Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tartantyco

  • Rank
    Company Commander

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,535 profile views
  1. Universal Logistical System

    Getting pretty tired of this argument. This isn't complicated. It's simpler than what is in the game right now, and it's already being implemented to a substantial degree. And you get the player base you design the game for, not the other way around.
  2. Muting Squad Leader

    Yeah, I've suggested being able to squelch any channel but local chat for 10-20 seconds by triple tapping the associated button. You get incoming info from a squad member while SLs are chatting on SL comms? Triple tap that G button and they go quiet. If you want to unsquelch before the 10-20 seconds, just triple tap the same button again.
  3. Universal Logistical System

    It really isn't a problem. That is literally just a question of deciding the spawn costs, the emplacement costs, and the vehicle capacity costs. If spawning cost 1 supply, a supply dump could hold 100,000 supplies, and a logi truck could carry 10,000 supplies, it would obviously be ridiculously easy to maintain supply. Conversely, if spawning cost 200 supplies, supply dumps could hold 400 supplies, and logi trucks could carry 5 supplies, it would be a practical impossibility. It's just a matter of finding a good balance somewhere in the middle, which is pretty simple. And it naturally adjusts depending on player count. Fewer players means less spawning means lower supply requirements means less people needed to maintain supply. This system also allows teams to invest in logistics based on playstyle. One team may rely heavily on spawn FOBs to deploy their forces, placing multiple around the map. Another team may instead rely on vehicle transport for deploying their forces, instead focusing on vehicle supply stations and using few spawn FOBs. Some may a few big and well-supplied FOBs, others may have many FOBs with fewer supplies. It's an emergent system that allows for dynamic and varied gameplay, ultimately resulting in greater replayability and ultimately lifespan for the game. That just introduces a series of system-specific restrictions that further increase the learning curve of the game. The RP should be restricted from its current form, but you want to avoid complicating it. The PR system of the rally being a 1 minute thing on a 10 minute debuff is a pretty simple and direct method that could work just fine as well, I just think that's too divorced from the rest of the logistics in the game, with players popping out of the ground with no supply chain to support that. My suggestion basically just makes the RP into a FOB for the squad, with greater placement ease. If you understand the FOB system, you understand the RP system, and vice versa.
  4. Universal Logistical System

    No, the main limitation of the RP would be the supply requirement. Frequent movement would, if anything, adversely affect spawning ability because if you don't go back to pick up your old RP and just plop down a new one, those supplies on the old RP would just disappear. I'm not sure where you get that from. The RP isn't kept alive by virtue of the SL staying alive. I disagree. The RP is currently a source of squad cohesion simply because it is too powerful a spawn and the FOBs ticket cost and placement restrictions, leading to teams not relying on substantial FOB networks. The RP also undermines use of transport, so squads just fight in localized spots on the map simply because that is where their RP is. The potency and simplicity of the RP means teams don't invest in other alternatives, which means that when squads lose their RPs, they also lose squad cohesion. The solution is not to buff or maintain current RP potency, but to reduce it so that teams will have to rely on other alternatives. When that happens, gameplay variety will increase as more deployment options become available to the teams. Wave spawning systems are shit, no matter the context.
  5. Squad system/types for vehicles.

    Introducing specific squad types would only serve to reduce the gameplay variety and inevitably lead to repetitive gameplay as all teams end up with the same squad types and loadouts. The current implementation already allows for any kind of specialized squad, so placing limitations will just restrict the meta-game with absolutely no gain. As a side note, the PR "solution" is only an effect of the hardcoded 9-squad limit that does not exist in Squad. What is actually needed is more organizational tools for squad leaders to customize their squads. That means: * Being able to set your squad size. Instead of the current 9-man squad with squad locking, you simply set the size of your squad to whatever is needed. I usually run 4-man squads, and having to kick players at the start when a bunch of players join at once and then occasionally unlocking/locking again as players leave is just a time-wasting chore. * Being able to set specific kits to available slots. Specialized squads generally require very specific kits, and having to verbally assign these and then inevitably having to repeat that over and over as people leave and join the squad at the start of the game and throughout the match is more time-wasting. Instead, squad leaders should be able to make a squad, set the size, and then assign kits to the slots. That way, there's no need to verbally assign the kits and players can see exactly what the squads are about before joining. This would resolve a lot of issues at the start of the game. This would allow players to accomplish exactly what you guys are looking for without adding any restrictions to the game. I already made a suggestion about this back in the ancient times of 2014 that would resolve all these issues, as well as provide tons of additional functionality, the Integrated Squad and Kit Loadout Restriction System:
  6. I think Nerfing Rally Points is a bad idea

    They don't place FOBs because they can depend on Rallies. If Rallies are nerfed, you will see an increase in FOB construction. This, in turn, leads to more teamwork among squads, as they can't just depend on their on RP anymore. Furthermore, players will begin to see the use of dedicated transport instead of vehicles being used as disposable one-offs. People are lazy because the game mechanic allows them to be lazy.
  7. I think Nerfing Rally Points is a bad idea

    They make it neither more tactical nor more cooperative. Rally Points allow squads to operate independently of the rest of the team, and they allow squads a form of mobility that undermines actual tactical gameplay. If anything, Rally Points aren't being nerfed hard enough.
  8. https://old.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/9648z3/do_not_purchase_the_new_indie_ww2_game_on_steam/
  9. Post Scriptum had a really simple job, take Squad and set it during WWII. I honestly have no clue what they're thinking with their game mechanical changes.
  10. Give SL more Power over their Squad

  11. Give SL more Power over their Squad

    Uhhhhhh, they can already do this? A pretty meaningless distinction. Forcing kits may be unnecessary due to other implementations, but your arguments are just nonsensical.
  12. New mechanic for kits and team play

    Nope, because ISKLR: Basically, SLs would usually have their squad loadout set in stone. If not, there would be default preset loadouts available, and individual players would have already made a bunch of preset loadouts for themselves already. They would have familiarized themselves with the system out-of-match with the loadout manager and would consequently be very familiar with how it works, therefore they would be able to create a loadout on the fly in 10 seconds if needed(Which it probably wouldn't ever be).
  13. Give SL more Power over their Squad

    Why not? It's the same as me saying "Player X, take this kit", so I don't have to waste time arguing with people. If they don't like it, they can leave the squad or be kicked. Except if you've been squad leading for a while, you'll know how much of a time sink verbal commands are. Having to tell people what kit to take when people leave and join, having to repeat that information constantly is in no way conducive to attracting good SLs. I frequently run 4-man squads. For those squads I always need Medic, Scoped Rifleman/AR, and LAT. It doesn't change. Right now, I have to tell people this all the time. I also have to repeat this information several times during setup because people join and leave, or they spawn with whatever without checking with me, so I either have to get them to pick up the proper kit or kick them. All of that is wasted time. Setting the specific loadout of your squad is a great communication tool that will allow squads to tell players what is expected of them in your squad before they even join it. People joining and leaving a squad is almost 100% caused by the squad not being what they expected or the kit they want being taken. If you can cut through all of that bullshit before they even join the squad, you remove a toooooon of the crap SLs have to go through at the start of a match, making SLing more accessible, and making more complex squad structures and functionalities possible. Right now, SLs probably spend 20% of their time verbally communicating non-vital information that could be conveyed through the UI instead. And the more complex your squad structure is, the more this increases. The current design incentivizes the least organized squads possible. You get SLs that just set up an "Alpha/Bravo/Charlie" squad that gets loaded up with 9 randos with whatever kits they want, and then that squad just runs straight at whatever objective is active at the time. Rinse and repeat. Imagine organizing a 9-man squad into three fireteams, one fire support and two offensive. With verbal commands. And half your squad is rotated during the match, so you have to re-issue these commands frequently. That's why you never see that stuff in-game. If you want to see complex teamwork, you need to give players the tools to organize and communicate effectively. That's what this is about. Effective communication. Because verbal communication isn't effective here.