Comrades in Arms Discussion Board

In most cases, I see psycho revive as something that works out or at least some kind of first aid system of some sort seems to be needed for missions. Most missions I see, if you were to completely remove psycho revive from it, would probably be impossible without it. There are, however, some cases where I see a mission can be designed to be too easy with psycho revive and can be designed without it.


For missions that are designed without psycho revive, however, I find myself more on the verge of not taking risks at all since a bullet or 2 will probably kill you (1 if to into the head). My rant would be that sometimes you shoot an AI to the face and he lives and shoot you back to death in Arma 3.


For house to house clearing missions where AIs mainly just barricade up or a quick action of only pure door to door action, I find no psycho revive a bit more of a challenge, unless the combat was design to be tense already, then include psycho revive. For a quick manuever through houses, try not to die and get one guy, objective, or something, then leave. I find you probably might need psycho revive (unless you up the AI to a certain amount you might need it). A classic steal the car mission, I find you wouldn't need it. A complete stealth mission where you're just going to be screwed anyways, I find you probably might not need it. A mission where everyone just have pistols gangster warfare, I say you wouldn't need it (mainly since it doesn't work with pistols only and pistols only probably wouldn't murder you straight away anyways). You'd mainly be up close and tight to hide in a building for those.


An example where I thought worked well without psycho revive was co03 kill the traitor or pyrgos when I played with Misha and Stick. Since there was no psycho revive, I suggested we only kill guys if they're in our way and go building to building as cover. A few shots were dead. It was a little tougher, you cringe to your life more and will stick around to fire less and spend more time trying to find cover. We just need to kill a guy in an underwear (our target) then escape to boat and extract, so we did. The first time we stuck around and fight and well, people died. So for that, it ended up being more, manuever and take the guy out, then run. To me it'd be quicker short firefights and cling to your life. I can see it work with psycho revive too, but then our approach would proably be different, and it'd be easier.


Overall, to me, what I feel about should psycho revive be used or not be used for every mission. I would say, it depends.


I feel like that mission that have more emphasis around longer firefights and stuff should have it. Ones that focuses on pure stealth or super quick firefight/combat <or rainbow six style stuff that doesn't last long> of some sort probably wouldn't need it.


What do you guys think? 


PS: I probably would say for all of my past missions I threw psycho revive on (except Zaros Conspiracy which doesn't and shouldn't have it because you're a lone wolf), Stealing the Tempest wouldn't need it since you're screwed when the alarm goes off anyways, the Terrorist hunt missions were doable without it, and I thought were too easy with it, although, that's about it.


You can still die with psycho revive, but you will live more often than with arma 2 BIS first modules, although, I prefer psycho compare to farooq revive (where only medic can do something, and revive is instanteneous).


PSS: If you plan to give the medic an actual role in the mission, use Psycho Revive script. Since you can just go FAK yourself to get your legs back without it so medic not as important, depends on mission design.


I'd say don't make long LONG or any mission that go to the hour range of duration without psycho revive, most likely, death will happen fast for default anyways so quick missions.

Psycho revive handles damage in a convoluted way and you can bump the 'rambo factor' up to 11 (I remember a Persian MO mission where I definitely took shots to the torso and medic didn't even need to heal me), so it's not really an issue of revive than how much damage you're allowed to take. I'm pretty sure you die faster on farooq's revive (or maybe missions that use farooq have AI skill set to max).

The way the original Psycho handles damage (and this seems to be true for most of the revive scripts) is that it treats the damage reported by the damage handler as the damage received with one event, but in reality, the handler delivers the TOTAL damage after the damaging event.

So, say you are at 0.5 torso damage, and you get hit by a ricochet for 0.1 damage. The event handler will say 0.6, and the revive interprets this as "add 0.6 to the current damage of that part", which will actually kill you since 0.6 + 0.5 > 1.0. Instant agony state.

That is why they introduced "Rambo Factor". It just diminishes the damage by a certain factor.

To fix the script, I subtract the damage you already have at the beginning of the script, making that 0.6 become 0.1 as the script originally expected. I then removed the Rambo factor from the damage calculation.

The fire problem was because the damage handler starts to fire rapidly once you get into the vicinity of a fire, but with ridiculously low values of damage. But with the above bug, this quickly escalates to agony state. With the correction I made, the effect is hardly noticeable anymore, however, you will still get damaged slightly (you would die within, say, 1 minute or so standing near a fire). To work around that, I discard any damage value that is below 0.000001.

The result looks good, I just need to tweak the thresholds for agony.

Personally, I feel like this should be part of every mission, regardless of which one. This isn't like BTC revive were you can basically not die at all unless you bleed out. Plenty of times with Psycho I died instantaneously. The only modification I would consider is having normal soldiers only stabilize people or get them up with only a minimal amount of health restored, and have Medics have the power to heal everything, but other than that, I think it is good as it is.

I find Psycho's script useful in SP too, friendly AI is pretty good in reviving.

I'm game for missions without Psycho revive, as long as they are short and violent.

(03-23-2015, 03:40 PM)Variable link Wrote:I'm game for missions without Psycho revive, as long as they are short and violent.

Pretty much what I got in mind.
For most missions, I believe that they all should have psycho revive. Those scenarios to me would the few exceptions.

(03-23-2015, 03:40 PM)Variable link Wrote:I'm game for missions without Psycho revive, as long as they are short and violent.

Sounds cool, to accommodate for larger player counts 15+ just have a mission with a single short task(eg: destroy the base) them start about 1km near the objective with nothing in between.

(03-26-2015, 06:32 AM)Watchmen link Wrote:start about 1km near the objective with nothing in between.

No need to walk 1km if there's nothing in between. 500 (in concealment - so the AI won't detect you) is far enough.

This brings the question. A few short action packed missions or 1 or 2 long ones with revive script.

(03-26-2015, 02:13 PM)Watchmen link Wrote:This brings the question. A few short action packed missions or 1 or 2 long ones with revive script.

I prefer variation. A long one followed by shorter ones is always preferable IMO over just one or the other.

(03-26-2015, 06:32 AM)Watchmen link Wrote:Sounds cool, to accommodate for larger player counts 15+ just have a mission with a single short task(eg: destroy the base) them start about 1km near the objective with nothing in between.

If you look at old flashpoint missions where you sweep a city, you pretty much start right there. No start 1 km bs where you walk aimlessly without action, that's a waste of time.

(03-26-2015, 05:28 PM)Phantom link Wrote:If you look at old flashpoint missions where you sweep a city, you pretty much start right there. No start 1 km bs where you walk aimlessly without action, that's a waste of time.

That's exaggerating it.

First of all, if you know where you are going, it's not "aimlessly". Secondly, if done correctly a 1km march to the target can be interesting too. I personally don't understand why people hate to walk a bit and insist on starting right next to the objective. The path to the objective is equally important, and it highly depends on the mission whether this is okay or not.

Only one thing I agree - I wouldn't know why you would put nothing in between.

IMO sometimes a walk can contribute to imersion and atmosphere, as long is not in Wolfpacks' style of walking Somehow he found the receipe of how not to do walking in ARMA, and i'm talking only from my personal point of view here.

(03-27-2015, 03:15 AM)alias link Wrote:IMO sometimes a walk can contribute to imersion and atmosphere, as long is not in Wolfpacks' style of walking Somehow he found the receipe of how not to do walking in ARMA, and i'm talking only from my personal point of view here.

Maybe I just have nightmares of aimless walks.... wasting an hour or 2 isn't my recipe for fun. Well, there are walks that work, but there are ways walks shouldn't be done.

(03-27-2015, 05:26 AM)Phantom link Wrote:Maybe I just have nightmares of aimless walks.... wasting an hour or 2 isn't my recipe for fun. Well, there are walks that work, but there are ways walks shouldn't be done.

You are overgeneralizing. Starting right next to a town and then trying for an hour to find the last guy hiding in one of the houses is a waste of time. That it's no need to paint everything with the same broad brush. A mission without walking isn't automatically good. A mission with walking isn't automatically a waste of time.