Why do you downvote this? Give a reason!

Most likely because they don't see it as all that important, whereas a feature like this would be central to DayZ's gameplay by creating some obstacles, in a world where you constantly scour for resources, many probably see it as more detrimental for standard gameplay.

Can't say for certain, thats just a guess.

@NodUnit

That's pretty much the reason why i downvoted this.

Yea, Im all for realism but there has to be a line and i think blood transfusions are a bit much.

However I wouldn't mind a more complicated first aid system.

the arma 3 engine is very realistic but the behaviour of the human players is a factor that makes for example a firefight more unrealistic cause they dont act like real soldiers would do - this results in one big difference: they die much more often, sometimes a lot at the same time (f.ex. in multiplayer) - and therefore you have to balance realism. a full first aid system is just too complicated and takes too long for the average game experience ... maybe thats something for the ACE mod...

"Most likely because they don't see it as all that important"
"Yea, Im all for realism but there has to be a line and i think blood transfusions are a bit much."
"a full first aid system is just too complicated and takes too long for the average game experience"

I disagree with all these comments, but I downvoted for realism sake. Combat medics will never, I repeat *NEVER* perform a blood transfusion of any kind. They will administer blood plasma to temporarily counter the blood loss, which is not affected by blood type. Further medical attention will be given in a (field) hospital where they will first do a quick test to see what the blood type is of the patient (which is standard practice).

If you're in a situation where the blood plasma transfusion (and epinephrine shot) does not suffice to keep the patient alive until you reach a hospital, there's nothing much that would have saved him otherwise.

The scope of ARMA is combined operations... a medical system is part of this but blood transfusions in the field are ludicrous... in the field includes field hospitals.

There are other areas of the medical system that could use improvement. Bone fractures or breaks affecting limb movement/functionality for example.

Assigned!? Fucking assigned!? And what about bipods, firing from vehicles, better midrange textures!?

-17 votes vs 6 and ASSIGNED?? ARE YOU KIDDING ?!
And, other than /@AD2002 Assigned!? Fucking assigned!? And what about bipods, firing from vehicles, better midrange textures!?

what for FPS increase, crash and freeze issuses, 64bit FUCKING VERSION??

ARE YOU KIDDING BOHEMIA?

This has got to be a joke. Is it April 1st?

Ummmm assigned :O
I don't see this to improve Arma in any way unless you want to support DayZ in Arma 3.

@ST. Jimmy

I have a feeling that might be what's going on here.

I dont think medics perform transfusions in the field, in a field hospital perhaps but thats not in scope of ArmA is it?

1+

I think it may be assigned for this: "blood plasma to temporarily counter the blood loss" but read this: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA480272 This may be an actual practice. But BIS may want to have Saline put into the patients body to combat blood loss.

But then again since the know how of this feature is done by BIS why not have support for it as an option? I have no idea why it was assigned but I see no issue why it can have support as the know how is already in game. To have a blood system for medics would mean non realistic missions would suffer, to combat this a blood transfusion feature or support would keep the casuals happy while the realistic players enjoy a realistic medical system.

It's more a political thing than the merits of the feature request ... What's bothering people I think is that a feature like this is getting dev attention, when there are probably other defects that should have higher priority.

A feature getting assigned does not mean it gets higher prio than everything that was assigned before it; it's just another item on someone's list, waiting for evaluation.

That's correct MadDogx, However, the general expectation I am guessing is that since it's assigned, that person will be working on that defect, as opposed to many other defects which stay in the "new" state for a long time. It's called triage, you have people looking at new defects and assigning severity, and priority to them. I don't know how BIS handles it, but it's seems random at most. How do they choose what defects to work on?

@MadDogX

Shouldn't it be "acknowledged", then?

On the defect handling topic, one thing I've noticed is that defects containing the word "crash" in the description get nearly immediate attention from the devs. It does not matter how ridiculously worded the defect is, or if it lacks the proper reproduction steps, or if it lacks supporting information attached to the defect. BIS should have a rule for returning defects immediately if they don't contain proper information.

What are you talking about?

@MadDogX: As I explained in my previous comment, this "issue" has no basis in reality at all. I can't see why this should be assigned in the first place, while things that are clearly instrumental to military simulation (bipods, firing from vehicles,...) seem to get completely ignored.

I think I died a little bit inside...