Considering that with every new games they’ve felt the need to include more and more canned animations for almost everything I don’t see them having instant revives in the next title.
Community Question: Incapacitation and You
AO1
(AO)
#43
Just because I like the fast action I’d prefer the defibs from Quake Wars. As a medic I want to kamikaze run in and revive people.
Knowing that the people I revive will revive instantly (instead of allowing the incapped to toggle this) may cause enemy fire to be drawn to those being revived (as it should be if I’m reviving our soldiers!) instead of myself.
Apoc
(Apoc)
#44
chris just reminded me. Splash damage, please, please, please dont use automated animations for real time things in game. The knifing in battlefield 3 is so horrifically bad its not even funny. If you have got yourself in a position where you are close enough to an enemy to stab them with a knife, and still undetected, you should be rewarded with a quick and silent kill, not punished by getting locked into a long retarded animation that takes you out of cover and makes you a stationary target for the team.
But back on topic, too many choices will slow down gameplay even if the person can revive themself instantly. If a medic has revived you, its often because he needs you to help him in the current situation, it shouldnt possible for people to be like “nahhh, ill let you die and ill see if the guy your fighting runs away after to do something else so i can revive myself in peace” leaving the medic even more defenceless and also out of position.
Humate
(Humate)
#45
Excuse the late response. 
As already mentioned by other posters, allowing the incapped player to choose when to revive has too many side effects that slow the game down, as well as mitigating strategy available to the medic. It needs to be consistent for it not to be.
[QUOTE=AmazinGLarrY;392733]I think some of you are missing the point of the question. To me it seems like they’re asking about the system in general, and now necessarily how they’re implemented in the game. Having the ‘choice’ of when you want to be revived does not automatically assume there is a 3 second revive animation. How that particular system is implemented further in games is up in the air I would imagine. Who’s to say that in their next game, given that players could still choose when they want to revive, it wouldn’t be instantaneous?
The “idea” of choosing when to revive is a big plus for me. It seems like an obvious improvement.[/QUOTE]
I posted about this earlier in the thread. The incapped state has a direct relationship with the revive method, so people are going to state what they prefer on the incapped state, based on their understanding of the revive methods. Also an instant revive, is the moment the medic interacts with the player and the incapped player is on his feet, not when the incapped player prompts the revive and it happens ‘instantly’.
Put it this way, if SD were to remake either ET/ETQW it wouldnt be a true remake if they took the Brink approach.
BioSnark
(BioSnark)
#46
I wouldn’t mind both similar to spawn hosts & slow revives versus defibs in etqw.
DarkangelUK
(DarkangelUK)
#47
It may partly be due to that, but also as Humate said it’s the other stuff that comes with it… but making it instant revive would go some ways to maintaining game pace sure, but I prefer that it’s the medic that decides when an ‘incapacitated’ player gets up due to the below.
And as for being able to suspend belief enough I mean, it’s a video game after all isn’t it? Things are generally unbelievable, as it were. I dunno, that’s just me though. I guess I’ll just accept my place in the minority on this topic hahah.
Ah the good old “But it’s a game!” response. Games are afforded a certain degree of suspended belief, doesn’t mean they should get away with everything simply based on “It’s a game!”. Maybe they should replace the revive needle with a pheasant and the player has to mash the spacebar until it’s fully plucked before they are revived… it’s just a game! 
tokamak
(tokamak)
#48
As a medic it should be my responsibility to know when it’s appropriate for someone to get up. There’s a disconnect between what the medic wants and what the revived wants and it creates confusing gameplay.
Humate
(Humate)
#49
Yes, I would say its both.
The medic needs to assess the risk, assess their skill and decide whether its better to shoot first revive second, or revive first and shoot second. The incapped players responsibility is to assess the risk, and ensure the medic doesnt go out of their way to revive, in a situation where the medic will get owned.
tokamak
(tokamak)
#50
So in that way the only thing the incapped player should have control over is the ability to make it clear that the medic definitely shouldn’t risk anything on him. The medic gets to decide who rises and when, and the incapped players decide whether or not they’re worth the medic’s attention.
So:
- Reviving shouldn’t be optional to the incapped
- Tapping out should be, whether or not that’s a permanent choice or not doesn’t really matter as there usually isn’t any coming back from choices made in less than 15 seconds anyway.
The ability to auto-revive can still hold a place, but it shouldn’t be the main principle. It should be a buff a medic can give to a live player so the player knows he can take extra risks. That would be a really useful asset to have.
amazinglarry
(amazinglarry)
#51
I’m down with that.
I only meant that what’s the difference between getting your face blasted by a lacerator and using defibs to be revived, than being stabbed with a needle with magic liquid? It wasn’t a full on “But it’s a game!” excuse… I was just surprised that of all the things going on in these games that, that seems unbelievable. With that said, when the medic levels up, can they use a smaller bird like a sparrow for a faster pluck revive?
After having read some of the other points of view, now that they’ve been expanded on a bit, I can understand where some of you are coming from thinking the gameplay slows down without having medics dictate the revive. I’ll even say I agree with it, to a point. I’m not sure what can be done about that (that still satisfies my preference), other than giving medics two types of revives. A ranged one, where the downed player has to initiate it himself, and a “melee” one where the Medic instant revives the downed player. They could potentially balance themselves out, since a medic has the advantage of not putting himself in danger to toss out a revive and it’s mitigated by the extra time it takes for the player to revive themselves. Where conversely if they’re ballsy enough to dive into battle and melee revive, they have an instant meat shield.
XA417YP
(XA417YP)
#52
I’d chosen pub friendly Brink option. As long as irreversible ‘kill’ is not cheat protected.
Failed to see how choice by itself slowers gameplay. Your chance to get up rised, so its less spawn jogging.
Its revive time, that slowers. In some way long time follows from the existence of this choice. But that’s another matter.
Yet I miss flittering instant-defib meds from QW.
Think revive time can be shortened, if you add some obstacles on med’s side: no autoaim on syringe, temporal main weapon block, that stuff.
Humate
(Humate)
#53
A ranged one, where the downed player has to initiate it himself, and a “melee” one where the Medic instant revives the downed player.
You cant have both, because the incapped state is related to the revive mechanic.
In Brink you would have noticed that the incapped players vision was significantly blurred, and the revive took a couple of seconds to execute.
This is so the risk element of the risk/reward mechanic is placed on the incapped player, not the medic. In a system where the medic executes the revive, the risk is placed on the medic. Therefore if you have both revive methods there needs to be two incap states. That doesnt work.
Humate
(Humate)
#54
Failed to see how choice by itself slowers gameplay. Your chance to get up rised, so its less spawn jogging.
Spawn jogging as you put it, is necessary so that both kills and revives are meaningful and have an impact on the game.
Without that, you have two teams arm wrestling each other without making any progress. Sound familiar?
BackSnip3
(BackSnip3)
#57
I’m with Dr. Funkenstein on this:
The ET:QW option is nice because it’s flexible, but people don’t always have a /kill binded to a key so it should be something mixed with Wolf:ET.
Pressing the crouch bind switches from waiting a medic forever or joining the spawn wave, and something like double tapping the jump bind would gib you ala Wolf:ET style.
Also please use ragdolls for downed players, BF3 (for example) does it without any problem! And stop these dumb “unconscious” animations, you are unconscious so why would you move a little like in ET:QW. At least in Wolf:ET it was “wounded” so the animation was justified!
BR1GAND
(BR1GAND)
#58
Liked ETQW method the best.
however…
W:ET had a nice insta-gib via the knife…
Not a big fan of TK-revives with no penalty and using recently revived players’ immunity for a ‘meat-shield’.
Allowing for self-revives as xp reward (either for the medic or other teammates) might have merit for the pub game.
/kill is a must, but I’d like to see it’s abuse addressed (ie. /killing to deny kills solely).
BackSnip3
(BackSnip3)
#59
[QUOTE=BR1GAND;394090]
/kill is a must, but I’d like to see it’s abuse addressed (ie. /killing to deny kills solely).[/QUOTE]
They can make something like Team Fortress 2, where the last man in the last few seconds who did damage to the /kill-ing guy will still receive the kill he deserved.