No idea when self reviving was added. Do not like.

[Troll_Logic]

1 hour ago, MagPrime said:

I rather like this change.  It allows me to get back on my feet ASAP when the mission is in danger of failing or to get someone else up when they've run out of revives.

That's my point.

[MagPrime]

8 minutes ago, Troll_Logic said:

That's my point.

That this is a good change that gives us more direct control over our gaming experience, instead of being forced to wait for digital death while our teammates either run the opposite direction or fall in an attempt to revive us?

Glad you've changed your mind.

[Troll_Logic]

1 hour ago, MagPrime said:

I rather like this change.  It allows me to get back on my feet ASAP when the mission is in danger of failing or to get someone else up when they've run out of revives.

That's my point.

 

1 hour ago, motorfirebox said:

Yeesh. I was going to respond, but OP seems pretty true to his username and I don't think this thread's going to last much longer.

Oh, someone disagrees with me so he's a troll.

Yawn.

 

1 hour ago, (PS4)theelix said:

Again, I must say "hardly ever." 

We have very different experiences in the same game becasue teams I have been on have lost defense missions because the cryopod was hammered while 3/4's of the team was dead & the last guy couldn't defend and couldn't revive everyone else.  I've been on teams where we lost rescue missions because the hostage followed the guy that was slower than everyone else or faster than everyone else and was isolated when dropped.  I've been on team where the one guy defended on def or MD while the rest of the team ran off to hallway hero and the cryopod/console was destroyed while the one guy was down.  Or the hallway hero dropped and two guys, sometimes three, ran off to revive him and we lost the mission.  Or everyone was instadropped and the last person couldn't defend and or revive everyone else in time.  Ive been in mission where a door open and three bombards pop the team at once.  Then keep hammering the ones that get up along with the hostage.

1 hour ago, (PS4)theelix said:

Rescue missions aren't even an example. The person "leading" the hostage is at fault for "leading" when you can even extract while the hostage is downed.

You can't extract when the person leading isolates the hostage, gets him dropped, and the team can't catch up either due to distance or alarmed lock doors.  Or you can't extract when the opposite has happened and the alarms lock the door and the last player along with the hostage is stuck.  He can't unlock the doors and defend and the other players 99% of the time simply stay at the extract until the hostage is down to 10 second left.

1 hour ago, (PS4)theelix said:

The example of him killing himself and coming back to clutch the rescue hostage's down timer isn't a situation that happens in my rescue games, at all.

Who is killing himself?

1 hour ago, (PS4)theelix said:

I guess it's the fact that I can trivialize these challenges that you're trying to bring to attention that I don't see this as a problem

Maybe those situations aren't a problem for you.  I've accepted long ago that I'm the absolute worst player in WF.  I die.  Often.  My teams sometimes fail missions.  But hey, if you've never been in a situation where you fail a mission, kudos to you.  I'd just like to remind you that not everyone is as good as you.  I'd also like to point out that due to everyone saying how convenient this change is, especially when the team drops for some reason, should show you how much it actually changes the game.

[Tesseract7777]

2 hours ago, Troll_Logic said:

It removes a significant penalty from dying.  It removes a a significant penalty from poor teamwork.

The team screws up?  Who cares?  They are right back up 3 seconds later.  Some player runs in radiation and kills the team?  Doesn't matter because the team the right back up and playing.  Team wants to run off during a mobile defense and leaves a single player to defend?  He dies?  Doesn't matter.  He's right back up and defending.

It's a big change.

And yet they are burning a revive each time when they do that... 

I feel like you are discounting this when you say how much it makes things too easy/changes things. 

If they keep doing that there won't be any revives left and the mission will FAIL. 

That's the penalty. If they wait for teammates to rez them they don't burn a revive. If they use the "insta-self revive" they lose a life.

How is that not a penalty? 

[Troll_Logic]

6 minutes ago, MagPrime said:

That this is a good change that gives us more direct control over our gaming experience, instead of being forced to wait for digital death while our teammates either run the opposite direction or fall in an attempt to revive us?

Glad you've changed your mind.

My point is it builds in an artificial player safety, it reduces team play, and it changes the game in crucial situations.  Before if a player played stupidly, the team could still win with good team play.  If a majority of players played stupidly, the team was doomed.  Now, the entire team can play stupidly and still win the mission easily. 

You're point is "It prevents the player from losing in a bad situation."

That's my point as well. 

Why not simply start the missions as completed and just be done with it?

[Troll_Logic]

1 minute ago, Tesseract7777 said:

And yet they are burning a revive each time when they do that... 

I feel like you are discounting this when you say how much it makes things too easy/changes things. 

If they keep doing that there won't be any revives left and the mission will FAIL. 

That's the penalty. If they wait for teammates to rez them they don't burn a revive. If they use the "insta-self revive" they lose a life.

How is that not a penalty? 

Burning a revive doesn't matter in the situations I'm talking about.  Burning a revive in an exterminate means nothing because the revive means nothing.  Burning a revive in a mobile def means nothing because the revive means nothing.  Trading that "burned revive" to save 15 seconds of undefended console?  That's EVERYTHING.  Every player would make that trade 100% of the time.

90% of mission will not last long enough for the players to burn through each of their revives.

Add in the change where a player has 4 lives, OR MORE, per mission rather than per warframe per day?  The lives in a mission simply don't matter.

It's not a penalty because it's a willing trade that benefits the player.  Let's say a player dies once a minute with an arcane.  That's 5 minutes before the player is out.  Add in a revive half the time and it's ten minutes before he's out.  That five minutes is 90% of the missions.  Ten minutes is 99% of the missions.

[Tesseract7777]

38 minutes ago, Troll_Logic said:

Burning a revive doesn't matter in the situations I'm talking about.  Burning a revive in an exterminate means nothing because the revive means nothing.  Burning a revive in a mobile def means nothing because the revive means nothing.  Trading that "burned revive" to save 15 seconds of undefended console?  That's EVERYTHING.  Every player would make that trade 100% of the time.

90% of mission will not last long enough for the players to burn through each of their revives.

Add in the change where a player has 4 lives, OR MORE, per mission rather than per warframe per day?  The lives in a mission simply don't matter.

It's not a penalty because it's a willing trade that benefits the player.  Let's say a player dies once a minute with an arcane.  That's 5 minutes before the player is out.  Add in a revive half the time and it's ten minutes before he's out.  That five minutes is 90% of the missions.  Ten minutes is 99% of the missions.

But here's what it really comes down to though, aside from that situation where maybe you need to defend that console, in most situations it actually isn't a good idea to just burn a revive, it's foolhardy. 

Sure, if you are just doing some exterminate it doesn't matter, but I would argue that if it's just some exterminate where revives don't matter, then nothing has changed. Revives didn't matter anyways, it's just an exterminate, and getting back up a few seconds quicker in an exterminate really makes no difference in the end. The team is going to win, most warframe missions are not hard, and the most common fail reason is probably actually host migration.

Apart from the console defense thing, which would be rare where there was literally only one person who could defend it and no CC up or anything in a public game, and you just had to burn it (this is more likely to happen to like, a solo Inaros). Most players I have played with since the change don't burn a revive in a defense mission when we have stuff protecting it, which is most of the time. 

But I digress, apart from that, in missions where revives matter, like real endless missions, using the press x to burn a revive is incredibly foolish. Trying to do a decently long survival for relics in a PUG, or a long defense? You better not be burning your revives, it's a bad idea. Before this system you would have sat on the ground a bit longer, but you generally get revived and don't lose those extra mans. 

I think you still are not giving enough actual attention to this fact -- there are actually a lot of situations where just burning a revive is a really bad idea, and in the situations where it "doesn't matter" to burn a revive, it really doesn't matter that they were able to just get back up, because the mission is easy and the squad was going to win anyways. 

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by Tesseract7777
grammar/spelling

[(PSN)theelix]

35 minutes ago, Troll_Logic said:

Maybe those situations aren't a problem for you.  I've accepted long ago that I'm the absolute worst player in WF.  I die.  Often.  My teams sometimes fail missions.  But hey, if you've never been in a situation where you fail a mission, kudos to you.  I'd just like to remind you that not everyone is as good as you.  I'd also like to point out that due to everyone saying how convenient this change is, especially when the team drops for some reason, should show you how much it actually changes the game.

I'm not advertising to be perfect. 

I've only seen a handful of people saying how convenient the change is. I see quite a few more who don't really notice it's usefulness. That spoke volumes. 

Not everyone has to be as good as me, or even half as good. But if your argument are for these clinch situations in which reviving instantly saves the mission from failing, I must assume every hypothetical player is competent. An incompetent player that goes down protecting rescue hostage instantly revives and... Does what, exactly? Would this cycle not continue? Would they not get up and try to revive the hostage immediately, leading to them dying yet again? They thus immediately run out of revives and the game still has penalty for having no teamwork, is this not correct? 

At this point, I'm predicting this change actually changes the game negatively for players that aren't competent. Veteran players most likely won't care or have no true use expect that 1 in 500 mission or an event where it's somewhat important like the Juggernaut Design Council Challenge. 

For the technicolor rainbow in between... It has about as much of an effect as the Nullifier Projector Drone. Pointless in low tier content, nice in mid tier content where one shot from your Euphonia wastes it, pointless in high tier content due to its scaling and repercussions to the time you waste aiming at it. 

Hell, maybe it's only even put in the game for PoE preparation. Who's going to wait twenty seconds to be revived in a game space 500+ meters large? No one. 

 

57 minutes ago, Troll_Logic said:

Oh, someone disagrees with me so he's a troll.

Think it's less the difference in opinion and more that username harbors distrust. Makes you seem like you're aiming only to "troll." 

[Fallen_Echo]

6 minutes ago, (PS4)theelix said:

Think it's less the difference in opinion and more that username harbors distrust. Makes you seem like you're aiming only to "troll." 

Gotta agree on this one. The more i read his initial comments the more i think that this is just a flamebait thread.

[321agemo]

While im in a disagreement with him, I can see troll_logic point. That 9-12 seconds can make a large difference in certain situations:

- a downed rescue target.

- protecting a core/ console

- a triggered spy alarm

 

Previously, waiting for that revive timer for those situation are a difference between sucess and failure.

 

There is an argument to be had that the bleedout timer was an added risk for people playing as a group (in solo you eother insta-death or sentinel sacrifice instant triggers). By giving the ability to shorten that timer, you've mitigated apart of that risk aka you've made it easier.

 

Another example: in LoR if you go down in stage 3, the person reviving you will be left vulnerable to vay hek's missile barrage, which could down the reviver. Now that you can quickly self revive, you can prevent that domino effect.

 

------------

 

My personal matter of this is, it's a change for the good.

Waiting 12 seconds on the floor knowing that no one will revive you because they decided to just keep moving forward is not fun. It also prevents in a sense some grievances like the person who was stuck on the floor for a whole minute thanks to oberon renewal and his teammates refusal to revive him.

 

I've also had cases where the game lags too much and i couldn't revive them so i was essentially just sitting on their soon-to-be corpse. I would be hammering the x button and nothing would happen.

 

[Troll_Logic]

2 hours ago, Tesseract7777 said:

But here's what it really comes down to though, aside from that situation where maybe you need to defend that console, in most situations it actually isn't a good idea to just burn a revive, it's foolhardy.

Sometimes it's foolhardy, but I'd disagree in "most situations."  I'd say in only a few endless mission and in no way is that most situations.  That's like 10% of the missions maybe?

2 hours ago, Tesseract7777 said:

Sure, if you are just doing some exterminate it doesn't matter, but I would argue that if it's just some exterminate where revives don't matter, then nothing has changed.

I'd agree.

2 hours ago, Tesseract7777 said:

Apart from the console defense thing, which would be rare where there was literally only one person who could defend it and no CC up or anything in a public game, and you just had to burn it (this is more likely to happen to like, a solo Inaros).

I see it all the time on def, hostage def, and mobile def.  Now, don't get me wrong.  It doesn't happen all the time and it certainly isn't planned by the team.  But players wander off.  Some dude runs off to be a hallway hero and the focus bubble spawns on the other side of him.  Players run off to collect that.  Or that hallways hero dies and multiple people run off to revive him.  One one does, he drops, so others run off to revive him.  Or a player is killing down a hallway and he slowly walks down that hallway becasue that is where one of the spawns is coming from.  Or a player is looking for sculptures or simply runs off.  A spawn comes from a different direction and BAM!  The player defending is down and no one really notices immediately.  Then the console, cryopod, or hostage starts taking damage and players try to run back.  It doesn't happen every mission but it is far from rare.

2 hours ago, Tesseract7777 said:

But I digress, apart from that, in missions where revives matter, like real endless missions, using the press x to burn a revive is incredibly foolish. Trying to do a decently long survival for relics in a PUG, or a long defense? You better not be burning your revives, it's a bad idea.

Well sure.  Just mindlessly burning a revive is foolish.  However, what's the real cost?  The player loses one burned revive.  Relatively, that's nothing.  Sure, it's one revive, but the team can still leave.  The players still receive the rewards.  Let's say all the players burn three revives, what's the next step?  They all haul buns to extract so they all leave with their rewards.

2 hours ago, Tesseract7777 said:

I think you still are not giving enough actual attention to this fact -- there are actually a lot of situations where just burning a revive is a really bad idea, and in the situations where it "doesn't matter" to burn a revive, it really doesn't matter that they were able to just get back up, because the mission is easy and the squad was going to win anyways. 

I'm not sure what you are arguing.  In a rare few, such as a few endless missions, sure, it's a bad idea to mindless burn revives.  Ok.  I'm not sure what your point is.

 

1 hour ago, (PS4)theelix said:

I've only seen a handful of people saying how convenient the change is. I see quite a few more who don't really notice it's usefulness. That spoke volumes. 

Exactly.  It's a huge change.  Bigger than most people realize. 

 

1 hour ago, (PS4)theelix said:

Not everyone has to be as good as me, or even half as good. But if your argument are for these clinch situations in which reviving instantly saves the mission from failing, I must assume every hypothetical player is competent. An incompetent player that goes down protecting rescue hostage instantly revives and... Does what, exactly? Would this cycle not continue? Would they not get up and try to revive the hostage immediately, leading to them dying yet again? They thus immediately run out of revives and the game still has penalty for having no teamwork, is this not correct? 

Maybe.  Maybe not.  What benefit does the player have when he revives?

He has his primary again.

He has ammo if he was out.

He has shields.

He has health.

He has energy to cast abilities, especially ults.

He can buff himself.

He can break out the melee this is huge depending on what can happen.  For instance, if my focus is triggered and I get a crit, I'm invisble for ten seconds and I can drop anything in that time)

He can drop restores.  (This is huge because I carry 200 large restores of everything. If some group of toxic mobs dropped me, as soon as I got back on my feet I could drop 15 health restores and basically be invulnerable for 10 seconds or so.)

There is a huge difference between using the secondary on the deck and using everything on your feet.

2 hours ago, (PS4)theelix said:

At this point, I'm predicting this change actually changes the game negatively for players that aren't competent.

I'd agree with that for a time.  Some players will drop and they'll immediately self-revive.  But I don't think it will make much of a difference in the short missions we have.  Again, a player with an arcane could die once a minute and 90% of mission would be over before he ran out of revives.

2 hours ago, (PS4)theelix said:

Hell, maybe it's only even put in the game for PoE preparation. Who's going to wait twenty seconds to be revived in a game space 500+ meters large? No one. 

That's a good point.  That's what probably spurred this change.

2 hours ago, (PS4)theelix said:

Think it's less the difference in opinion and more that username harbors distrust. Makes you seem like you're aiming only to "troll." 

I'm sure you've heard the old saw "Never judge a book by it's cover?" If someone used the handle "Einstein" would you immediately treat them like a genius?

 

1 hour ago, Fallen_Echo said:

Gotta agree on this one. The more i read his initial comments the more i think that this is just a flamebait thread.

Then read some more and don't jump to conclusions.

 

1 hour ago, 321agemo said:

While im in a disagreement with him, I can see troll_logic point. That 9-12 seconds can make a large difference in certain situations:

- a downed rescue target.

- protecting a core/ console

- a triggered spy alarm

 

Previously, waiting for that revive timer for those situation are a difference between sucess and failure.

 

There is an argument to be had that the bleedout timer was an added risk for people playing as a group (in solo you eother insta-death or sentinel sacrifice instant triggers). By giving the ability to shorten that timer, you've mitigated apart of that risk aka you've made it easier.

 

Another example: in LoR if you go down in stage 3, the person reviving you will be left vulnerable to vay hek's missile barrage, which could down the reviver. Now that you can quickly self revive, you can prevent that domino effect.

Good points.  I'd forgotten about spy.

[FireSegment]

5 hours ago, Troll_Logic said:

Yeah.  My opinion is being attacked.  I've stated I didn't like the change.  I later stated with examples specifically why I didn't like the change.

I'm not the one accusing others or trying to discredit their opinion.

You should explain your reasoning in the first post ... at least edit it after u found the reason in later post, in the case u didn't quite understand what u mean at first. Post a clickbait-like title and one sentence in the main thread is rude man ...

On the topic, i kinda know what u mean, there should be something that make self-revive a thing that u only do out of "having no other option" rather than just being the better form of reviving. If there are no drawback, before long, nobody would feel the need to revive others anymore, and that's kinda a sad thing.

[EliteStrike1]

I'm on the fence about this so far, yes I can see the benefits in certain situations but I also feel that this takes away some of the risk there is in the game.

 

For my experience it is still a little bugged, for example when used it disables the grustrag three capture enabling you to get up and kill them.  So no risk there anymore.

 

Maybe a tweak to make it only work outside of affinity range would keep the team element in place, but this might reinforce the behaviour in examples above of hallway heroes.

[OvisCaedo]

So you got mad that someone claimed your only argument was sort of elitist, but the only thing you're shouting over and over is that you're angry about the fact that this change might sometimes be helpful to people you think weren't playing well enough to deserve success.

You also got mad about people straw manning or trying to lump you in with other ridiculous opinions, but immediately lashed out at confused people by trying to compare this to infinite ammo without reloads as if it was an equivalent thing.

[blackheartstar_pc]

11 hours ago, Troll_Logic said:

Exactly.  That's the point.  There should be some penalty. It happens rarely but there should be a penalty when things really go wrong.  As of now, there isn't.  The teams revives as fast as possible.

Fully agree. They just keep making the game easier and easier. Not sure who benefits from this addition. On top of that I'm already tired of running to downed teamates only for them to selfrevive just as I get to them. When they are a room or two away it almost seems intentional. Almost enough to just let everybody bleedout.

If they were going to add this they should have reactivated the die four times loose your Warframe for the day feature.

[Mudfam]

What I dislike most about all the power creep over the years is that situations where you actually have to pay a little attention or otherwise fail the mission just don't exist anymore.

Succesfully completing objectives is a given, teamwork is inexistant. Now we don't even have a reason to revive our fallen allies. Remember when you only had 4 revives per day instead of per mission?

And so we have Rushframe. The only challenge people are left with is trying to score more kills than their teammates. Effortlessly blazing through everything and passive aggressive attitudes towards teammates is what we have. Reviving them was already verging on counterprodutive and worthless, now..? Even if you try to rescue them they'll probably use self revive anyway and make your attempt useless.

This is a truly awful addition.

[Troll_Logic]

5 hours ago, blackheartstar_pc said:

Fully agree. They just keep making the game easier and easier. Not sure who benefits from this addition. On top of that I'm already tired of running to downed teamates only for them to selfrevive just as I get to them. When they are a room or two away it almost seems intentional. Almost enough to just let everybody bleedout.

DUDE!  Fantastic point.  If players keep getting annoyed when they run to revive teammates only to watch them self revive, how often will team mates keep running a room or two over?

[Nez-Kal]

Sorry. Had a thought and came back here to say it...

But all your complaining and arguments Against the new Self Revive system can actually be used, quite literally, for the Team Revive system.

"Why do we have Team Revive? If you make a mistake you should go down for it. End of story. With Team Revive it pretty much removes next to all risk of playing in an irresponsible manner because, oh, my Team will just pick me up. Want to bring a Warframe with no Defense or Vitality mods so that your Casts can hit harder and longer? Go right ahead. Team will just pick you up when you down for the 7th time. Honestly, this system is garbage, and teaches players that playing on Public or in a Team means that their actions and mistakes pretty much no longer have any consequences."

See how that same argument can be used there? It's the exact same thing. Why is it different for team play and Solo play, huh? You should die for your mistakes no matter what way you play, and suffer/fail for them, right?


(No, I do not actually want Team Revive taken out, I'm just making a point here about the "Almost No Consequences" system of the new Self Revive, and the "Almost No Consequences" system of the Team Revive.)

[kleerr2]

You guys are fckin cracking me up wuth dis shid...

''There have to be consequences''

Oh?! Rly?! Then where is the threshold to that statement? I'm honstly neutral about this change, but based on this logic you are waving around... You might aswell advocate to loose your frame link when you die, and have enemies fiddle with your dead frame. You can argue that, when you die, you should have no revives, get booted from the mission, and have to re-build the frame you just lost, ground up... By your logics you easily could argue that, or why stop there??

Where is the ''there have to be consequences'' border you are preaching?! I'm not saying there shouldn't be, but since you say there should be you need to give a definitive answer... Where is the start and where is the finish?? The norm.

Plus, you all act like you can revive infinitely, which is not true... If you rush your 4 revives you are fokd son...

And what's up with that poor argumentation of ''you can revive instantly... and that hostage/ player/ console/ objective...''. Dude what?? Something got you downed, right? What are the chances of you saving that ''target''? I'd say... the same as you being downed... If you cannot save your objective without getting downed, there is a very good chance that you still won't save it, even if you get right back up...

The argumentation of ''he will come save me and get downed too'' is decent, but if he cannot make the decision if he can safely res, and fails, he deserves that downed, oh look, he screwed up, but got right back up, one less revive tho... counting...

The argumentation of ''i walked all this way to revive you... and just as i came up you self revived?!?!'' And?? So what? Oh, sorry sorry... I forgot, you are so lazy that if you do something that is going to be beneficial to your party and it somehow ends up being in vane, you have to have a fit about it... How lazy do you have to be to make that argument of ''i got off my arse and came all this way for you to self-revive''?

I can't think of other arguments against the self-revive, but overall they are usually poor arguments...

[DatDarkOne]

25 minutes ago, kleerr2 said:

You guys are fckin cracking me up wuth dis shid...

''There have to be consequences''

Oh?! Rly?! Then where is the threshold to that statement? I'm honstly neutral about this change, but based on this logic you are waving around... You might aswell advocate to loose your frame link when you die, and have enemies fiddle with your dead frame. You can argue that, when you die, you should have no revives, get booted from the mission, and have to re-build the frame you just lost, ground up... By your logics you easily could argue that, or why stop there??

Where is the ''there have to be consequences'' border you are preaching?! I'm not saying there shouldn't be, but since you say there should be you need to give a definitive answer... Where is the start and where is the finish?? The norm.

Plus, you all act like you can revive infinitely, which is not true... If you rush your 4 revives you are fokd son...

And what's up with that poor argumentation of ''you can revive instantly... and that hostage/ player/ console/ objective...''. Dude what?? Something got you downed, right? What are the chances of you saving that ''target''? I'd say... the same as you being downed... If you cannot save your objective without getting downed, there is a very good chance that you still won't save it, even if you get right back up...

The argumentation of ''he will come save me and get downed too'' is decent, but if he cannot make the decision if he can safely res, and fails, he deserves that downed, oh look, he screwed up, but got right back up, one less revive tho... counting...

The argumentation of ''i walked all this way to revive you... and just as i came up you self revived?!?!'' And?? So what? Oh, sorry sorry... I forgot, you are so lazy that if you do something that is going to be beneficial to your party and it somehow ends up being in vane, you have to have a fit about it... How lazy do you have to be to make that argument of ''i got off my arse and came all this way for you to self-revive''?

I can't think of other arguments against the self-revive, but overall they are usually poor arguments...

Freaking Thank You!!!!  

I usually agree with Troll_Logic on most things, but this isn't one of them. 

[(PSN)Onder6099]

I hope that this is just necessary change thanks to upcoming Plains of Eidolon update, If not, we are closer to Warframe junior, according to Revive's "evolution", when "You're dead" thru whole Screen will appear while u can continue endlessly without any penalty.

[Maizaeku]

I would like it if the revive button was different than "x".
I use "x" for reloading, and this makes reloading while downed messy. Something like "e" perhaps, as you can't melee while downed. Or "z", it's own key, or something. Do we have an option to change which button it is?

Either way, while it can be nice, a player being downed should represent a burden to the team. I'm not a fan of the change, but it doesn't bother me too much.

[V45H]

18 hours ago, Troll_Logic said:

Exactly.  That's the point.  There should be some penalty. It happens rarely but there should be a penalty when things really go wrong.  As of now, there isn't.  The teams revives as fast as possible.

 

Now, if DE wanted to add a mod for a single or double revive mod so a sentinel or pet could revive, that would be different.

 

 

Missing the point.  It significantly changes gameplay as the example above shows.  Sometimes things aren't as simple as "Don't use it."  What if DE added unlimited magazine ammo and never required a reload.  Would the game be the same if "someone just decide not to use it?"

you know besides the massive chunk of lost affinity

[MagPrime]

3 minutes ago, Maizaeku said:

I would like it if the revive button was different than "x".
I use "x" for reloading, and this makes reloading while downed messy. Something like "e" perhaps, as you can't melee while downed. Or "z", it's own key, or something. Do we have an option to change which button it is?

Either way, while it can be nice, a player being downed should represent a burden to the team. I'm not a fan of the change, but it doesn't bother me too much.

There is a keybinding function in the Options menu.

[Maizaeku]

1 minute ago, V45H said:

you know besides the massive chunk of lost affinity

This isn't a good argument, considering that affinity is essentially meaningless if you're using level 30 equipment.

Not saying I agree  or disagree with your overall argument stance, just this is a weak supporting point.