance of Arma running for missions like this that are a smaller scale. It's one of my goals to grow this community to have enough resources to provide for that. I still miss Tactical Strike but I'll admit I don't miss all the work since I was making missions for it pretty much solo except for Dimitrius helped out with a nice mission. However these small group missions are a great amount of fun and build camaraderie.

                For the bigger public "dragnet" type missions I think it's a different story. The emphasis must be on keeping the group together. In this case revive is a great tool toward that. Your new player may tend to lone wolf. Once they get caught out on the closest hill and gunned down...then they see how much work it is for the group to come to the rescue...they really get a better idea of what we are about. It becomes a great demonstration to new players that there is another way to play.

                So there is a time and place for differences in how damage/revive is handled. What is the goal or the effect your mission is trying to achieve. If you think about what missions the server needs (and it needs variety) then the scenario you choose to devote time to, and the way you balance its mechanics, these choices are steered less by your personal favs and maybe a little more toward what will help the community this month. This comment is not intended as a criticism...but it is the balance we all face when putting our personal touches on our missions.
                |TG-189th| Unkl
                ArmA 3 Game Officer
                Dean of Tactical Gamer University
                189th Infantry Brigade Member
                SUBMIT A RIBBON NOMINATION OR CONTACT AN ARMA ADMIN
                "We quickly advance in the opposite direction and take cover in a house on the SW side of town." - BadStache

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Reviving

                  Originally posted by Unkl View Post
                  This comment is not intended as a criticism...but it is the balance we all face when putting our personal touches on our missions.
                  You certainly have a neutralizing way with words UNKL, and thanks for remembering the one mission I made for TACSTRIKE. I remember your missions on that server with nostalgia. =)

                  Current ARMA Development Project: No Current Project

                  "An infantryman needs a leader to be the standard against which he can judge all soldiers."

                  Friend of |TG| Chief

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Reviving

                    I do not want to force my views on other mission makers. Like I said many times before, every mission maker will hone their style as they progress through. I started with Medics only, changed it to FAKs, and then added the new functionality of customizable time difference penalty between medics and regular soldiers. Finally, removed it altogether. This was how my take on revive changed over time.

                    Every mission maker should offer the community their unique take on how a mission should be played. If everything is uniform and similar, then there is no excitement in variation. I implement my views and configurations for the missions I bring to TG and those that I make from scratch (Arsenal or default gear, respawn at base or vehicles, time limit or not, player markers or not). Other mission makers should implement their own views and configurations on their missions and those mission they bring to TG. Let the players decide what they like.

                    The motivation behind making missions and developing it would be to see them being played and to see how players are enjoying themselves. If one way is to dictate how a mission should be developed, then the motivation behind making a mission will disappear.

                    For the ones I have been updating, with no-revive and 1life2live missions, the enemy is much sparsely populated. Only a two man team or one person at a time. With revive, you can pound the crap out of the players, because they can recover and keep going. But for harder configurations, the enemy should be less and players should have chance to have some fun. I think that is where we must strike the balance.

                    Comment

                    Connect

                    Collapse

                    TeamSpeak 3 Server

                    Collapse

                    Advertisement

                    Collapse

                    Twitter Feed

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X