Aniallator

Member
  • Content count

    641
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Aniallator

  • Rank
    Company XO
  • Birthday May 5

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Caribbean
  • Interests
    Gaming, sailing

Recent Profile Visitors

790 profile views
  1. We were defending Hilltop yesterday when I noticed there was an empty 30 mm BTR sitting just outside the walls. It continued to sit there, unoccupied, for 20+ minutes before we were attacked and a LAT destroyed it easily. Tired of seeing random squads grab APCs/IFVs and misuse them. I hate not being able to get on SL comms and ask an APC squad to support our advance. Need those dedicated squads...
  2. ak

    Actually that's incorrect, it's a common misconception that any form of optics are rare in the Russian Ground Forces. "There are 2-4 1P63 collimator sights per squad. It depends on commander how they would be distributed along the men (e. g. 1st and 2nd patoons consist most of the contract operators, means they’d get 4 sights per unit, rather then 3rd platoon with recruit men, who get 2 sights per unit). There are units fully complected with 4 sights per squad. Usually, there are 25-40 sights per company." http://community.battlefront.com/topic/116715-cm-black-sea-–-beta-battle-report-russian-side/?page=14#comment-1564057 In Squad, I can see the SL and rifleman roles having access to 1P63 optics. Also incorrect. In Squad, the M4A1 does more damage, has longer range, and has a higher ROF than the AK-74M.
  3. Then why the hell did you create a new thread.
  4. +1 to remove it completely. At the very least lower the generation rate dramatically.
  5. LAV-25s are used by the Marine Corps, not the Army, so unless a Marine Corps faction is implemented you won't see them.
  6. Of course I can. It doesn't matter what you use them for, in the end they're just magnified optics.
  7. Because someone disagreed with you? I hate to break it to you, but the internet is a cold hard place. If you think you can say things without any negative feedback, you're in the wrong place. No, what you did was say that the transition animation between a primary and a sidearm is too long, that the devs' choice to leave true first person is unrealistic, and that the devs aren't interactive with the community. I did not twist your words, and I did make your point invalid. I would be very interested to see where I twisted your words given that I responded to direct quotes. If you have further arguments to bring up I would be happy to hear them. How does the time it takes to switch from a sidearm have anything to do with the time it takes to lie down? Even so, do you realize and quickly people can lie down? Maybe get out of your chair for a moment and hit the deck as fast as you can. Then imagine yourself doing that while people are shooting at you. And wow... this is a big claim here. I "can not say that SQUAD is in any way realistic"??? With all due respect WTF? Sorry, I didn't realize that the devs were only allowed to be interactive on their forums? Who cares?! You cannot say which suggestions they devs won't look into and even possibly implement because you have no idea.
  8. Wow, looks excellent! Well done Have you thought about eventually working on it and making it a full 4x4km in the future? Because wow would it be a hit!
  9. I disagree, because this is where asymmetry plays in. INS/MIL having a scout role is great, and the binos are well suited to it. RUS/US don't need a scout role and they certainly already have a lot of aspects (i.e. two riflemen per Squad with scopes) that make up for it.
  10. The duration of the animation to switch between your primary and your sidearm is something like 2.2 seconds exactly. Furthermore, when your character pulls the sidearm out he flicks the safety off, and when he holsters it he flicks the safety back on. If anything all of that in 2.2 seconds, in the heat of combat, is a bit fast. Except the "true first person" we have right now isn't too realistic. It attempts to portray through a computer screen a feeling that's only possible through the human eye, and in general is visually displeasing. For example, your weapon is too far from your face when in ADS; this is especially noticeable on weapons with small fore sights like AKs, where the fore sight is barely visible. And when running for example, how you don't see your arms or your weapon; in-game this means that your view looks like nothing more than a panning camera, where IRL you have a very acute sense of your own movement that can't be reflected in-game. Dude... are you joking The devs are hugely interactive with the community, just go to the Squad subreddit. I don't know another dev team that even gets close to the level of interaction with their community that the Squad devs have. They answer pretty much every gameplay-related topic and have discussions. What are you on about with "not interested to interact with the community" lol
  11. But I don't wanna wait for V9 anymore
  12. lol why do people always say "Have patience" as if the OPs never have any patience, he's just putting forth a suggestion and furthermore not requesting his suggestion be implemented at a specific time. Anyway, would certainly love to see this, especially if we had different wreck models/effects dependent on how the vehicle was destroyed (so tying into the vehicle localized damage system).
  13. Alpha is just a term. Does it play like an alpha? Of course not
  14. lol would love to hear your reasons for this, because it's doing just the opposite. Small arms penetration hype!!
  15. Look two posts above yours I was kinda hoping we would use shovels as melee instead of knives, though I guess that could be hard because LMB/RMB are already used for building. This is gonna be fun