Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Request for a Critique.

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

  • #46
    Re: A Request for a Critique.

    well said Arithea....carry on.
    "Everyone makes fun of us rednecks with our big trucks and all our guns........until the zombie apocalypse"

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: A Request for a Critique.

      Thanks Arithea for trying to get this back on my original idea for this post.

      Someone asked me my opinion about why I feel the way I do, I explained why I felt that way, and even told you all that you wouldn't agree with it. No where did I say Medics are bad, the only thing I said is certain tactics employed I felt were bad. And I felt that full medic squads help promote those sort of tactics being used. If you want to get defensive for expressing my personal opinions that I told you ahead of time, are my personal opinions. Well Slot off, I have no need to apologize for my views. My personal views should not interfere with your game play, as I have never asked for your game play to change. You all infered that because I hold these views, I want everyone to change their play, which is never true. I have no more sway on how you play the game than you do on how I play. I enjoy playing the game, without the need to be a Medic. There is a time and a place for a revive. I have used the medkit once so far, after clearing the flag and had no enemy around, I swapped kits and revived the guy, because at that point I was not gaining any tactical advatange for doing so. If you are willing to use my revive skills in this way, I wouldn't have an issue running medic.
      sigpic




      Comment


      • #48
        Re: A Request for a Critique.

        Did an Admin really ask someone to post their Battlelog to prove they play BF3? lol...................

        Good for you Xen

        I deserve a ribbon for Mortar Specialist

        Artillery conquers and infantry occupies.
        J.F.C. Fuller

        Proud to have been a member of the 5th, 71st and my beloved 19th

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: A Request for a Critique.

          Originally posted by Xen View Post
          Thanks Arithea for trying to get this back on my original idea for this post.
          No offence but I think you should have ended your post right there.
          You know what attract bullets the most in Battlefield 3?? MY HEAD!!
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: A Request for a Critique.

            Reviving is part of the game mechanic just as much as power pellets are essential to the game mechanic in pac-man, that's all there is to it.
            Current member of the

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: A Request for a Critique.

              This is how I view the revive system. This may be a little of topic from what Xen is talking about but I want to help establish what is involved with reviving.

              I see it as an aspect of a bigger picture that I base on time. Assume for now that it takes someone that just got revived about 2 seconds to get back to full strength; About 10-15 seconds for someone to spawn. (I don't have a accurate time for TG's server) I am comparing reviving to spawning on the person who would have revived as a base because I see it as returning to a similar state.

              Now count the time for the reviver. It takes at least 2 seconds for them to locate, switch, and revive. This is not accurate because on average the reviver must spend another 2 to 5 seconds in order to travel to the person down. Therefore it is 2 to 7 seconds lost for the reviver. That lost time counts against having a gun downrange or a body advancing. Now account also for the time it takes someone who just got revived to get back into the fight. They usually have to quickly move to cover in order to avoid being shot again when in a tight situation that would take at least 1 second. If either one was shot during the revive then they will want to heal up before making a push which can take several seconds(don't have an average time for this). So I estimate that in a revive you lose at least 6 seconds vs. the 10 to 15 seconds for a spawn in. 2 seconds for the reviver and 4 seconds for the person being revived. I do not count the time that the person was waiting to be revived because in both cases time is equal lost with the initial death. I can also add the time from each person because when the reviver revives He is no longer losing time and that is when I start the 4 lost seconds for the guy revived. But on average I would say that the time lost for most revives to be about 8-10 seconds. But that is just time. There are other disadvantages to reviving. The reviver must, in most cases, expose themselves to enemy fire. In that brief moment when reviving you have no defense from an advance or flank. One also cannot advance or take up a forward position to cover when reviving. I find that the reviver must also sometimes give up a good position of engagement or give away a hiding spot in order to revive. He is forced to a specific location that can be predicted and guarded by the enemy.

              But why use time. It is how I evaluate the situation when playing. (Comes from playing SC2 and the way I analyze game flow) I see time lost as a decease in my squads effectiveness. My goal as a medic is that I keep my entire squad up for as much time as possible in order to increase our effectiveness on the battlefield. As an active medic player I try to revive everyone I can when I can but I never go in and plan to just revive. Example: When I occupy a forward position that is essential to holding a key location I will only move from that position if I am ordered to or I know I can safely revive without losing our squads critical hold on an area. As far as pushing an area. I find that reviving greatly delays a push verse previous BF titles. But it does make the push more effective because of the extra gun. You have to account for other advantages and disadvantageous given a situation that are not related to time that I will not go into. Each will have a different affect and will add or subtracted to the squad's effectiveness.

              To be clear. I do not think reviving just for another quick body to move up (leapfrogging) is very effective in BF3. Just running, trying to push out, and getting shot in hopes of a fast revive will not stand up to a strong defense that has good fire lanes. It is something I do not see very often unless it is an act of desperation when there is 10 tickets left in a rush match. It just does not work very well. However pushing and reviving using proper teamwork(covering revives and quickly reviving in a smart effective manner) greatly increase the push's effectiveness. I do think that revives are key to winning and a team actively reviving overall will do better in defend and attacking. This is because of the advantages I see which I will now list. Takes less time than waiting for the teammate to spawn in. Yes it does help get another gun downrange faster but this is very complex that depends on the situation. In some cases getting an effective not just an extra gun may take longer than a spawn as discussed in the disadvantages. Saves a ticket, always helps. Most importantly, as stated above, it increase the team's effectiveness. I hope I have explained the disadvantageous and advantages that I see with reviving. And overall I see the revive system in BF3 to be balanced with how the game works.

              Finally I always try to revive in a safe manner otherwise I will try to avoid taking a risk because losing two tickets is always worse than losing one. Yes I do take risks and try to revive in hazardous situations but I will tell you that it is a hot revive. I will never complain or argue against someone who does not accept my revive and instead decides to go for a safer spawn.

              Going back on topic. Xen After what I have just talked about I would say that reviving always gives a tactical advantage no matter the situation. Could you be more specific about what aspect of "tactical advantage" you are talking about.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: A Request for a Critique.

                Hardwind, frist off, excellent post. The Hot revives you talk about would, in my opinion, be attempting to revive for tactical advantage. I know it's a gamble whether they survive, but if they do, the revive earned you a tactial advantage. Going back to my one revive in BF3. I revived him only because in doing, I had nothing to gain, other then to speed up his wait time. I could have easily waited for him to respawn on me, and still held my position without threat of losing it. Hence, no tactical advantage was gained by the action.

                However pushing and reviving using proper teamwork(covering revives and quickly reviving in a smart effective manner) greatly increase the push's effectiveness.
                This is how it should be done, your sqaud is pausing it's push to the objective long enough for you to complete the revive, and then as a squad moves out to re-engage. That pause, changes the timing of a push, or may force a revision of the tactics the squad is using to move towards the objective. Without the sqaud pausing to cover the medic, basically doing a drive by revive. The squad can still move forward, and gamble that their squadmate is alive behind them, gaining them a tactical advantange (closer to objective) they might not have had, if they had paused to cover the revive.
                sigpic




                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: A Request for a Critique.

                  The problem with the situation you are describing is that it is impossible to know if you are safe. I will go one step further and say that outside of the uncap there is no safe place. This means that every revive is potentially a risk. This is why I say that every revive gives a tactical advantage as it acts as another gun to cover and move. I know that the enemy can't come from everywhere and be everywhere in this game but one should not rule out that the enemy could be hiding behind every corner and shoot you when you are reviving. Xen, you said that you held a position without any threat of losing it but how did you know you were safe? It is impossible to know if all the enemies have been cleared out of a general area. You may have a significant amount of friendly support and cover and yes there are places that are practically impossible for someone to kill you but that is all situational which can easily change fast. Another problem is that the revive window is very small. This means that the team must move fast to revive so the cover provided may not be solid.

                  I also want to add that moving up and pushing is a way to pressure the enemy and suppress them. It can be used to cover behind you. Assaulting the enemy's position does help cover and allows someone in your squad to run back and revive. The cover here is supplied not only by bullets but also by your presence between the killer or enemy squad and the fallen teammate allowing for a revive. You have taken a forward cover that allows you not only to effectively cover the revive but also helps the push.

                  But the thing I am getting at is with setting up covering fire. Why do I have to cover a revive while being parallel or behind the downed friendly. It goes into the basics of objective defense. With MCOM defense you want to have your defense in front of the MCOM in good cover that forces the enemy to cross open ground. If your defense starts behind the MCOM you are just giving ground. The same concept can apply to area control and pushing. If I see a friendly go down and he calls out an enemy position. If there is a good place to move up and cover the potential revive while putting myself between the enemy and the downed enemy I will go there and cover. This is what I think you mean when you say moving will reviving. Yes the push is delayed because now I must wait for the men behind me to regroup and continue to push at full strength but at the same time I have successfully covered a revive(what I see as teamwork) and have gained ground "tactical advantage" at the same time.

                  The last 2 paragraphs I suspect is what you disagree with.

                  The reason why I am still confused with what exactly you are talking about, I think, relates to how you define providing cover and what you mean when you say stop/pause in a push. Every revive stops or weakens a push because it effectively takes away 2 men from advancing and shooting.

                  2 Examples:
                  Suppose that no one goes for the revive and just keeps pushing. This is not supporting teamwork and is simple pushing in an unorganized and ineffective manner hoping someone will stay up for the down friend to spawn on.

                  Instead suppose that now everyone stops. The men in front form a line of fire to cover the revive, they revive, and then regroups. (This is what I think you support) This in some cases may be necessary in open ground and is uses good teamwork and tactics, but in some cases it is not need as the enemy may have be killed immediately. It also may not be good or effective if the enemy was a sniper. In this case you may have to provide long range ineffective covering fire, do a hot revive, or wait for a spawn. The situation will affect how much time the squad has to stop and return to full strength.

                  Now look back to the idea I gave above about moving up to provide cover. This is also situational dependent just like the second example. If there is sufficient cover to keep the push moving and at the same time move to cover a revive I will move up. My point is that with each situation there are different responses.

                  I think there is just a thin line right now between what I view as covering a revive and what you see as an acceptable tactic to revive. I am glad you have started this conversation as I have taken a look back into what playing the medic means. But at the same time I think the thin line is just a little to thin in order to give a clear and general example of what you support/don't support as it does (If I understand you correctly) heavily depend on the situation and your view of gaining a "tactical advantage".

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: A Request for a Critique.

                    Hardwind, What I mean by I was not in any danger, was that after clearing the enemy out of the flag, and not seeing anyone else shooting at me or contesting the flag. I revived the guy. We still didn't see any enemy after the revive and once regrouped, we then headed off to another flag.

                    As for covering fire, it's laying down enough firepower that the enemy would choose to stay behind where ever they were rather than shoot the Medic. Also, I do agree with taking forward fighting positions, as long as they are near your medic.

                    Two tactics for providing covering fire:

                    Being outside of a building, at the end nearest the enemies approach while you're medic is reviving someone inside the building, is a bit of a stretch on providing forward coverfire for the revive. And while the argument would most likely be, by gaurding that end of the building, the enemy can't get to it. The problem with being so far up, is a random enemy sneaks in behind your forward position, shooting your medic. Which then causes those that were covering outside to now have to clear the building, being two men down.

                    Securing the room that he died in, moving to block doors and windows, that makes more sense. This still denies your area from the enemy, and just in case someone did try to sneak in, your sqaud is already watching the only avenue's the enemy has to access and deny the revive. You are back to 4 men and have a secured location to move out from.

                    The only real difference between the two is where you chose to cover, inside vs. outside, but the one is definately better than the other.

                    It is always dependent on the situation, and applying the proper Tactics in those situations. And as I stated, some of those situations have caused tactics that would not be used in a real world senerio. Hence breaking #3 of the Primer.
                    sigpic




                    Comment

                    Connect

                    Collapse

                    TeamSpeak 3 Server

                    Collapse

                    Twitter Feed

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X