Jump to content

3e58i

Member
  • Content count

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 3e58i

  • Rank
    Squad Leader

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,182 profile views
  1. Need help with Iron Sight aiming

    @KulaGGinThough I must say that the only GameUserSettings.ini related to Squad that I could find is pretty well hidden. For everyone's information, the settings files I found are located in C:\Users\your_user_name_here\AppData\Local\Squad\Saved\Config\WindowsNoEditor\ More questions! I would like to know some more of your setup in relation to ergonomy. Where is your mouse mat in relation to where you are sitting? And where is your movement keys in relation to where you are sitting? You can measure from your shoulder if you need a reference point. Do you feel that you perform well when you need to make a lot of 90 degree turns in a row, such as during room clearing?
  2. Need help with Iron Sight aiming

    @KulaGGin Is your sensitivity (" 46.05 cm/360° ") measured during hip-fire or during aim-down-sight? And do you let this affect your desktop/menu environment as well? What's the distance you cover on your mouse pad to get from left to right edge on your screen? In my setup at 1200 CPI, I have to turn the in-game sensitivity down very low (about 0.15) to get anywhere close to 35 cm/full_turn. Are such numbers to be expected?
  3. Pfft! Nah it's cool, @MauserGDog. ; ) I'm more along the lines of informing people so our forum quality doesn't drop. Para's supposed ability in defending himself isn't relevant to my selfish need of preaching my views and/or proclaiming whom I think needs some rooting for. ;P
  4. Maybe I wasn't being clear, @UnderFire. :\ I meant "what do you think" in the context of my suggestion. See the yellow text below.
  5. On Para and the thread merger: @Assifuah, Para might have missed your explanation since you didn't use Quote or the @NAME thing that causes notifications. @Major Trouble, @MauserGDog and @Croaker: Judging by this thread @Para seems to be asking if there has happened something recently that could explain the unusual drop in average player competence. Instead most responses seem to have been criticizing Para for whining, not accepting a bad streak or not being helpful himself. Posts which he refuted or tried to get back on topic. So from my perspective he had to put up with a lot. It is unreasonable to expect people to invest even more effort against misunderstanding and frustrating opposition. Searching, asking admins, posting calmly and remaining rational are all fine and well but it is not reasonable to expect that of human beings all the time. Mergers of threads are not common. Faulting @Parafor something like this faults him for being an average human being. You can even take my post here as an example. I want to point out the human factor at work here (and that most posts avoided answering Para's question), but even if pointing this out is rational I can't expect everyone who reads this to stay completely unemotional and rational about this if they feel targeted. So negative reactions to this post is something that is understandable, though maybe not quite as likely as what happened to Para because he had to put up with a lot of posts already. In any case: Could you please keep this stuff (or if you disagree, this kind of stuff) in mind when critizising future posters? :\ On lone-wolfing: @Prod., you feel that you are an asset to your team even working as Unassigned and that most squads tend to slow you down and lose the initiative - correct? What would you require of a squad in order to make you more effective rather than just hamper your progress? Do you see any way being in a very competent squad could be helpful even to your playstyle, or can't it work because you really need to be left alone to do your thing? On fairness and low settings: @UnderFire, @KTMR29 and @CMBelite-FR, you seem to regard the settings @KulaGGinuses as cheating or borderline cheating. But I imagine this can be solved in a way where the low-poly level of detail models of vegetation could be made in such a way that they obstruct the view slightly more. If you look in the screenshot posted by KulaGGin: Notice how the flower field in the background is a big soup of opaque (=not transparent) polygons. If someone was lying prone in the middle of that soup they would still not be visible at this level of graphical fidelity, making the cheating argument moot. If someone was lying at the edges of the flower field, yes; but likely not visible in the middle. Now look at the grass in the bottom half of the picture. I am not a high-end user myself so I can't tell exactly what the difference would be in visibility. But if someone was lying in the grass there it would be pretty easy to spot them. But what if the grass was a similar opaque polygon-soup to low-end users? Then soldiers lying in the grass would probably be pretty hard to spot too. My point is that it is likely possible to compensate visibility advantages that low-end users get (I'm guessing due to lack of shadows or the relative sparseness or radius of particle culling) by using more obscuring opaque 3D models for the low Level of Quality models. One could also redo the manner in which vegetation partlicles are spread on the map so that patches of bare ground (like the edges of the flower field) don't occur, or at least as often. What do you think? Would such changes please you in the sense that you wouldn't consider low-end users borderline cheaters any more?
  6. Hear ye all and heed this call to action!
  7. Blood

    Could you elaborate on why you think so? Isn't the amount of blood in-game already fairly realistic? Or do you mean that you want more detailed effects like deformation, bullet holes and gore?
  8. Okay. If we assume that you are correct, then under what circumstances do you feel that the SAW should be clearly superior?
  9. Weapons unnecessary animations

    So mainly the appearance of more stress in the animations, especially when in a firefight? And reload times kept as they are. I think that is a good suggestion. It may seem a bit early to focus on that now. But if you allow the possibility a few different variants of the animation depending on how much you are in a firefight (e.g. your character heard shooting X time ago), then the ground work for that needs to be taken into account as you redesign the animation system. And I wouldn't be surprised if that is happening _right now_.
  10. Stream sniping and mini map UI

    A solution to this could be to blur out the rest of the screen, similar to what happens when you open up the spawn screen. I view stream sniping as a form of cheating that has team-wide consequences in this game. Therefore this deserves attention.
  11. There has to be a "toggle" focus

    Right you are! : D Having an option to toggle instead of hold Focus should be easy to implement, so if someone wants it then I'd say go ahead. Back to the tangentially off-topic: No, it really doesn't. I agree as much as anyone else that the lack of AA makes it rather hard to aim right now, but once it gets fixed up this mechanic needs to go. The devs have stated many times that they want to keep engagement distances rather short, so this is counter-intuitive. They've actually gimped quite a few other aspects of the game yet have kept this, and for what reason I don't know. Actually, I still think the slight zoom fits well. :\ Is your argument against it that it extends the engagement ranges? Or that the "gimped aspects" could be done away with if they just left out the Focus mechanic? Hate to say it dude, but that's your problem. The devs absolutely should not ruin the game in an attempt to cater to low-end players. You might not be able to afford a better computer, but I shouldn't have the value of my purchase fucked over because someone else chose not to upgrade their PC. Might that sound cold and harsh? You're damn right, but at the same time, that's how the world is. Maybe rather than buying a $40 game You'll save up another $160 and get a high end GPU. "Hate to say it," "ruin" "Might that sound cold and harsh?" "my purchase fucked over because someone else" Err... what? Look. Judging by the tone of your text, I understand that you care deeply about the "high-end v.s. low-end" trend. But you should know I am not particularly invested in holding back the game for the sake of low-end users. Which I think is the stance you are arguing against. :L To elaborate, I agree that the developers should not feel forced to cripple their game to cater to low-end users. So I would not hold it against anyone if I couldn't play any more if they added some great feature that my hardware can't cope with. At the same time, I feel that the assumption that they would even have to hold back may be unwarranted based on my view of game development. At least if we are including most graphical post-processing effects, e.g. light shafts through foliage. A lot of those are relatively expensive to render but don't really affect game play in any meaningful manner. We could discuss such things if you want. It's actually quite interesting. :3 But I don't hold the stance I think you believe I do. I actually think that this may be more of a matter of geometry and reasonable precision when it comes to monitors and mice. I consider my setup (1920×1080 without Anti-Aliasing, with a medium sized monitor and medium-sensitivity gaming mouse) is a reasonable setting to test your game play with. I wanted to compare my experience and specifications to that of @Makiso I could gain a better understanding of the underlying factors of the problem and why people don't like it. So I tried to test my assumptions; was it reasonable, or does @Maki's experience reveal things I had not considered? So maybe it is a matter of hardware (that's why I made an effort to find out). But I suspect that it is really a matter of the objects on the monitor being artificially small compared to IRL. And that an ergonomic/comfortable movement distance of the mouse is at odds with the varying requirements of the game. I will try to give you an idea of what I mean: If I recall correctly, human vision has a field of view of about 120º. The game has FOV settings in the range of [90,120] degrees. The resolution in the most sensitive part of vision also has a higher "resolution" than what is offered by typical computer monitors. So unless you sit pretty close to a very wide and high-resolution monitor (which is likely unhealthy), you will not get a very realistic FOV. Instead you will typically be looking at a medium-sized screen which represents an enlarged FOV to aid you as a player. I think that a reasonable and comfortable mouse sensitivity for an FPS should give you a good trade-off between ease of turning your character (to navigate the game world), while still allowing fine-tuning and adjustments for aiming. To aid muscle memory the aiming should also be predictable and constant between games. Ideally you would only use one sensitivity setting for all tasks, but this runs into problems when you simulate a game world with high demands on both precision and movement. You may run into a situation where you are the worst of both worlds. The target is within reasonable range, but your sensitivity is such that it is unreasonably hard to make minute adjustments. So you lower the sensitivity. Then you go into close quarters combat and need to make a lot of sharp turns, but the sensitivity is so low that you have to move and pick up your mouse an unreasonably much. By "unreasonably" I mean that it is unreasonable for "common sense" reasons; such as ergonomics, what skills you can reasonably expect of the average player v.s. what will be expected of them in-game, whatever hardware you are expecting of your audience (which you can restrict to high-end users only, if you wish). One way to solve this is to have multiple sensitivity settings on your mouse. But this shifts the solution to novel hardware features. (And it may also work against the "predictability" aspect mentioned above, since your muscle memory now has to practise two skill sets for the same visual stimuli. But I can't formulate well what I mean here at the moment.) Another, now very common way is to have an alternative "precision mode" in the game. This often manifests itself as Aim Down Sight coupled with a slight zoom increase. (The zoom can actually help the "predictability" thing if implemented well. Again, I feel that I can't formulate my explanation of why this is so at the moment of writing.) This allows you to use one mode for turning and the other mode for fine adjustments when aiming.
  12. so hard to find a good game

    @Dtodt13If you feel that you want minimal commitment you could get in touch with The War Academy and Squad Ops. Squad Ops make military simulation missions and play them while The War Academy attempts to teach the public good skills for playing Squad. Both are communities that are open to the public and don't need require you to be exclusive to them. They also care deeply about cooperation. If you just go to their pages and ask other members there I'm sure you will find good teamwork-oriented players to play with.
  13. There has to be a "toggle" focus

    @MakiMine has 48 cm horizontal screen space and I sit about 68 cm from mine. I bring this up because it may imply that details on-screen may be smaller or larger for us, making the use of a zoom feature more or less warranted. Or maybe I just have bad eye sight. Anyway, to avoid calculations we can both do an in-game test. We can both go to Jensen's range and - while standing in the exact same spot - look exactly north and take a screen shot both with ADS and with Focus Zoom. (I advice prone for minimal screen deviation.) We then record the IRL width on the screen of the same pixelated feature (say, one of the 100 m targets). Then we can compare screenshots and IRL distances to give us some background on if items are larger or smaller. Or if my low settings are just an excuse for my atrocious aim. ; P That's to say, if you are up for it. I realize that not everyone is as fond of testing as I am. >_>'
  14. There has to be a "toggle" focus

    @Maki I would not try to make a shot at 274 meters either. :3 I just find that I can't expect myself to consistently make shots at living targets with iron sights at over 100 m. This is a "low" estimate to account for the average shooter. It simply starts to become too finicky when trying to correct your aim with the mouse. I'll have to look up some game play for RO2 with the IOM mod to get an idea of the scale. Oh and while we're talking specifications, do you play with Anti-Aliasing on? I expect it to help with discerning far-away movement. And what is the horizontal width of your monitor screen IRL? How close do you sit to your screen?
  15. There has to be a "toggle" focus

    @MakiOff the top of my head: 1920×1080 with 90º Field of View. Important to note is that I am a low-end user, so no Anti-Aliasing or other softening. I use the zoom to pick out movement amongst the many details in the landscape and to get a clear sight picture. I almost exclusively use iron-sights. Without the zoom mechanic, I estimate that the angle and correction needed with my mouse movement would need to be so fine that my "reasonable" engagement range would fall below 100 m. I think the scale of the maps, the engagement ranges and the FOV coupled with screen resolution is key in this phenomena. Other FPS games tend to not be at the same scale that Squad is. Though since it's fine for you @Maki, could you elaborate on what games you're thinking of and how you are playing Squad? E.g. are the games very large in scale and are you using primarily iron sights in Squad? Maybe there is some factor that I'm missing here.
×