Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Peerun

  • Rank
    Company Commander

Recent Profile Visitors

2,352 profile views
  1. Suppression

    Imho, the biggest problem with current suppression integration is that it doesn't care if you're in cover or not - you get suppressed even if the enemy fire is hitting the other side of the building you're standing behind(or if it's coming 10m over your head etc).
  2. Suppression

    Guess I should've specified that I meant "going back to the old suppression system" not "removing suppression altogether" Good points from everyone
  3. 10 second Rally spawn window

    60 10 60 is the same as 60 0 60 it doesnt shorten anything you just have a few more seconds to click on the rally
  4. 10 second Rally spawn window

    It'd prevent missing the spawn wave by a second. Especially if the rally was shown visually as spawnable, within this window.
  5. 10 second Rally spawn window

    No, I mean a window of time every minute.
  6. Suppression

    Imho, squad was better without it. At the very least you should get suppressed by "friendly" bullets, too.
  7. Rocks still have a dumb collision, bigger than the rock so you're floating in mid air, if you walk over them.
  8. Pretty much everything I haven't expected the Fireteams to be, it has done, and the one thing - rerouting comms from squaddies to FTLs to SL - it hasn't done. Instead of streamlining comms and distributing map marking work to the FTLs from the SL, we now have comms filled with info about map marking. The way it is now would better fit for Commander+SLs, not SL+FTLs
  9. V12 Feedback

    Same as OP, wasn't playing when V12 dropped, so a little feedback a little late. What happened to recoil? Used to be nice and crisp, now it feels just really random and floaty. Can't find a good mouse sensitivity - either it's too much because of how the sway plays with recoil or it's too small for how much the weapon recoils. Was super pre-V12, same with the new ADS viewport - reminds me of how old games like STALKER handled ADS - squished weapon and oversized sights, plus the blur. Killed the game for me, hope there's some more adjustments after a drastic change like this.
  10. I like the sentiment. Perhaps it could be done, so that if a single entity(clan, community or server provider) has multiple servers online - there'd need to be a server filter, e.g. show duplicate servers - it only shows 1 of the servers, unless a. the person switches the filter off in their server browser filter settings b. 30% of entities have their first server filled to 51% capacity (^ example number, I have no idea how many individual licenses there are and what the player flow is), but I think this would help promote variety, especially in the seeding hours. Sooner or later, people would then notice which servers are admined and how much/how they like it and flock to only certain servers based on their preference. e.g. meanwhile in voip "Hey, how come this server isn't online all the time Mr. Admin? I really like to play here" "It is, new_player24584, you just have check the show duplicate servers filter in your server browser" At the end of the day though, I think it should really just be a balance of admin:performance:playerflux that should keep your server licensed. I feel that maybe there has been a little too much focus on the playerflux part during the freeweekends/new versions etc and those servers just stayed up, while other depopulated et cetera. I spend as little time as possible in the server browser, but I can say with perfect certainty that on any given day(singular) there's never exactly the same combination of populated servers. There's a lot of overlap, but also variety, from day to day.
  11. FOBs in V12+

    Ok, at this point I'm pretty sure that you guys are replying to a different thread and your posts end up here via a wormhole matrix glitch.
  12. FOBs in V12+

    Sure. It's just something that popped into my head when I heard concerns about the loopholes, when the devs explained how it's probably going to work, which I think are loopholes. Technically if you look at the suggestion it doesn't get rid of the importance of vehicles and doesn't make HABs/FOBs into fortresses. All it really does is give you a choice, logistics vs transport from main. If you wanted to set up two backup FOBs for every HAB you make then you could, but it'd take some effort. Or you could just rely on vehicles all the way, which are unreliable. Either way you will have to maintain supply lines, whether you're making a single FOB defensible or you are making backup FOBs or you are running people into the fight from main. I think the "deny FOB and withhold 400m from enemy" is going to be an issue. Some people seem to be hard pressed to find an adequate spot for a FOB even without having inactive FOBs in their way already. And the "geometric equation" is as simple as can be tbh, (FOB+FOB) x 3 = HAB + HAB = (HAB + HAB) / 2 = FOB + HAB But taking a step back, maybe this or something similar could be in place for the smaller maps only. Maybe split the gamemodes between AAS and AAS Large. Just a thought.
  13. FOBs in V12+

    Going off of the community roundtable here's a suggestion. Especially the part where someone in the discussion pointed out that 2 people can disable a FOB, hide and then the enemy team can't make a new FOB, without the enemies destroying the old one, so if they don't have a defence on the FOB it cuts them off from using, basically, an 800x800 area of the map to place a new FOB. Yadda yadda yadda. Here's a couple ideas I had while listening to this part of the discussion. 1 - Increase the size of the HAB model. This will do two things. First it'll be possible to make the HAB more protective against incoming fire for those that are spawning in. By enlarging the footprint of the HAB it'll be more likely that people will place it in open spaces, which lowers the possibility of two enemy players hiding it out in a nearby building etc, though not dramatically. Also if you make it triangular instead of rectangular you could plant the HAB, when deploying it, inside a hill for example, as long as two of the three entrances aren't blocked by the terrain. 2 - FOB/HAB/Build distances. Right now there's a 400m zone around each FOB which is assigned to that FOB and no other FOB can be placed there. You can build a HAB or anything else within 150m, from the FOB in all directions. Coming back to the first, if enemies(2+) lock down a HAB then that's 400m in all directions where you can't set up a new HAB - possibly for the rest of the game, I mean there is a chance. Instead, what could be done is to have a distance for FOBs, a distance for HABs and a distance for building. e.g. FOBs: (atleast) 100m from any other FOB, 150m from any HAB HABs: 300m from any other HAB Building zone: 100m from a HAB in any direction, 100m from the FOB in any direction(except HAB, 150m limit) supplies for both building zones would be in a single pool So it'd look something like this(not exact distances its quickly cobbled together and there might be a few pixels error) Blue - FOB Green - HAB White - build zone, wh. line - HAB belongs to FOB(100m) Purple - HAB build distance limit from FOBs(150m) Yellow - HAB minimum build distance from another HAB(300m) This has two effects. The first, simpler one, is that if you put FOBs too close to each other then their HABs become directional(bottom FOB line: One HAB in Village, second HAB in a fallback position). The second effect has to do with disabling the HAB. When the HAB is online then there can be no other HAB within 300m. - - - - - (In the current version, there can be no FOB within 400m of another FOB, so if a HAB gets disabled, that's 400m) - - - - - If the HAB gets disabled, it also disables the 300m limit. The HAB ceases to be a HAB it falls apart, it becomes dilapidated, deserted. This is option A and C. A = 2+ enemies get within proximity of the HAB, the HAB gets disabled, both visually and functionally + it loses the 300m limit, because it's not longer a HAB. C = The HAB gets destroyed by a mortar for example. Same as above ^ ^ ^ mock-up of a triangle HAB with a larger footprint in comparison with current HAB(no rl reference, I might've gone a little too wild with it) The B option would be when there are 2+ enemies, but there is also atleast 1 friendly on the HAB(within 100m) In this case the HAB becomes disabled, but that's it. It stays visually the same and the 300m limit is still in place. This way a HAB defence can go one of three ways. The defenders kill all the enemy within the area = the HAB becomes spawnable again. The defenders fail(all die or the HAB gets otherwise disabled; explosives)- they come in from a rally point and clear the HAB = now they have to build the HAB back up for it to become spawnable they completely fail and the attackers leave the disabled HAB and FOB standing = they can now build another HAB within a 150m of the disabled FOB on a preexisting FOB 100m+ away OR they can take down a HAB from a preexisting FOB 100m+ away from the disabled one and rebuild it 150m+ from it, etc etc One thing to keep in mind is that disabling a HAB and keeping the enemy FOB up would not deprive the enemy of a large area, for FOB building like now, but it would deprive a slightly smaller area + the angle at which the HAB will be built in relation to the FOB and so the angles of HAB + FOB + FLAG. In other words, disabling the HAB and leaving the FOB would still retain the tactical advantage(quote from roundtable: "aboooze"), but it's not an absolute distance/speed impediment from new HAB-to-capzone, only if you want to attack from the same angle as the disabled HAB let you do, ie going to the disabled HAB from the new HAB and then going to the flag from there.