Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About FelipeFritschF

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

Contact Methods

  • Skype

Recent Profile Visitors

198 profile views
  1. FOB ammo abuse

    Yes you're right, also I haven't played 9.6 yet but if you just dig up an FOB do you get the resources back or are they spent for good? See guys, the point is, Squad is supposed to also have an operational and something of a strategic layer of gameplay to it. It's why we even have logistics vehicles available; this establishes physical supply lines that will have to be mantained by the team, and which the enemy can potentially exploit and ambush. But all of that doesn't matter much if it's so easy to exploit the system and keep squads magically supplied, because it elimiantes the actual need for logistics. Likewise, the Rally Point system also overpowered and I do think a system similar to PR's would work just fine. Rally points are *supposed* to be a way for late joiners to spawn together with their squad and/or to bring back 2-3 members who died because of a mine or something. Right now, it's a way to pretty much circumvent the necessity of HABs whenever applicable.
  2. Transfer Squad Leader status to another squad member

    Wait what. Uhhhh so much for this thread then?
  3. Looking to the future: Asset Squads.

    Huh, and here I was, wondering what all the fuss was about when I had already assumed that was what everyone was going to do anyway. Actually restricting specific vehicles to specific squads is very problematic considering we're only getting more and more assets, and factions are not all the same. Some have better potential for MecInf, some can have some sort of AirCav thing going on. If we just restrict a specific squad to ALWAYS be the only one able to drive APCs, or Helis, then those sorts of scenarios are made needlesly harder. Just add a little menu with MAYBE some little icons to indicate what kind of squad it's going to be.
  4. I'm quite surprised I couldn't find anything like this. I think we can all relate with times when we joined a squad with an unwilling Squad Leader, or one who didn't have the SL kit/class, or simply disconnected/crashed the game for whatever reason, thus leaving the squad disorganized. What I'm supposing is pretty simple: give the squad leader the option to transfer his Squad Leader status (but not his SL kit/class) to a player of his choice. This way, if such a situation arises, the current SL can simply click on the name whatever player is more willing or able to lead the squad, and simply click "Transfer SL status", and then people won't need to all leave the squad and come back in order for that person, a rather frustrating and time consuming process. In fact, PR has just added that in the form of a chat command, in fact I'm slightly surprised that didn't happen years ago. Maybe it was BF2's fault? Which to be honest implementing it as an actual UI feature into Squad seems like a natural step forward to me.
  5. Release: Alpha Version 9.6

    Very, very, very excited about this! It's great to see that Squad is now doing its first attempts at changing the meta with simple gameplay changes and rebalances. I imagine logistics squads will now become truly necessary and teams will be forced to be more organized. Also I think Narva looks just fantastic, just like the Al Basrah update. PR and Squad's maps always had something special about it, you could tell how they were designed to look like real places instead of Hollywoodian setpieces. This gives the maps a very nice atmosphere that you get in other games. One thing I'd like to ask though: the Eastern side of the river of the Narva map is empty and indeed it looks like it has a road that just abruptly ends. Considering real life Narva borders Russia, I'd like to know if in the future the map is also going to get updated to include a little bit of city to represent Ivangorod, the neighbouring Russian town, or maybe simply a border/customs office of some sort? It just looks kinda weird that the road goes on in a realistic fashion in the other extremities of the map, but that at the Eastern side it just ends abruptly.
  6. Ready or not - new tactical shooter!

    Hmmmm... I think it's interesting that they're showing so little in these dev blogs yet what they are showing is of such high quality and impact. Maybe the devs are trying to make a point out of this and keep the game minimalistic. Not bare-bones minimalistic, but subdued, to the point. God knows you don't get that kind of trailer anymore. Although I must say I do have my doubts about that, while it's great that they've found an investor, it also means they will have accountability to that investor first and foremost, which wouldn't be the case with crowdfunding like Squad is having. Hopefully they won't be forced into anything that might harm the game or any compromises towards its gameplay and tactical approach. Of course, these devs seem quite professional and experienced and not exactly indie (not that there's anything wrong with that, heh!) so I'm not surprised if they have some contacts in the industry.
  7. Numbers instead of names on Squad members

    Pretty good idea, actually. Of course people will not necessarily remember which number they are, but it's a nice little resource to enhance communication, specially in organized squads. Also being able to lock squads, kick members, give the SL role to someone else, etc...
  8. Pace of battle - tactics vs. strategy

    Maybe not yet, because the game as a whole is not entirely ready for it But the purpose of rally points is, well, to rally the squad. It's supposed to allow the squad to rendezvous with a couple of squad members who just joined the squad, or just a few who died. At the moment however rally points are still very powerful and allow attacks to continue incessantly, which makes medics almost unnecessary. While I understand that at the moment maps are still somewhat small, once we get helicopters and a better system of logistics and chain of command (particularly the Commander role) going on, then they should be nerfed. There should be proper transport squads, and they should actually be responsible for carrying people back and forth. Otherwise vehicles, including choppers, will remain almost redundant, just like medics currently are. Squad currently has 9-man squads in a 40-player team (in the future a 50-player team), yet you frequently see squads without medics because they simply aren't that necessary, and squads with 2 medics like they're supposed to have are fairly rare. However I think going back to the main base is a bit too much. Like I've said, RPs are supposed to keep the experience more fluid, especially in the early game when people might still be joining the server, but having SLs go back to the main to "recharge" their RPs just makes it almost pointless to even have RPs, because that will probably necessitate the usage of vehicles anyway. Just limit the time they can stay up and how long it takes for them to rearm, once bigger maps, helicopters are proper combined arms gameplay is introduced into the game.
  9. Pace of battle - tactics vs. strategy

    Why should Squad just be another fast-paced tactical shooter? Aren't there quite a lot of those already? Insurgency, DoI, Rising Storm, Rainbow Six, Verdun and many others already follow this philosphy: while they feature more detailed options, more detailed gunplay, better ballistics, etc, they are all supposed to be played in 10-15 minute rounds, with incessant combat. Squad shouldn't just be just like these games. Squad should set itself apart. Look at the Steam reviews. People LOVE that Squad is different, that it actually requires teamwork and thinking. Insurgency may have more customization, Rising Storm may be prettier, Rainbow Six may be competitive, but Squad provides a far more engaging experience that's not all about your K/D ratio. Insurgency and other games like it are all very nice, but in the end you are still just running in circles around a small map, killing people. This doesn't mean Squad shouldn't be accessible, but it also means it shouldn't be simplified for the sake of accessibility either. Arma is nice also, but when you have to chose between playing some godawful Wasteland or zombie survival servers, or entering clans to play very long, very orchestrated scheduled sessions, this is obviously going to keep a lot of people away, even those interested in playing tactically. If you just want to play a fast-paced tactical shooter, then why not play any of the other games I've mentioned? They're all finished, they're much prettier, they have ranking systems, shiny weapon customizations, and quick rounds that constantly provide stimulation and rewards. But, hey, for some reason people are still playing Squad. Even though it has a smaller playerbase, it is also far more loyal than any other other. Look at Squad's data in SteamSpy, and compare it to Insurgency's, for instance. Insurgency has eight times more players than Squad, yet for some reason there are currently virtually as many people playing Squad as there are playing Insurgency, much more people who own the game and also play it, AND they have higher average and total playtimes. Squad has been initially released over a year ago, yet it still grabs more attention on Youtube and Twitch, and the same pattern applies over time to Insurgency, Red Orchestra and other older games, and even newer ones like R6 and Rising Storm 2. People don't want more of the same, they get tire of it. This is all in spite of the lower number of units sold, which no doubt can be attributed to its lack of advertisement as well as higher price tag. Even if the playerbase is decreasing, which is a natural and ultimately unavoidable phenomena (many people seem to be irritated at the rate at which updates are being released also), it is doing so at a much slower pace than other games of its kind. There are more than a few other tactical games around, including new ones being released. Squad is unique in its team-oriented gameplay actually being team oriented. It keeps people engaged in it, and it makes rounds far more interesting and refreshing. It keeps them playing it for a long time, it keeps them interested in it, it keeps them wanting to recommend it to friends. This uniqueness is something Squad should embrace, not turn away from. It is possible to make a game that's tactical and team-based, but also accessible and fun. Hell, just look at how PR did it for over 10 years. People WANT Squad to be tactical, they want it to be challenging, and at the same time they appreciate how it's not hard to get into, how the controls are responsive, how the interface is clean and functional. And right now I think the game is indeed going at too fast of a pace, death is still too cheap, teamwork is still mostly dependent on having a good squad leader. Very little of what Squad does is related to actually restricting the player, so much as it is about changing the rate at which resources are dispensed (if you think of kits and vehicles as resources). This changes the meta considerably; when dying is inconsequential, you don't care about it, when it's damaging, you care about it a lot. Just having something like respawn times being affected by your behaviour is absolutely genius in its simplicity: people hate having to wait for respawn, yet at the same time they aren't frustrated by it, because they know the game is long. In most games, if I have to wait 10 seconds to spawn I would be almost pulling my hairs out, in Squad, if I have to wait 50 seconds I'm going to collect my breath and prepare. Again, look at the Steam reviews. People are amazed at the experiences they are getting, in public servers. Hell, there are even people making the same comparisons I did, transitioning from Insurgency and even RS2, because now that they've experienced a true tactical game, they've lost the appetite for games that only go halfway. Absolutely nobody is saying "this is just like insurgency but better". And about public servers: I think a great part of what makes Squad (and PR) great is just how organic it is: people play tactically because the game encourages them to, the mechanics make it a requirement. You can play even CoD tactically if you want to, but that's obviously not going to happen in a public server. However, Squad still manages to have public servers wherein teamwork is an actual possibility, thanks to its mechanics not only allowing it, but requiring it also. Like I've mentioned, Arma is a great game, but for a lot of people it is simply not possible, either because of language, patience, or simply lack of time, to enter tactical groups and clans, to have scheduled operations in a very strict manner. It's a lot like simracing, people like to have realistic racing games, but not everyone wants to sign up into an online league with oh-so-serious scheduled events, and in the case of milsim it looks like an entirely untapped segment of the market to me. While this doesn't mean clans shouldn't be allowed into Squad or anything, I do think the game should do everything it can to keep public rounds as smooth as possible.
  10. Al Basrah feels Somewhat Empty?

    Sorry to keep asking about this, but wouldn't it be possible to somehow NOT render all the objects after a certain distance? It's not like you're going to need to see a sofa inside a building 500m away, so why not make it so that you only see the ones inside the room or building that you're actually in? Wouldn't that be able to enhance the visuals of the buildings without sacrificing performance?
  11. Road Blocking

    I think a big part of this problem is that Al Basrah was (sort of) never designed to be played in AAS. It is a relatively big city map wherein the conventional faction fights assymetrically against an unconventional faction which has to hide in building and use subterfuge to prevail. But that simply doesn't work too well in AAS, specially when there isn't that big of a technological gap between factions. When the Insurgency gamemode is added to Squad, road blocking as a whole becomes far less effective due to the decentralized nature of the Insurgency gamemode. Just look at Basrah in PR: It doesn't even have an AAS layer. It's not that the tactic as a whole is going to be entirely invalidated, it's just that it should become less OP than it currently is.
  12. Al Basrah feels Somewhat Empty?

    It's a curious case wherein the technology is far ahead of PR, but the design isn't. So we have lots of open buildings, windows, doors, etc, but at the same time they feel strange because they are all empty, unlike with BF2's preset open buildings with furniture and all. However I would just be patient, because the map is quite simply not the definitive version yet, as we already saw in the recent update, the Devs are working to expand and improve it.
  13. Ready or not - new tactical shooter!

    Maybe they just like having a crazy amount of details. To be fair, as cool as it sounds, it might actually be a good idea *not* to have that sort of feature in the game, when the resources and manhours that would be poured into implementing them could be better used into something that might actually make a difference in the game. Honestly though, I don't really care if they actually can have physical magazines being put back into physical pouches or something like that, as long as the game can hold up on its own as a good tactical shooter. They certainly seem to be going for a no holds barrelled approach, which is a good sign.
  14. Ready or not - new tactical shooter!

    Sorry about the duplicate thread. Made by three people. As if "bring order to chaos" wasn't enough, this game's inspiration in good ol' Swat 4 is made even more evident in the only "gameplay" video I could find. The recent resurgence of tactical shooters is now even more promising with a game that is apparently going to emphasize restraint and discipline, something that we don't get in fun, but still competitive games like Siege.
  15. http://voidinteractive.net/developer-blog-01-teaser-and-beyond/ Made by only three people, this is a very promising new tactical FPS heavily reminiscent of older classics like the earlier Rainbow Six and Swat games, with close-quarters tactical gameplay. Something that brings my attention is the non-military theme, something rather uncommon these days. Instead, we see less-lethal weaponry, tasers, shields, and a abundance of hostages and less exotic domestic threats and common criminals. As if "bring order to chaos" wasn't enough, this game's inspiration in good ol' Swat 4 is made even more evident in the only "gameplay" video I could find. The recent resurgence of tactical shooters is now even more promising with a game that is apparently going to emphasize restraint and discipline, something that we don't get in fun, but still competitive games like Siege. Take a look at this Bach-tastic trailer: