Jump to content

Peerun

Member
  • Content count

    1,464
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Peerun

  • Rank
    Company Commander

Recent Profile Visitors

1,657 profile views
  1. It'd be nice to be able to detach the bipod just by turning to the edge/limit of its traverse, when ADS edit: Although even better imo, as far as making it more fluid to play with a bipod, even though I'm guessing Squad is maybe trying to not copy Project Reality in this, would be to have 2 modes for the weapon - like the PPSh has a drum and stick magazine states. Bipod up Obvious, acts like a rifle Bipod down Click ADS to deploy the bipod and ADS, stays deployed after you exit ADS. Click ADS to deploy the bipod - NO PLACE TO DEPLOY - bipod folds/goes up, goes into ADS - when exiting ADS bipod unfolds. Current bipod key could be used to toggle between bipod up/down. That way you are more flexible and it doesn't feel like you are just a mobile machine gun deployable, but you also aren't overpowered running around with your bipod down because of the delay of putting the bipod up if you ADS and there isn't anything to put it down on.
  2. It feels like it. Not a fan personally. Could use a buff, at close range anyway.
  3. Developer Roundtable

    Kinda late on this, but listening to the roundtable recording, on the lack of ticketbleed in the AAS rules and about the issue of not being properly rewarded for capturing a flag, to me the obvious solution to that would be to make the capturing team gain the 40 tickets while they are capturing the flag - as soon as it get neutral, for example for every "tick up" on the cap you'd get 5 tickets and once you cap fully you get an additional 20 tickets. That "realtime" ticket gain content of the flag gets used up as you cap and would then only refresh for your team on a flag, when you lose it, so you can't keep going back and forth on a neutral flag indefinitely. On the other hand losing the flag won't help you either as the enemy team will have 20 up on you, if you let them have it, for the next fight. That way attacking is incentivized, as you don't get punished as much for failing in an attack, if you can capture atleast 50% before getting wiped or something like that depending on how much you die, but there's no rush-to-the-flag put on you by the ticketbleed. Kinda like getting "reinforcements" once you actually need them, instead of imaginary reserves dying of grief in a camp behind the lines continually, because you lost a flag that they really liked. It suddenly nerfs hard defense on a cap aswell, as when you lose a cap and you have a superFOB on it you're bound to lose that aswell, in which case that's 60 tickets net for the attacking team and 40 tickets lost for the other team, putting you a 100 tickets ahead when you capture a flag, not accounting for casualties. The ticket trickle being only on flags captured by the enemy. Also kinda unrelated, but imho having a ticket counter like in the early versions of the game, atleast on the map, and having a ticket history of your actions(like a 5 item feed) e.g. you participated in capping in a flag +20, you died -1, you died -1, you died -1, you lost a vehicle you were driving -12 ...would imho help make the player aware of the tickets, without making it a complete spreadsheet simulator, although everyone should know the ticket cost of their actions as long as tickets are in the game imho, but it being centered on the individual/squad it'd kinda minimise the "that other squad just lost a btr" moments, as it's always focused and reflecting the player that looks at it. And it being so readily accessible, it'd lessen the need to remember every cost of every asset and also make people look at the map more, which can only be a good thing.
  4. 06APR2018 - Developer Twitch Stream

    Oh, it was a stream, that makes more sense. All I found was an Unlisted Youtube video - that seemed odd.
  5. 06APR2018 - Developer Twitch Stream

    It was really good. Echoing the announcement part. Only found it through a link in a comment on reddit. Pretty random.
  6. It's fine to write that here, but it isn't true. Even you admit to it in your post and then you backtrack your logic. Here google agrees with me. Not quite sure what you mean. The exact point of my idea is to offer a risk reward deal, because you can't force people to care about dying in a videogame, did you miss that bit? No wait, you must've read that bit, because here you go saying exactly that. Except you can't do that in a videogame, which is the whole premise of this post. Exactly. Yes. I don't understand how this changes with my idea. If anything, the "while they are executing fire and movement tactics" and "fire that degrades the performance of an enemy" parts would be more relevant than with the current system.
  7. Yeah obviously, but when a player with 100 stamina is shooting at you with 25 stamina, who's more likely to win that fight? Especially when, as you shoot you slowly go down towards 0 stamina, while he goes down towards 75 stamina.
  8. Kinda. The premise of the thread is, as SgtRoss revealed in the in the Squadchat (theres summary of it here, I can't find the link to the video right now -https://www.reddit.com/r/joinsquad/comments/8acvxf/list_of_discussed_topics_from_the_todays_dev/), that they are toying with the suppression mechanics. What I'm getting at is that you kinda could do that as long as you make it a "management minigame". It's basically the difference between supression stops a player in their tracks when it happens versus if a player stops in his tracks when it happens he stops the suppression and a squad that doesn't stop in their tracks over a period of 10-20 minutes, constantly moving and being engaged, will be forced to stop in their tracks sooner, if that squad is winning against overwhelming odds or later if they have bigger firepower, but definitely sooner the more they run around So it's like the buff has a cooldown set by the player. You play slower, you get a smaller cooldown. You play together, you're likely to get a smaller cooldown. You use vehicles for transport, you're offsetting the possibility of a big cooldown. You play fast, you get a longer buff, but you're likely to get a longer cooldown too. It's like if you make the above into this: When you're shot at you stick your head down, if you can, so that when you shoot at people later they stick their heads down, if they can, and so that when people shoot at you later, you can stick your head up and shoot at them, when you can't stick your own head down... Like if you have an enemy squad moving through your lines and shooting everyone up, even if you can't kill them in that one firefight the fact that you suppressed them counts in the long run. Either it makes them slow down by choice or if they just keep going and going their chances of getting exhausted and/or hit go up. Especially if you are sending a larger force or big guns against that squad. Or if a squad is dug in somewhere and you are attacking them with a larger force, they can either all put up a fight and you're likely to wear them down, if they are completely isolated or if they try and cycle their men that gives you an option to split your bigger force like them and flank them. Imagine as an example, currently: You get shot at, you run into the fire, you win even though you got hit, you just patch your wound, heal up. Rinse repeat. With this system, you get shot at, you choose to stick your head up, you win, but you got hit, you lose stamina from all the suppression and the running aswell as the shooting. Do you now start another firefight? Did you already go through this 2-3 times and now you're hovering somewhere around 25% of stamina and ever closer and closer of ending your "combat adrenaline rush" by going into a full exhaust state, if you pick the wrong fight, unable to then do anything unless you can wait for your stamina to get back? Do you have cover while doing this? Solid and active? It might seem like it's the same thing as the current system, because the effect doesn't hit you instantly. It works itself up, it feeds off your choices. You can't force an enemy to get suppressed, but he can choose to let the game do it for him, if he doesn't negate the fact(either by getting into cover, killing you or making you get into cover) It's kinda both happening at a large scale as far as direct effects from the game to the player, aswell as split seconds of decision making. And anything inbetween as far as planning ahead for that eventuality.
  9. And clearly there'd need to be a condition so you can't get "stun-locked" in the suppressed state, if you come out of it with less than 0 Stamina. Something like, your Stamina regeneration is twice as fast, if you aren't currently suppressed, but your Stamina is less than 0, so that effectively the scale is only from 1 to -0.5, as far as your own actions are concerned, but it also means that if you're exhausted and under 0 Stamina then suppression is only half as effective at eroding it - once in the exhausted state you'd be locked in a suppressed/shock state except the Stamina Debt part, so anyone suppressing you then would affect your Stamina in real time. Obviously that exhausted state and the condition, that you get out of the suppressed state with -1 Stamina if your stamina debt goes all the way to that value, would have to be balanced so that it only happens in extreme situations. Like hiding behind a tree that only just covers you enough to prevent a machine gun from killing you, while it's suppressing you for a whole minute - or an APC unloading a full mag at you, while you're hiding inside of a corner of a tunnel door. Not something that happens regularly, but something that isn't impossible, if you don't have a friendly there to help you and take that attention away, but you're also lucky enough not to die.
  10. To be suppressed or not to be suppressed, that is the question. But is it a question or is it an answer? Watched the SquadChat 1 video/podcast and one of the ideas that actually really appealed to me was when SgtRoss talked about suppression and the state a professional gets into when getting shot at - and the incetivizing of certain player behaviour. Although he didn't spell it out, he did say that all the possible systems of suppression were thought of, so I thought it can't hurt to formulate it and share it - regardless of whether or not OWI has already discussed anything similar. Basically just a free-floating idea like any other post I make. Though I will make an argument. What I kinda understood from that part - how you might become more focused/efficient, while under fire, in real life, and how that is something OWI can't put into the game - that being "bounced around" or "blinded" by suppressive fire isn't a thing in real life and isn't fun in a game - you can't force the fear of death - vape nation The idea: Getting suppressed VS getting suppressed A.K.A Effects of suppression on the player VS Player behaviour alias 1 and 0 The effects of suppressing/shooting at an enemy Shooting drains Stamina Low Stamina increases Sway and decreases Sprint speed The effects of getting suppressed (bullets whizzing PAST you) Stamina debt - your stamina decreases for every bullet ^ and every action(sprinting, firing), but you don't receive any negative effects from it(sway nor speed), while suppressed. Current visual effect/abberation When do you stop being suppressed, ie when does the stamina debt kick in If you receive damage enough to make you bleed If you go into -1 Stamina; assuming full Stamina is 1, no Stamina is 0 - that way you can't sprint forever just because someone is shooting at you. If you reach the Stamina value you had at the moment when you started getting suppressed. What happens when you recover from suppression? Unless you recover by regaining your original Stamina value, you receive the penalty of the Stamina debt. If that puts your Stamina into a negative value you are unable to raise your weapon and can only walk or lie still prone - recharging Stamina mode - until your Stamina is at 0 again. (You can't self deplete your Stamina below 0 by running etc) When are you (not) getting suppressed? You are only being put into a suppressed state, if bullets fly or land next to your "spine", "Z axis". Bullets hitting cover in front of you? Not. Bullets flying "a head" over your head? Not. Bullets landing at your feet? Yes. Etc etc Suppose having a sort of Michelin man aura/hitbox around you... Additionally the faster you move the larger the Michelin man gets The bigger the gun the more Stamina debt each "near hit" imparts The Balance The idea is to give a player a simple choice when being engaged - by accurate fire A) Get into cover and wait it out, not taking any negative effects B) Engage back and risk losing Stamina if you're overwhelmed - making you a dead man unless you can A) right after Returning to the original statement: You can't make people sitting in front of computer screens in their homes be afraid of risking their digital life in a videogame, BUT you can reward the risk. It quickly becomes a twofold dilemma. Option A increases immediate risk, gives you an edge in the fight and presents you with the intermediate risk of being indebted to that bonus, if you make a mistake. In which case an ever more threatening risk of quick death comes soon after. Or in a good case scenario likely leaves you in a state where you're even less likely to succeed, if you have to repeat the process not long after surviving it. Option B lets the player minimize the immediate risk, but it also ups the intermediate risk of indirect fire. This then leaves the player with a new set of choices. Take option A and try to get rid of the antagonizer or fall back, decreasing the risk of both the intermediate risk of indirect fire aswell as the long term risk of encirclement, while introducing a new immediate risk of being stranded in the open with only option A while moving from cover to cover. I think this wouldn't be an altogether bad system. For one, it doesn't take any control from the individual player, but it puts all the power over to teamwork, just as well as an aimpunch system would, whether it's overwhelming suppression making a "rambo" option A player more than likely to get hit - brutally negating the bonus - or covering fire from your own squad, while taking the safest possible option of falling back and avoiding getting suppressed and being put into the situation above. It also has the benefit, in contrast to an aimpunch system, where a balanced amount of firepower between two or more squads trying to wipe each other out isn't subject to the "who shoots first" domino effect, where once suppressed the player is less and less able to suppress the enemy back. The crucial part being that shooting itself depletes stamina - making one player being able to continually suppress multiple players impossible if they manage to increase distance or being a decent distance away from the enemy to begin with. There's also no possibility of cheesing the system by shooting at an enemy behind cover and sending another person over to shoot him, while he is helplessly being bounced around or blinded by the bullets. Just my 2 cents
  11. Medic progression in Squad

    Not even once
  12. Medic progression in Squad

    Basically, what you're trying to say is, that medics should get meth injectors to keep their squad immune from sway and let them sprint across the map, so you can hit people, right? Did I get that right?
  13. Will we see jets in the future?

    IEDs
  14. This has already been discussed before weapon lowering was added, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to bring it up again now that it's actually in the game. I think it'd make more sense to have the weapon interact inversely to sprinting from how it does now, ie sprinting lowers the weapon instead of bringing it up. That way there would be one button to bring it up(ADS) and one to lower it(Sprint) rather than having both of those buttons do the same thing.
  15. I am not sure what the plan is for fixing wall glitching, but since weapon lowering was added I thought of a temporary hotfix. Extending whatever hitbox there is for weapon lowering throughout the character's body, something like this, so even if you do glitch through a wall you won't be able to aim and shoot. Unless this is already something that you're working on and have figured out a real solution to.
×