As I’ve said before, reviving is one of the better features of battlefield 5. It had a lot of problems but this wasn’t one of them. And Darkflow isn’t working on “the most realistic ww2 FPS”. It has a more realistic movement and has tank and plane damage models, other then that, it is pretty arcady and people have admitted to that and that is ok. People enjoy the arcady aspect of the game combined with the more realistic ones.
Medics were allowed to carry weapons. By using them, however, they would loose their Geneva protection. This game however doesn’t really bother with Geneva convention (and most countries didn’t bother with it in ww2 either). The game would have combat medics that are firing their weapons meaning they are to be fired upon. Don’t see a problem with that.
Reviving in games like Squad, plays a role to punish solo players, aka Rambos who wonder the map to find some easy kills. In BF5 it was always there to keep your K/D, because that’s important for people there or something. It allows assaults to just keep pushing forward while getting killed. It’s not a great mechanic as it’s so easy to abuse with some teamwork.
To be honest I don’t know what would be the purpose of the medic here. To get your sniper revived after you’ve got sniped? Like my MG team would have theoretically infinite amount of machinegunners as I could just revive them. There are some houses with top floor that are super easy to defend, with ability to revive people that would make them even more powerful.
It depends, if you were to agree with a medic class, battalion, team, whatever; how would you think it best?
For instance, in certain maps the respawn is 15 seconds, reviving yourselff is 8 seconds if you have a medkit.
All it needed to happen would let one person be able to drag someone to cover and revive them in 10 seconds lets say (to a % of health), the player could then further heal themselves or do w.e they wanted.
I will say that, after someone gets downed once, they shouldn’t be able to be revived, depending on the severity of the wound.
You get shot in the shoulder and have to stay on the ground using said shoulder to heal yourself for 8 seconds?
Not to mention, at times I get shot somewhere that shouldn’t down me and I get to 80% hp, to then revive myself to 30% hp…it makes no sense.
I see I lot of potential for player abuse with a medic class. So I would say no unless we could have a clear outline of how this class would function before hand and plenty of time to test it …
Defending a cap point with every squad having a medic who can bring soldiers back to life. Currently people complain about placing spawn points too close to a cap point.
With medics you don’t need spawn points you can just rez right on the objective…
Actual medics were not allowed to carry weapons, enter combat zones, or get shot at. They are a HUGE nono in ANY combat game.
COMBAT medics on the other hand are a different story. They are literally just normal soldiers that know how to apply a bandage properly. And last time I checked, that covers literally every soldier in the game right now. As such, we do not need any kind of combat medic.
I REALLY hope to never see reviving in this game. I don’t need some CoD Zombies gamemode. If you are dead, you are dead. Done.
I don’t get why you limit the medic class to what you have seen in other games rather than coming up with new ways to have a new medic class that can be fun, dynamic and fair to play.
Your criticism is towards what medics are in other games, not towards what medics could be in this one.
No. The Geneva Convention disallows medics from carrying firearms, entering combat zones, or get shot at. It has nothing to do with games. It would be a warcrime worse than flamethrowers.
Chapter IV, Article 25 of the Geneva Convention states that: “Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands.” Article 29 reads: “Members of the personnel designated in Article 25 who have fallen into the hands of the enemy, shall be prisoners of war, but shall be employed on their medical duties insofar as the need arises.”
According to the Geneva Convention, knowingly firing at a medic wearing clear insignia is a war crime.[1]
Vice versa, the convention also states that no medic should carry a weapon, or be seen engaged in combat.
Combat medics, on the other hand, would result in the removal of normal soldiers being able to carry medkits, completely ruining the dymanics of the game. If all soldiers would still be able to carry medkits, there is no reason to add combat medics.
The Geneva Convention disallows medics from carrying firearms
Medics had a pistol and would forfeit the Geneva Convention agreement if engaged in battle.
The game won’t allow a geneva rule unless you make medics take less damage or have more health.
When talking about medics, we’re talking about combat medics, or are you really going to stick to the assumption that we’re talking about a hospitalar structure being built on the beach of normandy? Get real.
No, the game simply will not have any medics in the first place. Problem solved.
I answerred for both normal medics AND combat medics. Please read, thank you.
The only difference between a medic and a combat medic is the red cross insignia, as well as whether or not they carry a firearm. Those differences determine their protection within the Geneva Convention. Their equipment outside of that has nothing to do with it. Combat medics can bring people to a field hospital just as easily as actual medics can. “Get real”.
