Peerun

Member
  • Content count

    845
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Peerun

  • Rank
    Company Commander
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

535 profile views
  1. That's a very elaborate post, well done @Nordic Too bad you miss the point entirely. No Nordic, that is not what the thread is about. I implore you to read the OP again. It's not a hard concept to grasp, I promise. Actually, I'll save you the trouble and recap again. If you aim down your sights and walk - your sights wiggle. That's fine. As you stop walking, still aiming - there is a delay between you stopping and the wiggle stopping. ... If you aim down your sights and walk - your sights wiggle. If you stop walking and stop aiming, and aim again - there's no wiggle. ... .... If you sprint, stop, aim - there is no wiggle. . .. ... Are you seeing the point, yet? In this thread I am not asking for slower firefights or complicated controls - in fact I am asking for the complete opposite. That is to say, mechanics that make sense both from a controls perspective, aswell as compared to other mechanics. It is a simple observation, on my part, that there are things in Squad that take from an aspect of the game, but only apply it in isolated instances. For example, the aforementioned delayed wiggle, is justified and inspired by the aspect of movement. In this mechanic, movement and stopping, is what affects or in other words triggers the wiggle. Movement. So logically, you'd expect this to transition into every part of Squad that concerns movement, and stopping. Indeed, not only would you expect it to relate, by the nature of the wiggle you'd even expect the wiggle to increase with the amount of movement happening. Not so. In conclusion, I am not questioning the mechanic itself, or its isolated implementation, but rather all the other features in relation to it. The consistency, if you will. I would have the same problem in an arcade game, because it's not an argument about realism, it's an argument about game logic.
  2. I would like to see you quote me on that.
  3. Why do you people keep bringing PR and Arma into this. I don't understand...
  4. The argument isn't against skilled players winning and never was, it's just about the type of skills needed and when they are needed. As I said in the OP, right now you need more skill to shoot after walking or when out of stamina rather than after sprinting or wounded. That's the whole of the argument. I enjoy hard games that reward skill, but only those that make sense in terms of mechanics. I also like how you completely ignored my post - Of course it can work, not to mention that devs have already hinted at different weight/handling stats once CoreInventory is finished and implemented. 1. Too much? It'll be exactly how much they decide to do. You make zero sense. I bet if I suggested to add salt in a soup we were making together you'd just say "Too much for soup", without letting me tell you how much salt I wanted to add beforehand. I can see it working with the random function being player input. For example, the game would track the player's movement for the last 3 seconds, and when you went to aim down your sights it'd take those numbers into the account. e.g. Let's say that the rate of movement speed change in the 3 seconds before you aim determines the amount of sight misalignment. The amount of vertical movement(changing stance, vaulting, jumping, going up or down a slope) would place a modifier on the above, while the predominant mouse movement direction would determine on which axis the sights get misaligned(for example moving your mouse&barrel to the left would start the misalignment from the left etc) + (The weapon's stats + Stamina / Injury) Again, just an example. Not saying it should or can be implemented like this.
  5. If you look at the animation previews in the recaps you can see that both vaulting and jumping is still present, with vaulting being based on calculating the height of the obstacle, when next to it. I am guessing that jumping will stay, and vaulting will perhaps be done by sprinting at a wall.
  6. @ZiGreen I don't even understand how you made the PR comparison. PR has an unmoving sight with random aim. Squad has a randomly moving sight with exact aim What FishMan proposes is a sight moving lineary from a random direction with exact aim. It's basically the same animation and mechanic as aiming down sights, the only difference being that after you've aimed down sights - where the direction is linear with the front sight moving down - you'd have a secondary aiming proccess, similar to the primary one, but on a micro scale and with a random direction of the front sights. The gun is still accurate, but your judgement of whether it's aligned on target is not yet confirmed by the instrument. If anything, this is completely unlike and in contrast with the PR mechanic, where your sight is on target and you still miss, because RNG. The only RNG in this calculation is your depth and angle perception. You could compare it to shooting an HMG, currently in Squad, withou aiming down sights. You are still able to hit targets consistently, because there is no RNG, but you have to get a feel for the angle first. I personally don't see this as a mechanic that'd prevent people from shooting and hitting after sprinting, but it'd definitely feel much more organic than the sway we have now, which I can only compare to trying to hold the stock of the rifle with your teeth and pull the trigger with your tongue.
  7. More receiver action sounds where appropriate pls, the AK is amazing!
  8. What I am saying is that a lot of the time the name tag being over an enemy usually decides whether or not you are able to ID or even notice him. A simple theoretical example. I need to see 31% of an enemy to ID him. He is in a bush and 60% of his body is hidden. If there is a nametag over the remaining 40%, I will not be able to see him as fast as he will be able to see me. If you put the nametags on the floor you get rid of one problem, but introduce another. Now an enemy can lie on the teammates body, while the nametag is conveniently infront of his gun and face.
  9. Cannot agree. The implication is that you see a mess of cloth in a bush with a nametag. If you can't see for example an AK, a skimask or enough of the camo pattern you can't know there is an enemy, in the first place. What your aproach solves is identifying a dead teammate and what you're saying is that you should just shoot at every dead friendly. What I am saying, is that you should be able to see all the visible pixels of an enemy, unhindered by a nametag.
  10. Hopefully you will just be stepping over.
  11. afaik only on Discord - wanted to make it permanent and a little more visible Unless he goes prone? Wrong thread.
  12. Not really. 90% of my deaths while "jumping" are when dropping from a 0.5m prop and the enemy is 2m infront of me.
  13. Exactly. On the note of calling out roles, I think that should also be rectified. As the SL has a SL marker next to his name, so a regular rifleman or any other kit should. You propose only showing nametags within a certain distance, but again this is another issue and your aproach wouldn't solve it. If anything, it'd make it all the more unbearable as now you'd not be able to ID friendlies at a distance(names), while still letting people hide behind names in CQC. I personally think that the simplest solution would be to remove nametags on dead people. Period. As for making it more hardcore or minimalistic, uncluttered, not ugly - a delay of 2 seconds per 100m would do the trick imho. e.g. 0-100m 2 seconds looking at a person for a nametag to show up 100-200m 4 seconds etc etc