Medics imba ?

sylphaen · 2012-08-10, 07:42 PM

So I just saw Higby use his MAX suit in the red zone without being repaired. After 2-3 minutes, he finally got shot by a NC player and got revived in 3-4 seconds by a medic.

What bothers me ? He had his full armor back.

Either medics can or cannot heal MAXes but reviving with full armor is equivalent to medics being able to repair MAXes.

What also bothers me a lot: the unlimited ammo on healing guns.

It should either have a cooldown, a battery ala jumpjet or ammo requirements. A pack of players in a stalemate situation who can keep reviving their players have it too easy perpetuating a stalemate, imo.

The crown hill fight when Higby was streaming NC was such an example.

Boone · 2012-08-10, 08:15 PM

They should let you die a few times before not being able to be revived again or just half health.

Pepsi · 2012-08-10, 08:19 PM

Reviving someone should put their health at 25% with possible certs or side-grades if you want to revive someone with more health.

Wumpus · 2012-08-10, 08:22 PM

Yeah that's terrible. Reviving a MAX should not reload your guns nor fix your armor.

RoninOni · 2012-08-10, 08:29 PM

I know medics gotta be worthwhile, but reviving full armor MAXs certainly sounds like too much.

Maybe MAX's should get destroyed... it's kinda sorta vehicular in a way

On that subject, they should also DEFINITELY have a cooldown between spawns. 5min minimum (maybe 2-3 after Certs) I mean cmon... if you can't keep a MAX suit up you shouldn't be able to just infinitely crash them...

also no Drop Pod (squad/beacon) spawning of MAXs

Back to medic... overheat/recharging energy meter would be my preference. We want healing to be relatively easy and not something to hoard, but we should also limit the healing rate.

However, keep in mind fellas this is first round of Beta... there's a LOT of things not yet in... and they haven't even BEGUN on balancing... so nothing to fret over yet

SFJake · 2012-08-10, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by RoninOni

Back to medic... overheat/recharging energy meter would be my preference. We want healing to be relatively easy and not something to hoard, but we should also limit the healing rate.

I disagree. No ammo limit is an unlimited amount of health anywhere there are medics. To me, thats non-sense.

RoninOni · 2012-08-10, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by SFJake

I disagree. No ammo limit is an unlimited amount of health anywhere there are medics. To me, thats non-sense.

Negative...

Put an 'ammo count' on healing and watch how fast people start hoarding their heal ability.

REVIVES... maybe... but currently they're tied to the same action apparently...

I agree that it would be better balanced with limited healing... but you are almost never going to see cross-squad healing if you do.

Plus, outdamaging the heal rate is pretty much a non-issue anyways

Envenom · 2012-08-10, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by Pepsi

Reviving someone should put their health at 25% with possible certs or side-grades if you want to revive someone with more health.

I like this idea.

picchu · 2012-08-10, 09:12 PM

If you cap meds ability like this you will never see them healing others. Getting revived would be once in a blue moon.

The way it is now seems fine. You can say yes or no, it has a recharge/is not instant revive, you seem to die easier (unknown but from vids people go down fast when revived and fired instantly after), your position/what you looking at is kind of random (meaning you often don't see someone revive then get a jump on the one that killed him)

It looks better then most revive mechanics

Also a med can not heal/revive a max from what I read.. maybe it was a engineer?

Toppopia · 2012-08-10, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by Pepsi

Reviving someone should put their health at 25% with possible certs or side-grades if you want to revive someone with more health.

I agree, this is probably the best way to do it, because to then get that soldier up to fighting condition, the medic then spends 10 seconds healing him, which is keeping him from the battlefield/reviving/healing other people. So this is the best course of action.

RoninOni · 2012-08-10, 09:27 PM

^4thed

Rivenshield · 2012-08-10, 09:32 PM

I concur with OP. In PS1 when you revive anybody, you also have to fix their armor. It doesn't spontaneously fix itself.

picchu · 2012-08-10, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

I concur with OP. In PS1 when you revive anybody, you also have to fix their armor. It doesn't spontaneously fix itself.

Could just be ignored in beta like a dozen other things.

RoninOni · 2012-08-10, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by picchu

Could just be ignored in beta like a dozen other things.

They've got a lot goin on yah know... and it takes work to compile beta updates...

In fact, I had a good discussion with a dev at a small pre-release event and he actually talked about how beta's can actually be disruptive because they more than double the amount of work involved in game development.

How's that? Well because large scale beta's need to have a lot more polish and a LOT more stability than in house test builds. In test builds there might be SERIOUS instabilities that only allow really for testing a particular modification to whatever it is that team is working on.

The beta on the other hand needs to marry many many different works in progress, and then debug that at least enough to make it 95% playable... amd then come up with placeholders for missing pieces and make sure that doesn't mess up too badly being that whatever the placeholder is isn't an ideal resource to use for the task.

That's why so few companies do REAL beta's where they actually update the main client more than once, if at all, to actually test the modifications they've made from the beta feedback.

Rivenshield · 2012-08-10, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by RoninOni

In fact, I had a good discussion with a dev at a small pre-release event and he actually talked about how beta's can actually be disruptive because they more than double the amount of work involved in game development.

/nod

I keep on trying to describe how software development works in the real world, but nobody wants to listen....

From a developer's POV, you take your baby out of this nice safe controlled environment and users start screwing with it in a big nasty *uncontrolled* environment. Even if they're screwing with it in the way you ask them to, it's still a kind of traumatic event work-load-wise.