Jump to content

Randy Newman

Member
  • Content count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Randy Newman

  • Rank
    Grunt

Recent Profile Visitors

120 profile views
  1. Scrambling teams

    I basically expected this response from the forum as I think people who play with friends are over represented here and so obviously those people are going to have issues with their friends getting scrambled. Team scrambling was always a reality in BF games and even PR servers had it. It's hardly a nanny-state- it was and is the natural state of affairs in most online FPS games. I prefer close games. Team scrambling is a way to get more close games. If someone can refute this, I'd be interested to hear the case. To me, that alone makes any cost worthwhile. But then again, I am a public player and put close to 0 value to "playing with friends" so I recognise the concerns others might have. I guess having an admin do it at their discretion is the best option- after all it is their server. However, team scrambling has been the default for so long for good reason. Currently, as far as I am aware, no option exists for admins to team scramble. For me, this is an urgent necessity. I should not be able to tell "who's going to win" after a 30 second glance at the teams at the beginning of a round. This happens far too often for my tastes.
  2. Scrambling teams

    This is a good middle ground. Perhaps the admin should be able to do it at his discretion or there should be a voting mechanism. Currently, no server option exists to do it at the end of every round and there is no way for an admin to do it at will. Some mechanism should exist, that's all I'm saying. To be honest, I think that this is far and away the biggest problem with Squad at the moment, atleast from my perspective. I added that as an option. I am still of the opinion that the teams should be scrambled every round, but I will be happy with any improvement over the status quo and some mechanism beats no mechanism any day in my book.
  3. Scrambling teams

    Hi, Before I start, a little bit about me: I am not that active on these forums but I have been playing PR and Squad for a long time (since around PR 0.6) and bought squad on day 1 because I love the game. I searched the forums for this topic but could not find any recent entries. However, as time goes on I find myself wishing that there was an option for servers to scramble teams at the end of a round. This is because sometimes the skill gap/coordination gap between teams can get really out of whack to the point that a team can lose for 3-4 rounds straight quite handily. I must say that in my experience, after 3-4 stomps one of three things happens: - The server empties out gradually - I leave because I'm done with it - The problem actually fixes itself! These three things happen in roughly equal proportions. Now, it is my strong opinion that it is a suboptimal outcome to have persistent imbalance. Let me demonstrate with an example. Earlier today, I joined a server the the start of a round (that's when slots opened up). Immediately you can tell whether you've been put on a team that's getting stomped because the player imbalance at the beginning of a round can be north of 10 players as people that lose are more likely to quit. I took one look at the teams and the people and I knew immediately that this round was going to end badly for my team, so I just left and did something else. To test if I was right, I rejoined the server approximately 30 minutes later. Sure enough, the team that I was initially put on had been pushed back all the way to its mainbase and was in a hopeless situation with around 140 tickets left. Now, some may criticise me and say "well why didn't you lead a squad? why are you whining instead of making a difference?" I squad lead about a third of the time that I am playing depending on whether or not I am confident I will stay the whole round and what my mood is. I think that's more than most people. You can still argue that I have "a responsibility." However, I'd argue that there is a good fix for this problem: Allow servers to enable team scrambling at the end of every round. I always thought this was already an option and servers just didn't use it. I recently learned that this was not an option at all. I strongly believe that server owners should have this option as every round would be a true "fresh start" and that would make the game better. I must say that this problem is exacerbated during a steam sale, but it is present on regular days as well. I know there are downsides. Here are a few: - Clan squads will have a tougher time playing with their friends - Some "team rivalry" or the attitude of "we'll get em next time" will suffer To me, those tradeoffs are worth it. I firmly believe that servers with such an option enabled will see more close games on average than servers without this option. If you are a clan player, I wish I had something better to say to you than "sorry pal, this is gonna screw your squad up," but I'm afraid that's the way the cookie crumbles. At the very least, servers should have this as an option. What does this forum think? Do you agree with me that this is a problem and a phenomenon you've seen occur? Do you agree with the proposed solution?
  4. Community Etiquette/Rules: Camping Main

    Ah basecamping. It reminds me of Bf1942 *sheds tear* All that time I spent hanging around in El Alamein on Desert Combat shooting M1A1s with my T72 perched up on a hill overlooking US main. I digress. Basecamping has been an issue in every single battlefield game/mod. From Desert Combat to Forgotten Hope to PR. Hell vanilla BF2 even encouraged it by having destroyable commander assets in main base. I remember taking the Spec ops kit, destroying commander artillery/UAV with C4, spawnkilling a dude waiting for his vehicle and then stealing that vehicle to waltz out of the enemy main. Vanilla BF is just a total clown show though. As I see it, it is never acceptable to basecamp (except if my 14 year old self is doing it). The only time you should even be CLOSE to an enemy main is when all the other objectives are capped. By that time, the side that is trapped in their main base is done for anyway. However, I still do not like it. In my view, if all the flags are capped, the winning team should simply defend the flags they have. Even looking into an enemy base crosses the line. If you are shooting at enemy before the enemy is out of sight of their main base, you are generally basecamping. Of course this is map specific. I mean, what if you have a map where the first flag is visible from the enemy main? Now, that is a gray area, and, in my view, poor map design. EDIT: I am assuming with a "Dome of Death" coming soon, this is not going to be an issue right? The map designer can just specify the dome's parameters accordingly and problem solved. An enemy in the dome is instagibbed.
  5. If your argument is the following: - US should use Tactic A, because they have an advantage. (Range) - Insurgents should use Tactic B because they have an advantage (CQB) Yeah. That's invalid. The main reason being that Tactic A is much easier to execute in Squad's environment than Tactic B. Given an equal distribution of skill in randomly assigned teams, Tactic A will win 7-8/10 times. This line of reasoning is only valid when Tactic A is as easy to pull off as Tactic B. Currently, due to the nature of Squad and its maps, this is not the case. I'm not against asymmetrical warfare. I've probably played PR longer than some of the Devs and am quite familiar with its trajectory. If you want to fix this, you need to make Tactic B easier to execute. A quick fix would be to give insurgents more tickets. This has the advantage of being simple and realistic (NATO forces have to fight a more numerous foe with more reinforcements). If your argument is the following: - Currently, Tactic A is easier to execute, but, given time, players will learn how to use Tactic B properly and then we will see about equal win rates. I just disagree with that. While 50/50 would be ideal, I'm ok with some variation. 60/40 is fine. Once you start getting into 70/30 or 80/20 territory, that's when I have a problem. Are you going to acknowledge that its a problem or is your official position the one I stated above: "Players will adapt." As I said, if you want people like me to shut up, post the statistics and then we can judge for ourselves. Either that or give me a good reason why these numbers have to be kept secret. Balance is one of the most important things in an online FPS and since you guys have gone the early access route, lets have an honest discussion with numbers provided by the Devs rather than going off anecdotal evidence. I think you'll find me extremely responsive to arguments rooted in statistics. Another thing that almost no one has addressed is the "average win margin." In my experience (again, anecdotal since the Devs aren't coughing up the stats on this), when insurgents win, its a very close game that they fought tooth and nail for. When the US wins, they often win by 100+ tickets. If wins happen because one team had better teamplay and tactics than the other. then we would expect to see around equal average win margins if not around equal average win rates GIVEN the random assignment of teams. How very benevolent of you.
  6. Since you are a dev, why don't you post some statistics about faction winrates? Do you not have access to that information or is a balanced game simply not important to you? If you want to shut us up, post some statistics.
  7. Oh please. Stop using the words "Asymmetrical warfare" as if that magically fixes the imbalance.It seems that some of you are choosing to be ignorant of the issue here. Let me lay it out once more: - In a large 72 player server, it is a safe assumption that teams are largely randomly assigned and thus have an equal mix of skilled vs new players - Therefore, if one faction wins way more than the other GIVEN A RANDOM DISTRIBUTION OF SKILL, there is an imbalance. Do you people get this? If you do, why are you ignoring it and responding with "BUT BUT ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE." In PR AAS, both sides were largely symmetrical when it came to infantry loadout. To all those saying "GET CLOSE GET CLOSE ASYMMETRICAL BLAH BLAH" you guys are idiots. For all your asymmetrical crap, the game mode of AAS is INHERENTLY SYMMETRICAL. You cap the first line, then there is a centre line that the fight happens at. You want to make it asymmetrical? Fine. Give the insurgents more tickets. Give them SOMETHING. Because currently, the only thing asymmetrical about this game is that one side wins way more than the other and that is not fun for half the server. Incidentally, from some comments here, I think that a significant percentage of those posting have some kind of "US army milsim hardon" and only play the US faction to "kill ragheads" (as one commenter on the previous page so eloquently put it). I have no time for these people and it goes without saying that I think they are scum if they only play one side. You play the side the server puts you on unless you have a couple of friends you really want to play with. Switching to the easier side is the worst kind of behaviour in this game. Unfortunately, there is a LOT of that going on because this game has no Autobalance. Which reminds me. ADD AUTOBALANCE. We've had this since BF2. How has such a basic feature been overlooked?
  8. So you are telling me there is no balance problem? If we cannot agree on the premise, this is pointless. From my anecdotal evidence (because, really, unless we are Devs, anecdotal evidence is all we have) the US team tends to win 7/10 times. Do you disagree? I would like to see a Dev post some statistics on this. What is the US winrate compared to the OpFor winrate and what is the average win margin? Is there a statistical unbalance? Because, as I said, by my experience, its a US win 7/10 times.
  9. This is my first post on the Squad forums. I made an account specifically to post about this. First, I've played PR for a very long time..since the time when spawning on SL was a thing and you spent a considerable amount of time running around in bushes to knife rally points. I played from a time when there were "Bunkers" and "Firebases" and you needed commander approval to build them. I remember when Kashan Desert was first introduced. Second, THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH BALANCE IN SQUAD RIGHT NOW. Don't give me the crap about "asymmetrical warfare." Can it. Go to a random server. I don't care which one. Notice that more often than not, the US faction has 6-7 more players. Ask yourself, why this is and then come back to me and tell me there isn't a problem. Listen, I like the whole "asymmetrical warfare" crap as much as the next idiot, but, guys, this is a game. You do not want a game where 36/72 players are at a ridiculous disadvantage. Squad is all about big and open maps. Scopes matter. A lot. Don't tell me to "close the distance" or that "AKs are better at close range." All of this is heavily outweighed by the fact that ONE SIDE CAN EASILY SEE THE OTHER. That's all there is to it. Now, I understand that this is "Early access" and I also understand that scopes are being worked on for the Russians. Fine. Great. I can get behind that. In PR, whether it was MEC vs US or China vs Britain, or whatever, the basic infantry loadout was pretty symmetrical. There is a reason for that...it worked. The insurgents normally featured only in the Insurgency game mode where infinite tickets made up for the lack of scopes. How are we going to balance the Insurgents vs the US in a typical AAS game mode where both sides bleed tickets? One idea is that you give the Insurgents more tickets. This is probably the simplest idea. Another is the whole "Civilian" BS that PR Insurgency had. That didn't work too well in PR and I suspect it will not work here. That just leaves one more option: EVEN OUT THE SCOPE SITUATION. Either take them away from the US or give them to the insurgents. Right now, this is the biggest issue for me with squad. If you guys don't balance the game properly, then, I simply cannot play it. Congratulations though, you got my money because of all the goodwill from PR. I'm locked in. I hope you guys fix this because I am really tired of seeing "Militia- 32 players, US-40 players." This is a huge problem.
×