Does medic really needs a scope to have some fun?

[[508th_PIR] Grey]

I don't think it would effect me either way. When I'm playing medic, I'm concentrating on maintaining overall SA, keeping my squad alive, and suppression.

The enjoyment is in the teamwork, what PR is ostensibly about. Not in getting enough kills for your sweet frag video.

[Kerryburgerking]

I think medics should get the weapons they have IRL.

[Heavy Death]

You people also keep forgetting that BUIS is BACK UP ironsights for a reason... when you blow a tire on your car, you dont ride on the back up/reserve for the rest of the time. Its a temporary solutuion... mostly BUIS are obstrucred as hell as far as ive seen.

[KiloJules]

These stupid discussions about getting more or less kills could stop when people would just finally click on the "squad"-tab in the scoreboard and just look on their K/D as a squad, rather than individually.

That train of thought hit me, when I started doing SL on a regular basis and realized that I often wouldn't engage enemies in order to brief my squad, order them into various positions, wait for my squad/AR/grenadier/whatever be in position and THEN open up simultaneously instead of opening up alone and therefore having nothing prepared.

Obviously this would cost ME, personally, a lot of kills, but so freaking what? If my squad keeps decimating enemy squad after squad because we were team-/squadworking, it is much more important to and fun for me!

-----------

On Topic:

Medic doesn't need a scope per se just as non of the other "regular rifle" kits needs one. By this point in time it is proven and kinda general knowledge in this community that scopes don't make you better in this game. They offer you some advantages but at the same time they demand certain other aspects of your behavior to be altered in order to be successful!

With BUIS (and 1.0 for that matter) a lot of stuff will change, that is certain, but no one in here, except a few people maybe, can actually foresee the need of a scope on the medics weapon.

What I can tell you though: I know all the BUIS variants we will get, I know the maps and environments and I know about my playing style and therefore I also already know on which map, with which faction and for which mission I will still grab my iron-sight version of the kits and will also order the same to my squad mates!

[saXoni]

You guys act like a medic doesn't have a gun if there is no scope mounted on top of it.

Some people might definitely act like that. I do not. The majority of the time I play PR I choose either red dot or iron sights, simply because it's the most efficient sight in terms of surviving.

From what I've gathered it seems to me that people are against the suggestion of giving the medic kit a magnified scope because either a) it's not realistic, or b) it would make every medic out there act like a "sniper". I don't really care as I have no idea if combat medics do get magnified scopes in real life (the only source I have would be a couple of military documentaries), and I am not concerned about the medics in my squad acting like a new generation of snipers.

People that play PR are supposed to be responsible and they are supposed to understand what would be the best for their squad and team. If a medic is going to fight over open ground he will need a scope in order to have better accuracy, and if he's going to fight in an urban area the iron sights would be the best thing to choose. If the medic chose a magnified scope instead of iron sights in an urban area, and is using it solely to rack up kills he has not only failed as a medic, but also as a PR player, and he shouldn't really be playing this mod anyways.

This is why my opinion on the matter is that it should be up to the individual itself to choose whether he'd like a scope on his rifle or not, as they should know which layout that would fit best in the different circumstances.

[Unhealed]

saXoni, I understand your opinion, and I also agree that if in some army they issue scopes to combat medics then I have nothing against them having scopes in PR too.
The thing is they often don't issue scopes to a combat medics afaik, so I just don't want this Project to loose those not numerous connections to Reality just becouse for some people being patient and covering your squad's back is the same thing as being civilian.

If the medic chose a magnified scope instead of iron sights in an urban area, and is using it solely to rack up kills he has not only failed as a medic, but also as a PR player, and he shouldn't really be playing this mod anyways.

Sadly there is really a lot of those people in PR who should play BF3 or something instead, but if they gone PR is also gone since not really much people play PR I guess.

[Tit4Tat]

Medic should be given a HAT x 2 rounds, now that will be fun playing as a medic.



sorry lol

Despite the apology: Warning for useless post content. Please no joke-oneliners in serious topics. - Spec





edit: ^^ that was No64 on my list off 100 things to do before i die

[camo]

I just think its a little unrealistic that medics should be singled out as the troops that get the less capable weapons. In all honestly it would do little to change the gameplay except make it a little more fun for the medics. With the removal of binoculars (a good change) the medic will have no way of identifying the enemy at range, so when the rest of the squad are discussing the plan and or observing the enemy the medic will quite likely feel a little left out. This would ultimately lead to people not really wanting to play as the medic on larger maps. A few of you have raised the arguments that medics will then start to concentrate on the enemy rather than healing, i think this is largely down to the player and not the level of magnification that your gun has. The level of teamwork a squad member contributes to his squad is not dictated by his scope and this is self evident in every game of PR that all of you have played. I vote for the addition of a scope on medic kits to make up for the lack of binoculars.

[Unhealed]

I don't feel bored while playing as a medic if the round itself is fun. If the round is boring only few(like cas or snipers) are having fun so whatever.
And it might be a good thing that medic is boring for some people, becouse if he is boring to them then it's simply not their role and it's best for the squad if someone more patient will take such an important kit.
Addition:
Let's not forget that medic also has 12(!) patches which is better in most situations than having a scope.
And I don't know about you guys but I just realized I'm simple enjoying "weak" classes like a medic, coz being in some sort of disadvantage can be more fun than just being like any of those regular guys.
The whole discussion reminded me of all these people on arma 2 public servers who take a sniper rifle and a HAT.

I just think its a little unrealistic that medics should be singled out as the troops that get the less capable weapons.

How is that unrealistic if it's simply how it is in the world's armies? Having no scope on a weapon is not dramaticly worse both IRL and PR, especially when people around you have them. It's not like the weapon without a scope is as effective as pistol.
I'm not against the scopes if Bundeswehr or BAF have them for medics IRL. It only will make those factions more unique which is always good.
I hope this post is a last one in this thread, since it feels like we have already said everything we could on this rather useless topic since PR 1.0 is coming soon and it will be a different thing from what we have now.

[Tit4Tat]

I ask who wants to be medic, usually the person who knows/like's playing medic will take it=problem solved.

When i attack and i'am not surrounded i tell my medic to stay 5-10m behind the sqd, just in case he trips up or gets dust in his eye, if i could i would wrap him in bubble wrap.

For me, the medic is the life line for my sqd, so i don't give 2 monkeys if his bored or what not.

[HunterMed]

Without binocs anymore, yes the medic should have a scope. (or binocs )

[ComradeHX]

How is that unrealistic if it's simply how it is in the world's armies? Having no scope on a weapon is not dramaticly worse both IRL and PR, especially when people around you have them. It's not like the weapon without a scope is as effective as pistol.
I'm not against the scopes if Bundeswehr or BAF have them for medics IRL. It only will make those factions more unique which is always good.
I hope this post is a last one in this thread, since it feels like we have already said everything we could on this rather useless topic since PR 1.0 is coming soon and it will be a different thing from what we have now.

IRL? not so dramatically worse.

In PR? You are looking at monitor which is limited by resolution.
Yes it is significantly worse at long range.

[Steeps]

Let's just follow PR:V's example. Remove all scopes except for sniper. Profit.

[Eddie Baker]

The subjects of these photographs (linked rather than embedded because some are high res) are US Navy Hospital Corpsmen assigned to Marine units or US Army combat medics. Note the sights on their weapons.

http://media.dma.mil/2013/Jun/10/200002 ... 89-031.JPG

http://media.dma.mil/2013/Jun/10/200002 ... 58-202.JPG

http://media.dma.mil/2013/Jan/24/200000 ... 22-004.JPG

http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/-images/2 ... 085932.jpg

http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/-images/2 ... 170930.jpg

Combat medics (or Fleet Marine Force Hospital Corpsmen) are organic to every US combat arms battalion and go on combat patrols, man vehicle checkpoints, search suspects, search for IEDs, clear buildings and everything else that the men they support have to do.

As x-spades-x pointed out, because they have to go anywhere with their infantry brethren, they also have access to the same personal equipment that they do. Including optics. You will notice in the above pics the infrared/visible aiming lights on many of their rifles, as well.

Your strawman quip about underbarrel grenade launchers is not far off; they will qualify on or "fam-fire" every individual or crew served infantry weapon organic to the units they support. There are even some Hospital Corpsmen attached to their battalion Scout-Sniper Platoons.


Magnified optics are either an option or the standard for medics armed with rifles/carbines in various Western forces. The M150 RCO (ACOG) is the standard optic for the USMC, and thus the Navy units that support them. US Army will have at the very least M68s, if not EOTechs and some will have ACOG. And you also have:

British Army
http://www.army.mod.uk/images/news/AMOC ... _200_1.jpg

Canadian Forces
http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com/2006/jacksonfeb.jpg

Australian Forces
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/20 ... gelder.jpg

Why bother complaining about it?

[Joker86]

Okay, big Joker post incoming.

Now here is my point of view:

Project reality is a) about fun b) about teamplay c) about realism, and this order. Being about fun is the essential purpose of a game. And the essential means to achieve this are rules. You can't have a game without rules. To have a good game, the rules need to meet one single, most important condition: they have to be fair. A game which is not fair is one sided and boring. The uncertainity about the outcome of the game makes it thrilling and interesting, hence fun. So in the case of multiplayer games, it can be paraphrased like this: the game needs to be balanced!

We do have quite some problems in terms of balance, like the insurgency mode shows often enough. People just don't like to play insurgents, and they complain a lot about the game mode on the forums. I don't tell you what I think about it (perhaps I agree, perhaps I don't, so don't even start discussing insurgency now ), I just want to tell you what I noticed. These imbalance (whether perceived or real) cause frustration and thus are bad and unwanted.

Now as PR is a lot about teamplay, with a lot of synergy effects and interdependancies, you can't compare the classes directly to each other, like you could in some other shooters, saying this class is overpowered or this one here is underpowered. But you can compare the gameflow for the different classes and thus estimate the amount of fun they are.

Since fun is something highly subjective, it is actually impossible to compare it properly. But I think we can all agree that there are situations, which most, if not all players would describe as "no fun". It is no fun hiding behind a rock while being shot by an APC who exactly knows where you are. It is no fun spwaning and being shot into the back. And it is no fun being shot from somewhere far away, and not being able to defend yourself.

Of course being in the open is always bad, because you are begging for being shot. But you can't always stay somewhere hidden, because your SL wants you to cross an open area. Of course the SL should adjust his tactic to his squad composition and vice versa, but there is unfortunately only one medic class (and only one specialist and a few others, the medic only representing them). So if a SL decides for some reason to enter open areas, for example to surround the enemy, or for the very simple reason that the map consists of mostly open areas, he has the choice between having a fighter who can't engage effectively on long range, or to go without a medic. First one is the lesser evil, so people usually go with this solution.

And this solution puts a medic into a disadvantageous situation, completely without his fault. He showed himself willing to play this important class for the team, but as a "reward" he feels somewhat at a disadvantage.

Yes, a medic should concentrate on keeping the squad alive, but actually, so should the entire squad. A medic comes only to play when the squad failed in the primary task of self defense (which - in difference to older times - is nowadays valued more than killing the enemy). When nobody is injured, the medic is no more special than any other soldier in the squad. And besides of that, every combat medic is a rifleman at first place, and THEN a medic at second place.

WHEN people do get injured, the medic jumps in and saves the day. While some people can indeed enjoy the aspect of directly helping your teammates (more than any other form of direct interaction between players in this game), often enough players go for a medic because nobody else wants, but the group needs a medic. A squad can basically go without any class, except for the medic. He is a must. So he is often played by people who do NOT particularly enjoy healing up others. This is something which should always be kept in mind.

Now what would be the advantage of medic being able to choose a scoped rifle?

Well, one argument against it was that people would focus too much on killing and not enough on their actual task. I think this is plainly wrong, because it is a problem of the player, and not a problem of the class. While I do agree that people often need to be "pushed" into a direction in terms of gameplay, I disagree in the case of PR. This game is so much about interaction with the others, that every form of patronization would just punish those people who would play the game properly, anyway. And there are plenty of them, the majority, I would even dare to say. So in my opinion, saying "A medic should play carefully so we give him a crappy weaon to discourage him of being aggressive and play risky" is a really bad form of patronization.

The other argument was, that the squad needs someone who is protecting them against close range encounters while everyone being focused on the enemy in the distance. Again I think this is wrong argumentation. Because who on earth says it has to be the particular task of the medic? What has a medic to do with short-range protection? Shouldn't it be in the responsibility of the SL to assign this task to a member of his choice? Again it's not like CQB is integral part of the medic role. Don't patronize people by forcing them to have CQB focused classes in their groups. If they don't want to, let them!

The point of always being able to choose ironsights or scope (except of a few exceptions, like marksman, sniper, pilots or crewmen) is simply to give players another option to adjust to the circumstances. Many classes do have this advantage, others do not. Those classes who don't do indeed have secondary capabilities, but I don't think this makes up for it. As the name says, they are secondary capabilities, you only occasionally use. But you are a soldiers 100% of the time, and soldiers fight. Despite all of that teamplay and other stuff, it is still a shooter, and nobody of us would deny that it is always fun to kill an enemy.

So in my eyes, to keep this game as fair and entertaining as possible for everyone, all classes with only the exception of those four I mentioned above (marksman, sniper, pilot, crewman) should have the choice between ironsights or scope. Or, those classes with ironsight, should get an optional "zoom" mode like in ArmA. But everyone should enjoy the same amount of flexibility, choices and patronization as everyone else. Which is especially important in a game which has a limited choice of roles and having listening to other players being an integral part of the gameplay.

[Unhealed]

Project reality is all about fun through teamplay, so it's just a nonsense to separate these two things from each other.
The rules are fair as they are now, but I think in your opinion fair is when you and your enemies are just a mirror of each other.
Medic has 12 patches but no scope and BUIS on his gun, becouse of that he can be very vulnerable but he can also be very strong.

You said that every nation medic should get a scope even if they don't have them in real life. But let's not forget that Project reality is also about asymmetrical balance (becouse there is no symmetry on the real life battlefield), which is far more enjoyable than having everything just mirrored for everyone.
If US army or any other army has scopes for everyone - do it, add it to the game I don't mind at all, but don't you dare to give them to RAF or MEC medics becouse of the balance, I don't want such balance, I want a balance when you have less scopes in a squad but for example you have better starting position than your enemy and etc.

I never encountered a situation when squad lead even thinks about not taking a medic becouse he lacks optics, are you sure you just didn't took it out of your head?
And if someone can't having fun throught teamplay(being a medic from time to time if no one is volunteering) and wants to have fun only through killing then he also can't have fun through being a teamplayer and therefore he should probably just play BF3 instead.

WHEN people do get injured, the medic jumps in and saves the day.

People are often injured, I mean really often. My last 10 rounds I played only as a medic and with a decent team, and I can't remember a single moment when having a scope was so necessary that we have to sacrifice realism and assymetrical balance and add them for everyone. And I can't remember a single moment when I could have had more fun by having a scope.

Despite all of that teamplay and other stuff, it is still a shooter, and nobody of us would deny that it is always fun to kill an enemy.

You can't just say that teamplay is "other stuff", teamplay is a core of PR(and a core of the fun) a core we sadly can loose becouse of people not flexible enough to have fun not only by getting sick frags.

nobody of us would deny that it is always fun to kill an enemy

Who is "us"? Battlefield 3 players? Read KiloJules post on a page 3 and see that you can and should(if we are talking about PR) have fun through the teamplay, not trough kills.
And sorry, I sound like a **** but don't really know how to explain it the other way and fast, this post can be waay longer and I can explain in every detail why are you wrong and should probably play different game, but sorry it's really time consuming to type these huge messages in my non-native language.

[x-spades-x]

What it comes down to is a unit's MTOE. If the unit has the optic, and that person wants it, thats what they use. It isn't broken down by MOS normally. For example, here at 10th SFG, I walked into the armory and they said "we got EOTechs, ACOG's and ELCANs... pick one. "


My MOS was never asked.

Therefore, I think the Medic should get to choose between ACOG and EOTech(or ironsight) Just like the other riflemen.

[Unhealed]

Therefore, I think the Medic should get to choose between ACOG and EOTech(or ironsight) Just like the other riflemen.

If Canadians, Americans and British have it that way then it's really better to have it the same way in PR if it's possible.
My point is that I don't wanna see unrealistic stuff for no reason.
AFAIK devs promised to remove scopes from most of the IDF kits becouse the guy who served in IDF said it's not realistic. Really want them to do so.

[DesmoLocke]

Let's just follow PR:V's example. Remove all scopes except for sniper. Profit.

Cause everyone enjoys shooting at pixels all day.

The removal of scopes will even further reduce the distance between firefights among battling infantry squads.

I'm not even a fan of the removal of binocs because that just adds more to the to-do list for SQ leaders. I currently enjoy when members of my squad spot the enemy because I'm usually doing something else like trying to coordinate with another SL over Mumble.

What is wrong with current PR gameplay for infantry? It obviously works since people are still here after all. I hate these discussions/debates because there is always one side that wants to ruin a good thing and it's often ruined for the majority.

[ComedyInK]

If Canadians, Americans and British have it that way then it's really better to have it the same way in PR if it's possible.
My point is that I don't wanna see unrealistic stuff for no reason.
AFAIK devs promised to remove scopes from most of the IDF kits becouse the guy who served in IDF said it's not realistic. Really want them to do so.

I hate the word "realism"/"realistic" word thrown when talking about games.

It's a game.
It will never be real.
Get over it.
Your opinion does not match everyone else that may or may not posts here.
Build a bridge. Cross it. Burn it. Lean to accept defeat.

Your continues strawman arguments are really annoying. A Dev in here even came and verified that YES, medics ARE able to use optics on their weapons. My friend is a Tank Crewmen, he has a M320 on his M4. Does this mean we should give this to the crewman in game? NO. FUN > BALANCE > "REALISM".

I also find it extremely awesome that the IDF is getting it's Optics removed. It's going to be SO MUCH FUN playing Iron Eagle as IDF now! SO MUCH FUN /s