My reasons why a Medic should not just have a sidearm(detailed reasoning) -1 reply

Please wait...

Safe-Keeper

Aw, c'mon Cyan, it's quality!

50 XP

29th September 2004

0 Uploads

1,225 Posts

0 Threads

#61 13 years ago

Medics should be historically accurate, plain and simple. If they had nukes and bazookas in reality, give it to them. If they were unarmed in reality, make them unarmed here, too. Then balance and fix game-play problems that arise as a result.

I would love a system where medics were neutral and healed both sides and it actually was a good idea to not shoot them. It'd lead to a lot of problems, of course, but if those could be solved, it'd be a very, very good addition. It's beyond ridiculous to have medics run about with machine guns while wearing Red Cross protection emblems. It's litterally up there with soldiers waving white flags while fighting.

People play for team effort, not to role-play, so in the end the players will just end using the medic as a assault class again.

That's the challenge. We can't just sit around and go 'it's unrealistic to kill medics', or 'you'll lose points/get kicked from the server if you do use the medic as an assault soldier'. Doesn't work for base-camping, won't work for neutral medics. Rather than punishing people who kill medics, you'll have to make it so that there is no incentive to attack them in the first place, and that... is not easy. As a matter of fact, I think that as long as you use the BF2 engine, it's impossible. As soon as you make medic-killing punishable, they become human shields. I guarantee it.

As a side note, it disturbs me more than a little bit how so many people these days really want there to not be rules on the battlefield. It's one thing to observe that rules are broken, but when flocks of guys go 'this means we can do whatever we want, so there!', or 'rules in war have no effect!'... it can't bode very well for the future.




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#62 13 years ago
Safe-Keeper;3699866I would love a system where medics were neutral and healed both sides and it actually was a good idea to not shoot them. It'd lead to a lot of problems, of course, but if those could be solved, it'd be a very, very good addition. It's beyond ridiculous to have medics run about with machine guns while wearing Red Cross protection emblems. It's litterally up there with soldiers waving white flags while fighting.[/quote] Except for the fact, wich has been said quite a few times already, that the Red Cross doesnt mean a whole lot on the battlefield. Neutral medics is a rather absurd idea if you ask me. That sort of thing might work in real life but not in a game like this, im afraid.
That's the challenge. We can't just sit around and go 'it's unrealistic to kill medics', or 'you'll lose points/get kicked from the server if you do use the medic as an assault soldier'. Doesn't work for base-camping, won't work for neutral medics. Rather than punishing people who kill medics, you'll have to make it so that there is no incentive to attack them in the first place, and that... is not easy. As a matter of fact, I think that as long as you use the BF2 engine, it's impossible. As soon as you make medic-killing punishable, they become human shields. I guarantee it.
Like i said before in real life medics where intentionally targeted and killed alot of times so thats why i think there should be no punishment of any kind for it.
As a side note, it disturbs me more than a little bit how so many people these days really want there to not be rules on the battlefield. It's one thing to observe that rules are broken, but when flocks of guys go 'this means we can do whatever we want, so there!', or 'rules in war have no effect!'... it can't bode very well for the future.
Dont get me wrong but trying to enforce rules in a war doesnt work and it will never work either. I quote: [quote=Admiral John Fisher] the essence of war is violence; moderation in war is imbecility!



gatordh7

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

12th October 2003

0 Uploads

354 Posts

0 Threads

#63 13 years ago
Real-BadSeed;3687825 And heres the second part of the idea; Have them rescue/revive dead people to save the team a ticket for each dude saved. (They dont actually revive players to play on, just save the team a ticket by delivering a casualty to a medic tent). Killed players would always respawn (so theres no actual reviving) but there wounded corpse could still be saved for the ticket saving. Using the same revive time limit, medics would have "X" amount of time to get to a casualty before hes a goner. So there role would be to save tickets. A more realistic representation of a medics function imo. These ideas would give medics a useful and realistic role ingame.

Thats a really good idea actually




Safe-Keeper

Aw, c'mon Cyan, it's quality!

50 XP

29th September 2004

0 Uploads

1,225 Posts

0 Threads

#64 13 years ago
Except for the fact, wich has been said quite a few times already, that the Red Cross doesnt mean a whole lot on the battlefield. Neutral medics is a rather absurd idea if you ask me. That sort of thing might work in real life but not in a game like this, im afraid.

Pretty much what I'm saying, actually, that it'd be nearly impossible to implement.

Like I said before in real life medics where intentionally targeted and killed alot of times so thats why i think there should be no punishment of any kind for it.
Dont get me wrong but trying to enforce rules in a war doesnt work and it will never work either.

The Norwegian government just temporarily banned the use of cluster bombs by the Norwegian military. And that's just one example.

But yes, during war-time it's difficult to call a time-out and drag an offending party off to court-martial.

As for Bad-Seed's idea, I like it a lot. It's a lot better than the defibrillator system where the soldier is magically fighting again.