Is there a gameplay reason why there is no medical system ?

Arma 2 did not have a medical system but it did have locational damage and had things such as broken limbs.

Arma 3 has regressed and does not have injuries or a medical system. Was the decision to not include either meant to make the game somehow more accessible or was it not included due to lack of resources or some other anomaly.

Not enough resources most likely as they're busy with Day Z, so we ended up with the same animation for healing yourself and others plus repairing vehicles.

You can sort of get that stuff with mods. CSE has a really good medical system although you can really tell the game limits its potential quite a lot.

A proper advanced medical system with broken limbs, pain, blood pressure and all that stuff wouldn't really work well with the casual players. I think BI were trying to move away from the hardcore Milsim crowd with Arma 3 so I doubt they'd consider adding anything sophisticated like a decent medical system.

What did A2 had more hardcore than A3 has, to say they moved away from that?

Arma 2 did not have a medical system but it did have locational damage and had things such as broken limbs.

Arma 3 has regressed and does not have injuries or a medical system. Was the decision to not include either meant to make the game somehow more accessible or was it not included due to lack of resources or some other anomaly.

Arma 3 never had VAS either, but then came along the Virtual Arsenal. As with the new start up option, the devs seem to be adding features as they go along, so I wouldn't dismiss some kind of medical system in the near future. But until then I'll continue to use BTC Revive.

What did A2 had more hardcore than A3 has, to say they moved away from that?

Limb damage for one.

In arma 2 a single shot to the legs could break them and shots to the arm would do the same.

Bullets were also far deadlier too .

Both AGM and CSE add this, and they seem to do it better than ACE2 did back in the day. I have never considered Arma 2 or Arma 3 vanilla playable experiences, they both required a lot of mods to make a realistic game that I felt was worth playing. That is OK because we have mods. I wished the mods didn't impact performance as much as they do (AGM runs pretty rubbish unfortunately) but I don't really care about inclusion into the base game. As the marksman DLC has proved BI don't do it better, they just do it differently. If anything the AGM weapon resting is a more polished and finished product than what they just released with marksman DLC, and combined with AGM recoil and such you have a more realistic package overall. To get realistic guns you have to go mods as BI is focussed on adding fantasy future weapons.

What irritates me is everytime BI includes something we have a good mod for already it breaks everything (like now). If what they did was good quality I would just turn off the bit in the mod, but reality is the quality is pretty shoddy so what we get is a game that doesn't work until the modders fix it.

Limb damage for one.

In arma 2 a single shot to the legs could break them and shots to the arm would do the same.

Bullets were also far deadlier too .

Fair enough about local damage. Deadly bullets are here too, just disable extended armor. It's perfectly ok for body armor to stop some of the incoming damage. Without, you die pretty quickly.

Would like to have a drag/carry option.

Saying there's no medical system does not make it true --maybe the OP ought to rephrase that statement for truth & clairity.

I think BI were trying to move away from the hardcore Milsim crowd with Arma 3 so I doubt they'd consider adding anything sophisticated like a decent medical system.

I thought that initially too with the future setting and all but wouldn't AFM, bipods , resting, weight and stamina all mean the opposite that they are going towards a more realistic "imo good" future.

Bullets were also far deadlier too .

Wrong. The ammunition and weapons are configured similarly to Arma2. The difference is in the personal protective equipment. Soldiers in Arma3 usually wears much more protection. No doubt a result of the 2035 time setting.

Wrong. The ammunition and weapons are configured similarly to Arma2. The difference is in the personal protective equipment. Soldiers in Arma3 usually wears much more protection. No doubt a result of the 2035 time setting.

I thought soldiers also wore body armor in arma 2 ?

I thought soldiers also wore body armor in arma 2 ?

Some soldiers yes. Not nearly as many as Arma3 though. Also, the protective equipment in Arma2 were not configured to protect nearly as much as the stuff in Arma3. Armor has become better now that we are in the year 2035. Weapons have not evolved as much it seems.

I thought soldiers also wore body armor in arma 2 ?

Shoot a soldier wearing a bandolier instead of a vest ..., they go down easy.

Think csat uniforms have a armour value tho.

Medical systems in vanilla ArmA2? the only thing I remember other than drag or carry was sometimes if you were wounded you could not walk after being healed & the only way to get on your feet again was have someone shoot you again in the arm or foot, then after another heal you could usually walk. I'm happy at the way A3 is progressing. Keep the faith.

Think csat uniforms have a armour value tho.

All the uniforms have a slight armor value. The CSAT uniform has more than the others, but CSAT soldiers have lighter vests. This means NATO and AAF have good protection for the body, while CSAT has slightly less protected body, but more protection for arms and legs.

Unprotected units go down easily. Usually just one shot is enough, even with small caliber weapons (5.56, 9mm pistols etc.) and bad shot placement.

I think BI were trying to move away from the hardcore Milsim crowd with Arma 3 so I doubt they'd consider adding anything sophisticated like a decent medical system.

I doubt that, especially because they implemented an advanced wounding (?) and healing system in DayZ, which is more catared towards casual players and not milsimmers. I think ArmA 4 must have DayZ's inventory and health system. No compromises, no excuses.

Arma 3 has the same kind of locational damage that Arma 2 had. The only difference is that now being shot in the legs forces you to a walking pace (probably to simulate limping) rather than forcing you to crawl. It would be nice if it came with an animation, though, and probably cut down on complaints like this as well.

A special animation for limping would be nice actually. I hate in multiplayer when I get wounded and my friends go "WTF, stop walking and start running!" and not realizing that the walk is because of a wound. It would also become easier to spot wounded AI which is useful when commanding a squad. It could have some real gameplay value! :)

I doubt that, especially because they implemented an advanced wounding (?) and healing system in DayZ, which is more catared towards casual players and not milsimmers. I think ArmA 4 must have DayZ's inventory and health system. No compromises, no excuses.

See that is one area that truly interests me about the dual development of Arma 3 and Dayz.

While very different games I can truly see both development teams co operate and in turn improve their own respective games by offering whatever feature they have worked on. While some really neat stuff obviously would not transfer over to arma such as the global hive system or the central loot economy, some things would easily fit right in arma such as bleeding and the future injury system and the ammunition management system.

Hopefully this dual dev initiative leads to both games being better and more comprehensive in the future.

I will say even the relatively simple bleeding mechanics from Dayz would be a huge improvement to the current damage model in arma3.

The bleeding rate depending on location, caliber etc could be used to supplement the damage values that are often debated on in arma 3.

A special animation for limping would be nice actually. I hate in multiplayer when I get wounded and my friends go "WTF, stop walking and start running!" and not realizing that the walk is because of a wound. It would also become easier to spot wounded AI which is useful when commanding a squad. It could have some real gameplay value! :)

http://giant.gfycat.com/BowedBrilliantGossamerwingedbutterfly.gif (37885 kB)

I doubt that, especially because they implemented an advanced wounding (?) and healing system in DayZ, which is more catared towards casual players and not milsimmers. I think ArmA 4 must have DayZ's inventory and health system. No compromises, no excuses.

And keep in mind, what they do in Dayz literally has no bearing whatsoever for Arma 3.

I think what Healbeam meant with the text you highlighted was the game in general, not it's medical system.

riiiight. After reading it a few more time and now that you mention it i see what he was saying. A game catered more towards casuals(which DayZ actually isn't and definitely wont be once it's complete) actually has a proper medical system, while Arma 3 doesn't. Sorry Healbeam!

But really, arma3 is also very much catered to casuals so it really isn't a surprise. DayZ just has it cus it's suppose to be a survival game where these sort of things are usually more robust.

I love reading the DayZ forums and they say that Arma is for casuals and they're the hardcore ones, and then coming here to see everyone saying they're hardcore and DayZ are the real casuals.

The medical decision is most likely a resource and time one. With the development that Arma had I'm not surprised and I don't blame BI. Takes a lot of work to get it to go and they needed to do a lot with little time.

DayZ doesn't need to worry about AI knowing how to deal with injuries.