Jump to content

Tartantyco

Member
  • Content count

    1,657
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tartantyco

  • Rank
    Battalion Staff

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Norway

Recent Profile Visitors

2,951 profile views
  1. Game needs non owned servers

    OP, maybe you're just a shithead.
  2. Naming FOBS Stupid Idea Nr. 568

    Pretty sure FOB naming was planned at one point. No idea what the status is.
  3. Logistics Mechanics

    No, it's the game mechanics. It's always the game mechanics.
  4. Logistics Mechanics

    Because back in the olden days of Squad when FOBs were first introduced, and also acted as spawn points, SLs could literally just place them anywhere at any time. Having a map full of spawns at no cost just made it like CoD with people spawning all over the place with no logistical logic just wasn't very conducive to gameplay, so that was one of the mechanisms put in place to stop that from happening. (Also, the devs doing something does mean that's the right thing to do) First of all, getting two people to stand in one spot next to you and then shovel some stuff is not teamwork. Secondly, you will get a lot more teamwork with my changes. Logi squads and vehicle squads coordinating to set up a Repair FOB network, squads using emplacements to support other squads at range anywhere on the map, squads setting up chokepoints to cut off enemy supplies forcing the enemy to cooperate to eliminate those chokepoints. People need to learn what teamwork is. Too many arguments boil down to "you need more people to do X, therefore it's teamwork", which is just nonsense. Trolls are more of a problem now than they would be with my changes as it's so easy to cripple a team right now with the current restrictions.
  5. Logistics Mechanics

    No, saying that something is a problem without explaining how it's a problem doesn't fuel discussion. Making up ludicrous theoretical situations that have no relation to the practical reality of the game is not constructive. @Zylfrax791 You have not substantiated any of your claims. You've said "this is going to happen" without in any way explaining how that would come about in practice.
  6. Logistics Mechanics

    I don't think you've thought that one through. That has nothing to do with fair and balanced.
  7. Logistics Mechanics

    The fix to the logistics system is extremely simple and could to some degree be implemented without really changing the current core systems. 1. Remove player requirements to place FOBs. 2. Remove squad size requirement to use a Logi. 3. Give Squad Leaders a shovel. 4. Equalize build radius and proximity radius on FOBs. 5. Change FOB Radio model into a Supply Dump model and remove ticket cost. Aaaaaand that's it. You don't even really have to change the Radio model, it's all just a matter of changing a bunch of values in the current implementation and you'll have a logistics system that pretty much fixes all of the issues present currently. The reason you don't see dedicated logistics squads a lot right now is because a couple of direct and tangential game mechanics make them extremely difficult. 1. Manpower Squad is a 80 player game, meaning each team generally has a maximum of 40 players per team. The distribution of that manpower to various tasks, roles, and objectives is one of the most important parts of winning a match in Squad. The 3-man requirement to place a Radio forces any Logistics squad to have at least 3 players in their squad to be effective, however those 3 players have zero utilization for the majority of the match. The majority of the time, they do nothing other than sit in a truck. Basically, to operate a Logistics squad effectively, you have to disadvantage your team by locking up manpower in an idle situation for large portions of the match, and with just 40 players, having 5-10% of your team idle for most of the match is often a death sentence for the team. Even with 50 players, this equation won't change much. 2. Boredom In addition to being a monumental waste of manpower, playing second/third fiddle in a Logistics squad is BORING. You do spend the majority of your time sitting in a truck, looking out the window. And when you're not doing that, your face is likely in the ground watching a shoveling animation on repeat. While the lead has a lot of stuff to do, including driving, communicating with squads, planning, and so on, you have precisely nothing to do. You are literally only there to hit that 3-man requirement and to shovel. 3. Clunkiness If you try to operate a Logistics squad with less than 3 people, you have to depend on other squads to function. The problem is that they often don't have the time or ability to assist you. Most often, where other squads are is not where you need to build FOBs, and where you need to build FOBs is where nobody is, nobody can get to, and nobody wants to be. This results in situation where trying to organize anything with another squad will take 5-10 minutes of additional time. Finding a squad that has someone available, identifying the available squad members, picking up the available squad members, all of this takes time. Time that you cannot waste in a game where, despite its apparent "slow pace", seconds and minutes really do matter a lot. Again, this approach is often a death sentence for teams. As a consequence of all this, emplacements have virtually no value, support FOBs are almost never made, and logistics becomes an intermittent need, resulting in squads just taking that 1500/1500 logi truck out to their objective, dropping down a FOB and HAB, and building a bunch of useless fortifications, leaving the logi truck abandoned there. With the aforementioned changes, the above issues would be resolved as the manpower requirement would drop, there would be no need for low-utility squad members, and logi squads could operate independently. Emplacements and fortifications would suddenly have more value now since you can place them pretty much everywhere. There is often little value in having HMGs and TOWs at the locations where you have your spawn HABs, as they are generally located in areas with restricted vision, if it's not an on-objective FOB you probably don't want its location known, and you don't want to risk ten tickets placing an isolated FOB on a flanking hill just to have an HMG there. So the only places where emplacements and fortifications are useful to any substantial degree is exactly the places where the current game mechanics dictate that they should not be placed. Take Kohat as an example. HMGs and TOWs on or around Mohd Zhai are virtually useless. They're either vision limited by surrounding buildings, trees, and tall grass fields, or they're on an exposed downward slope. Where you'd like to have the HMGs and TOWs is in the hills South of Mohd Zhai or further back in the plateau North-West of Mohd Zhai, where they can engage enemy vehicles overlooking the flag from the Eastern hills or engage infantry along the road, in the fields, or in the river East of Mohd Zhai. But you can't really place them there because the FOB costs 10 tickets if lost, so you either need a lot of manpower just to defend this one HMG FOB, or you leave it undefended as an easy target for roaming squads. It's a lose-lose situation. With the aforementioned changes, this and many more emplacement and fortification uses will suddenly be viable, opening up a whole new dimension of strategic and tactical possibilities. The situation is the same with support FOBs, that is FOBs that operate as supply nodes or vehicle Repair FOBs. Because it is so hard to get anything built outside of where the squads are, meaning in the active combat areas, these are either never built or they are built in these active combat areas. This means that vehicles in need of repair and rearm generally only have the option of doing so either in the middle of the combat area or back at the main base. Again, with the aforementioned changes, vehicle squads would have no issue finding safe support FOBs outside of the combat area and far away from the main base. Squads and vehicles would have an easier time accessing supplies, as well.
  8. Ranking System?

    The inherent problem with these kinds of ranking systems is that they don't reflect what they are intended to. There's no game I can think of where I have ever gone "Oh, this guy is a rank X, that must mean he's good". No. It just means he's accumulated the necessary stats to unlock a badge. It doesn't actually say anything about that person's capabilities I've played with people who have SL'd for ages who still don't grasp the most basic concepts of Squad, people who play armor all the time and still manage to lose every vehicle they get their hands on. Any kind of in-game stats you choose to use(Time played, time SL'd, K/D, time in vehicles, etc.) will fail to actually gauge the capabilities of that player, which means that nobody's going to pay any attention to those ranks as they're completely inaccurate. It's like trying to decide the best performing squad in a match by looking at the scores. A ranking system in itself may not be bad, but a simple stats driven one will never be able to be a true representation of that player's experience and abilities. That's why I have previously suggested a player-driven ranking system in which nothing has any inherent value, so the value comes from what the players put into it.
  9. Squad is dead or not ?

    That's me: Adequately accurate.
  10. Squad is dead or not ?

    No, the underlying stats show that the stable peak player count per month has gone from 1,500 to 3,000, the seeming downward trend is just because of new updates, free weekends and sales skyrocketing the player count, as well as peaks during summer. I'm sure it's not the growth they'd like to see, but it would be hard to misconstrue this as a downward trend.
  11. Squad is dead or not ?

    Because it's midday there and people are at work/school.....
  12. This will just incentivize squads to clump up for no discernible strategic or tactical reason, which is a negative reinforcement. The "near FOB/Near Flag" suggestions I think would also serve to restrict the viable strategic and tactical options. Your suggestions also heavily dissuades smaller squads.Overall, your suggestions would incentivize squads making sub-optimal strategic and tactical choices to reduce their respawn time, substantially reduce the viable play space on the map, limit the viable strategic and tactical options available to the team, and cause more manpower waste than is already the case in the game. The Rally Point stuff is just a jumbled mess of complicated rules that should have no place in a game that is already overly complicated and is in need of streamlining.
  13. Game Mode: King of the Hills

    You cannot spawn on the objective, but you can place a FOB/HAB on it if you wish.
  14. Game Mode: King of the Hills

    No, the players themselves place the objectives and controlling a majority of terrain is not the objective.
  15. Basically, teams will place their own objectives on the map and defend those, while attacking the enemy placed objectives. All figures are pretty arbitrary and not really balanced, so don't get hung up on those. You lose tickets constantly from the start of the game. Each team starts with 1000 tickets and a 50 per minute ticket bleed. This pushes teams to move out quickly. The battlefield is divided into multiple zones, and you can reduce ticket loss by placing objectives within those zones. Dividing the map into four zones, your team would not be able to place objectives in the zone closest to your Main Base. Placing objectives in the remaining zones would reduce ticket bleed by 10, 20, and 30 tickets per objective. Ticket reduction cannot go beyond 0 ticket bleed(If you place two objectives in the 30 ticket zone, you don't start gaining 10 tickets per minute). Objectives cannot be placed within 500m of each other. Just to ensure that there's no excessive clumping up of objectives. Gain tickets by taking out enemy placed objectives. Taking out an enemy objective will gain your team 50 tickets. The enemy team will not lose any tickets. I'm just using an idealized flat map for the explanation, but zones would be adapted to suit the map terrain. I'm also using a four zone division, but this could be increased and follow the grid system to more accurately reflect the difficulty of holding a certain position. Placed objectives would be visible on the map to the enemy team and would be a non-destructible emplacement separate from FOBs. It would create a capture zone just like flags in AAS, and upon capture it would disappear. They are Squad Leader deployable, but require some construction supplies and shoveling to activate.
×