Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Peerun

  1. Rocks still have a dumb collision, bigger than the rock so you're floating in mid air, if you walk over them.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. I am actually fairly certain that nametags NOT showing through walls was considered a bug in V6 or something. Also don't see the point, especially now that there are icons on your compass for nearby friendlies.
  9. Ability to toggle walking. Walking while crouched doesn't raise your profile in 1p/3p, or not as much. Walking changes sway/barrel nodding values to ones you have while in ADS Walking shoulders your weapon half way Walking doesn't reduce your field of view Sprinting with walk toggled puts you at half speed, half stamina consumption(until you hit low enough stamina to reduce your speed further) (this suggestion is mostly based off of the pre-V10 ability to use hipfire/pointfire effectively, something not possible now due to sway, even when using the current walk implement.)
  10. Functional walk mechanic

    Right, it just doesn't do anything and you have to hold it.
  11. 3000hrs+ suggestions

    Actually the map is unreadeable because anything that's not the min zoom level will offset the letters and numbers, so you can't tell grids from each other anymore. All that's needed is to make it so that the letters and numbers always intersect X(X)kp5skp5 - like it used to be on the old maps. Then you can tell at a glance. Right now you have to either mouse over or look at your position and guess from which grid line looks like it's one pixel wider than the other and trying to remember what zoom level you are in and what's the exact width of that grid line in that zoom level.
  12. Bipod seamlessness

    There's two main problems with that 1) You need to click a button to detach the bipod, then click a button to aim again, then click a button to attach the button, then click a button to aim again 2) Often when you get stuck in an angle, you can't turn the other way anymore either, forcing you to detach the bipod anyway and less often when stuck and after detaching the bipod you'll bounce up and down Now don't get me wrong, it'd be great if they could fix the getting stuck issue in the first place, but this suggestion is to make it so the bipod gets detached before you get a chance to get stuck and attached again, before you get a chance to click two buttons 4 times.
  13. 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.
  14. Exactly. RIP Gorodok Lumberyard layer. I don't know about DH, but in PS the lockdown is clearly there to let the defenders set up a defense after losing a point. It's pretty much the opposite of the effect you want. Somehow I think that reverse engineering it to promote steamrolling will not have a positive effect.
  15. What exactly do you mean by a stalemate? A double-neutral or both teams putting up a defense on their respective points so that one cannot cap the other's? The former happens when the defenders get wiped on both teams roughly around the same time, most of the time - and they could have been defending for 15-20 minutes - so there's absolutely no effect on that with lockdowns. Imho, just increasing the time it takes for a flag to go from Neutral to Capped would have the same effect - without any solid lockdown restrictions.
  16. Could be wrong, but it seems like Kohat maybe has forced DF shadows on, or something.(fps hit + see them lag-render on the surrounding landscape)
  17. Personally I'd like to see a custom. kit system that is based on points/carry weight/room with more broader kits - like Fire Support Role being a single kit, or alternative squad compositions, kind of like PR had a second version of a kit, except squad-wide, affecting not just the nature of the kits, but restrictions and availability of them to the squad, too.
  18. Netcode feedback

    I understand that with the new vehicles, damage model, wanting to push the game to 50v50, etc, things are being made to be cheaper to run, but as it is right now it really is less than playable in my opinion. I'm strictly talking about the "replay last 5 seconds of movement"-feature of the current netcode. The one where when you turn around, all the players behind you have to "catch up" to what they are actually doing. I guess this is okay for far away players, atleast I've never seen an issue with it, but when you round a corner and a player(enemy player) runs 10 meters, vaults onto a roof and then proceeds to shoot at you - the time this takes being 3 seconds from when you round the corner - that I think borders on broken. No idea how this works, but making it so that all players within a certain radius have to be updated, regardless of whether or not you can see them, that I think would be fix enough.
  19. I agree, mostly. The idea, of the suggestion is, that you can't or maybe shouldn't penalize people for shooting back while shooting back, so you penalize them after the fact - in measure directly proportional to how much resistance they met. The thing with, eg a 30mm, keeping you down is 1. You can't shoot back and kill the threat(unless you mean AT too, in which case I disagree) 2. You can't compete with its magnification and stability That's why I think that if you make a shooter lose stamina for effectively suppressing you, ie you don't shoot back, then you will be more likely to want to wait a bit and stay suppressed, which will give you a better chance once you do engage him, after he stops suppressing you, as he will be lower on stamina than you, who has been hiding. Then it just comes down to having a buddy talk guns with you, and same holds true for when you turn the card, after avoiding suppression by hiding behind good cover. When you engage him, he'll either take cover and not be suppressed(from the standpoint of game mechanics), but effectively will be, in which case his buddy will engage you or he will keep engaging you, with his buddy, in which case you have one enemy with lower than your stamina becoming suppressed by you and another enemy, whose stamina is draining, provided he doesn't get shot at as well.
  20. 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
  21. Seeing how stamina relates to weapon sway, it'd make more sense to reduce maximum sprint speed. I could see irregulars, Militia atleast, using some inefficient body armor.
  22. Tbh I feel like enemies are spongey enough as it is. 5.56 to the face? No problem, let me just put an eyepatch on. Seems more and more like Squad has thrown away the concept of Incapacitating an enemy in favor of Reviving teammates. If body armor was implemented it would best mirror, more or less, current damage values, with some additional effects, and damage be buffed for non-armor hits. Dubs makes a good point. I'd add aimpunch even to non-armor hits, or without an armor system implemented. Personally I think the largest amount of trades, as a result of not having any aimpunch, is at 150-250m - so it'd be enough to have the punch be no stronger than current recoil. More to the point, I think this is most important for weapons with no sway - bipods and emplacements. There's too many times to list when I've shot someone on a DShKa in the shoulder, only to be obliterated a split-second later, as well as the other way around. Seeing how using full auto in close quarters is effective, it wouldn't really affect that part of the game - if you had one additional recoil-like animation, in scale, superimposed on you for getting shot. To stay on topic, if armor was introduced, a pronounced run-punch would be a great way to balance it off. Though to reiterate my first point, I think before seeing a body armor system in Squad, the current damage values, for incapacitation, should get looked at.
  23. I guess I could also use some examples In other words, jumping into a vehicle to get to the fight is not abstract. Having to keep enemies a certain distance away from an FOB to avoid a bigger spawn timer is an abstraction. Clearing entrenched enemy positions is common sense. Having a person sit inside a bunker, while another digs it down is the most contrived, gamey mechanic you could imagine and something that you have to learn and which isn't instantly obvious to be the most efficient thing. Once you've learned it and someone cries "spawn camping" you're liable to laugh at that. But when you actually think about it, that sentence, although infused with salt makes a lot of sense. What is the purpose of spawning on a HAB and being killed? Exactly, that's why you don't generally spawn on a camped HAB, right? Why allow it at all then? There's instances where you spawn in, kill the camper and clear the area. Why is that a thing? A player spawning in thin air, inside a hesco bunker, killing a player who's there waiting for him? Doesn't really make any kind of sense, as per gameplay, without the context of, well the context of whatever. In fact, the rest of the game mechanics being moderately sane, you wouldn't expect that to be a thing. Yet it is, and there's a whole lot of other things that don't make a speck of sense. But that's why the game is in Alpha.