Jump to content

Jazzpirat

Member
  • Content count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jazzpirat

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Switzerland
  • Interests
    booty

Recent Profile Visitors

615 profile views
  1. Virtual Reality and Squad

    Hi folks. So after getting a Vive about a week ago, I had a bit of a think about whether Squad could work as a VR title in the future. The reason for this is a game called Onward. It's a very small scale, pretty rudimentary tactical FPS. In some ways you could say it's in a crude state. Still, it's fantastic fun, and one of the most popular VR games out there. It benefits massively from VR, allowing for things that are just not possible in a conventional game. For example, suppressive fire in Onward works better than any other game not through any fantastic system, but just the nature of VR. Well that, and peeking at the wrong moment will get you killed VERY quickly. The gist of it is I think it would work eventually. At the current time, I think neither Squad or VR is really where they'd need to be to make it really work, as of now it isn't worth the implementation. The reason for this is that A, VR is too expensive and therefore not widespread enough and B, VR has some pretty insane framerate requirements (Two eyes at 90FPS) for it to be smooth. With that said, I think somewhere down the road Squad could make an awesome VR game, although there are some things that would need to be taken into consideration. So let's say it's the future, Squad is fabulously polished and VR is getting widespread adoption. So what would need to be considered? First and foremost is balance, in two senses. The first is whether or not M&KB players and VR players should be able to play together. The issue is that in my experience, both have major advantages and drawbacks. For starters, VR players have much more precision in how they position their bodies because you stand, crouch, prone etc in real life. In Onward you see all sorts of moves done by players that can't be done in regular games such as blind firing. In terms of target acquisition I find that VR players are perhaps a bit quicker too, especially when using a red dot sight or similar optics. In my experience certain aiming mistakes like overshooting are basically non-existent. The major downside is visual clarity. Current gen headsets don't have the necessary resolution to match up with regular monitors. That said, using magnified optics can compensate for this to a large degree. There are other problems too, for example stamina induced weapon sway would be a bit odd to say the least. One (rather mean) way to solve this would be to use a "running in place" system to sprint, forcing the actual players to exert themselves. The other balance issue is with the factions themselves. There are ways in which faction balance would be affected in VR that is a far smaller issue in regular gameplay. The most egregious one is that the US Army would probably dominate because everyone gets an aimpoint. To make things worse, the small AK ironsights are kinda subpar in every VR game that features them because of resolution issues. Optics of any kind are a massive advantage over plain irons. So either the asymmetric nature of warfare would just have to be accepted that little bit more, or the weaponry in VR would have to be somewhat different. So, you might ask why I think Squad really should somewhere down the line implement full-on VR support. The answer is simply because it's better as an all-round experience. It's very physical. You can do things that just aren't possible on a M&KB, it's more immersive and quite a few things work better in terms of realism, like the aforementioned suppressive fire. Well, that's all.
  2. Suppressive fire, yay or nay?

    I think the biggest issue with the LMG class is that it isn't really good at supression - the visual effects from getting fired upon aren't adequate to keep people from returning fire, and most LMGs lack the required accuracy to make aimed return fire a bad idea. The best supression tools are the scoped RPK-74M as well as the various ACOG-bearing US weapons, as keeping heads down works best with accurate, sustained fire. The M249 currently fails in that aspect as people will happily shoot back knowing that the incoming fire isn't really any more dangerous than that of an aimpoint/ironsight M4A1. Bipods will hopefully fix this issue eventually - if a deployed LMG has very low recoil (for the first few rounds at least) then popping up would actually be little more than a good way to get your head blown off.
  3. AT is too important

    These days, whenever there are Humvees and/or BTRs around, most SLs require two AT riflemen. This makes most Squads have the same fire support composition: 2 ATs and one inevitable idiot with an SVD on a foggy map. I think that a lot of variety in Squad setup has been lost by this. I remember that in PR people were generally less reliant on always dragging along an AT guy, either because the enemy vehicles were fragile enough to be dealt with by 1 good AT hit, or there was adequate fire support from other vehicles such as IFVs, helicopters and tanks. All I can say I guess is that we really need proper locational damage right now. If the light armor we have ingame at the moment was easier to knock out it would lessen the need to always have two AT dudes. Also, component damage/mobility kills and the ability to fix that on the field (to a degree) could create some interesting gameplay.
  4. November 2016 Monthly Recap

    Reports indicate that at least three individuals have died of exhaustion after repeatedly slamming F5 for over 10 hours straight.
  5. With V8 Coming Soon... Expectations for V9

    The thing I wanna see the most is the new anims system. Bipods, better recoil, vaulting, all that fancy stuff we saw in the November recap.
  6. tl;dr: I think the game would be more fun if players worked together better in combat and cared a bit more about their virtual lives. This can be achieved both with smarter playing and some changes to the game. Right, so I've been thinking recently that due to a mix of current gameplay and seriously silly actions taken by players, there is plenty of room for improvement for firefights - I think they could be done both in a more exciting and realistic fashion. This thread is part suggestion, part discussion so I thought it probably suits this forum best. The problem as I see it is the cycle of die - respawn - die - respawn, happening in short succession. It's essentially throwing corpses at the enemy and hoping for the best. One of the main occurrences happens when people try to get in a cap-point in a reckless hurry. This is a silly idea, because corpses can't cap for shit. So you get guys running in, getting shot, giving up and respawning at the nearest rally/FOB when they realize the medic inevitably got shot too. Another is the die-a-thon that occurs when people keep respawning on what is a totally doomed FOB, especially in insurgency mode when players like locking the cache compound up with sandbags to invite lots and lots of enemy grenades. One cause of it is definitely the influx of new guys, and all we can do is teach them to be more methodical. To a certain extent it's also caused by limitations of the game itself, things that I think could be addressed. I also think that people need to start planning their fobs differently. Make proper defensive installations instead of trying (and failing) to lock your compound up. Now for the rallies. From my perspective, their point is to do what it says on the tin - let the squad rally on the leader. In practice, they're often used as spawnpoints from which dudes rush to the nearest objective like headless chickens, often soaking up plenty of lead in the process. An other silly occurrence that comes up often enough is when people respawn on a rally as it gets under attack in some pointless effort to try and save it, usually resulting in them getting lit up as they spawn one by one until the enemy gets close enough to make the damn thing despawn. Now I see two solutions. Solution 1 is to not be so damn reckless, which works for a lot of players already. Solution 2, which is a bit radical perhaps, but I think it would generally improve the game. It's an idea I saw here on the forums: When the SL dies (as in, goes "dead-dead"), the rally should die with him. It makes sense as there's no more SL to rally on, and in addition it would in a rather mean way fix the issue of idiots taking the last spawn from under the SL's fingers. As a consequence, the squad would have to work together more to keep their now far more valuable squad leader alive - this should promote teamwork in combat and provide an incentive to keep the squad together, and overall and make people a bit more concerned about getting shot in the face. When a rally point really is a rally point rather than a place from which you send dudes running to their own demise, it changes the nature of the game. Now you'd probably have to give FOBs a bit of a nerf too in response. Specifically, the increase on the respawn timer when enemies are near could be made even nastier, and the full-on block should also need fewer enemies nearby. I think part of the lack of carefulness is also caused by the relative uselessness of LMGs in their intended role. Suppressive fire doesn't work because the bursts are usually not accurate enough to make enemies (especially those with scopes) worry about them. This'll be fixed I think when the new animation system comes along with its working bipods and nicer recoil system. If the respawn system is made harsher and LMGs are made more lethal, that'll make suppressive fire far more effective than by making more obnoxious screen effects or whatever. However, I should add that I think the Autorifleman should be featured more prominently. When the USA and Russia are involved, they usually get completely left out in favour of having 2 ATs and a grenadier or marksman. IMO it would make more sense to give 1 autorifleman to the rifleman category and put GPMGs (when they've been added) with the fire support classes to replace them there. So yeah, that's it. I'm still not sure if this thread should go into Feedback/Suggestions or General Discussion, but whatever.
  7. Without comment , photos talk

    Oh you think you've got it bad with the Germans? As a Swiss person, I disagree! Every time I open my mouth around some Krauts they're all like "Ach Hans, listen to zis silly little Sviss man! He speaks without a genitive! You are storing my gold well, ja?" "He is speaking our language but is barely intelligible! Zis is very humerous!" In all seriousness though, cross-nation banter is just part of being on the internet. It's good fun. Learn to enjoy it and don't take it too seriously. Also, "Warturk" sounds silly. You wouldn't call a squad "Warspaniard" either.
  8. Prone Shooting Position

    I like the sound of this a lot
  9. Missing fast pace game :(

    Honestly I want the pace of combat to slow down a bit. Too much of it is rushing in and dying. I hope for some mechanism to make people hang on to their virtual lives more
  10. I'm one of those weird guys who really digs the MEC in PR 1, and I think that rather than more real world armies, the next thing following the British implementation should be a faction that is fictional, with no clear affiliation or anything. Are they fighting on foreign soil as part of some coalition? Are they fighting a local rebellion? Have they upset the USA/Russia/UK? Basically the complete lack of backstory gives map designers and whatnot complete freedom as to where they end up fighting and who they fight there. Hell, ideally it wouldn't even be clear whether or not they're fighting in their home country. Being located somewhere in (Trans)Caucasia, it could be anything from mountainous temperate to arid terrain. Thus, I thought up this concept. Like with the Militia, the idea is that there's basically no lore as to what these guys actually are. They're the armed forces of a fictional country located somewhere in the Caucasus region that primarily fields cold war era weaponry from both sides of the iron curtain. Lots of hand-me-downs basically. As for their equipment, again the idea would be generally older stuff, with some modernization and the odd new piece of kit mixed in. Here are some candidates for their equipment. I'll give multiple possibilities: Uniform: I was thinking old school M81 BDUs, DPM or something more silly (and recognizable) like Alpenflage. Old soviet camo is a bad idea due to the militia faction. PASGT style helmets, potentially uncovered like with the MEC. Service rifle - I think a non-combloc weapon makes the most sense as those are already common in other factions. G3 (already in game, has a sort of tradition in squad) HK33 (some argue that 7.62 NATO just isn't practical in Squad, so the 5.56 equivalent would then make sense) Galil (used by quite a few countries, could be in 5.56 or 7.62 NATO SIG 540 (same reasoning as the Galil, could be explained as local or foreign made) Steyr AUG A1 (with the old school 1.5x scope, because hell why not?) MGs: MG3 (You know you want it) M60 PKM (though it's likely many other factions will have these as well) A SAW variant of the service rifle if applicable Basically any cold war era HMG for their mounted ones Marksman/sniper: Basically any marksman rifle related to whatever the service rifle is. SVD (again, combloc gear is already very commonly used in Squad) PSL AT weapons: RPG-7 Panzerfaust 3 Again, pretty much any older ATGM from anywhere in the world. MILAN, TOW, Konkurs, you name it. Vehicles - basically, anything goes. M113 BRDM-2 BMP-1 &-2 MT-LB AMX-30 ERC 90 Marder Ural Land Rovers M60 Chieftain Leopard 1 (or 2?) T-72 Mi-17 Puma Fundamentally I think I just wrote a whole lot to say "make a faction with random gear that fights in random places"
  11. SAW gunners need some serious tweaking

    Here are some ideas for SAWs, though this list is more applicable to the M249 than the RPKs: 1. Make the recoil much lower, from low while standing to almost nonexistent when prone/resting (true to the real M249, makes it more effective as a suppression tool as it becomes much scarier when someone opens fire at you with one) 2. Increase the transition time from hip to ADS, as well as sprint to not-sprint. The sprint part could be visually represented by making the player hold it by the carrying handle, perhaps. Increasing the transition times would make it less practical as a CQB Rambo tool. 3. When weapon resting is implemented, increase sway quite heftily when you're not resting. 4. Make the sway increase from fatigue more unforgiving. Can be counteracted by going prone/resting weapon. The more prepared the gunner is, the easier to aim it is. 5. DO NOT give SAW gunners a major stamina penalty. It would just slow down the squad as a whole which ain't fun. In other words, the best way IMO to make SAWs and LMGs effective in their role as suppressive weapons is to make them extremely powerful (and accurate) when the gunner is prepared, but give them major penalties for run-and-gunning. Current SAWs are too quick to use in CQB, making them basically like assault rifles with much more capacity. At range, the recoil is too great (especially when standing/crouching) to allow for accurate bursts that could effectively suppress/kill a target. When the chances of getting hit at a distance are slim, you're far more likely to shoot back instead of hunker down.
  12. Post Scriptum : The Bloody Seventh

    Pretty much sounds like what RO2 should've been - I'm pretty hyped!
  13. Update: Alpha 7 Major Changes Preview

    fgafgaiufgzaldf d HYPPEEE However I think that it would be cool if the Militia had access to the G3s too
  14. Poll: Your Preferences for Bullet Damage

    Not to be pedantic, but 5.56 muzzle velocities are comparable to .338LM. The type of round that 5.56 and 5.45 fall into is referred to as SCHV - Small Caliber High Velocity. Most 6.5mm Grendel loads just a tad slower than 7.62 NATO out of the muzzle but the high ballistic coefficient means that they retain more velocity at range. This is only (partly) true for the old M855 ball which isn't used by the Americans anymore. M193 (the most likely round for militia), Mk262, Mk318 and the US Army's M855A1 (which pretty much explodes inside you) all cause tremendous permanent cavities. They'll ruin your day substantially faster than your regular combloc 7.62x39 ball ammo, which is actually more prone to pass-throughs. Russian 5.45mm will tear your insides up really good too. A cool system would be to have hit locations (representing organs and stuff) inside the body that amplify the damage taken. When you get hit a wound cavity of sorts is simulated, the size of which is determined by the round fired and its velocity on impact. It would probably be pretty complicated and possibly laggy though, and in gameplay terms not very noticeable. I for one actually like things how they are now. When caught with your pants down you'll drop fast, but in a direct firefight you'll live long enough (and be revivable) to get some properly long fights going. The current TTK promotes flanking and ambushing, as that lets you either line up for a precise headshot or dump a mag before taking fire.
  15. Progression / Growth Idea

    I hate the progression system in RO2, (you must reach level 50 with the PPSh-41 to get the variant they actally used in Stalingrad, what the fuck!) I'd hate a progression system in Squad even if it was purely cosmetic. When you play and get better in a well made game you will feel progress as you grow as a player. Your knowledge, skills and tactics will improve. A progression system is nothing but a substitute for compelling gameplay and there are more than enough multiplayer titles that can hold on to a huge playerbase by simply being good games.
×