• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kerri

  1. I might be misremembering, because I never did play an awful lot of PR (my two biggest issues were manually updating the game since I only played it sporadically, and not having a server queue, which are both fixed now with Squad), but from what I remember, there was always lots of activity at the main spawn point, but I didn't play enough (and it's a long enough time ago) that I can't remember what mechanics in PR made this happen, or what mechanics in Squad currently prevent it. Just wondering because I'm playing an awful lot of Basrah right now, and after the initial spawn at the beginning of the game, typically as US loses vehicles, they aren't replaced. I'd initially put this down to vehicles simply not being very effective at city fighting, but parking them outside of the city and hitting any superfobbed apartment complexes with the CROWS guns is always helpful, and once US gets to refinery they can be used to lock the insurgents at their first cap point. Not only that, but the same issue with vehicles not being replaced happens on other maps where vehicles are far more useful because of larger maps and more open terrain. I never played enough to understand the logistics mechanics properly, and so am not sure if it was a difference in the logistics system (as of now, ofcourse, everything is subject to change) that makes FOBs and Squad far more easy to set up and so there's no need for main spawn. Or if it's perhaps the vehicle locking system needing multiple people at main (unless this has changed, I believe it needed 2 + squad leader, or 2 + squad leader's approval via radio) that creates a disincentive to spawn at main and take a vehicle (whether it be logi, transport or combat). I understand that squad leaders using mics is mandatory on almost every server, but it's infuriating the amount of times someone does spawn at main and they can't get their leader to approve a vehicle after multiple requests (written and spoken) I also remember in PR there were even dedicated transport squads, and I can't think of a mechanical difference between squad and PR where it would be viable in one and not the other (although I'm sure there's a reason, since it's quite prevalent). Same with logistics being handled by a dedicated squad rather than a volunteer (or no-one) in a squad, and even vehicle usage like IFVs were often handled by their own vehicle squad at a platoon level, rather than by the infantry they were transporting at the squad-level like they currently do. Again, not saying any of these ways are more viable or preferable, I'm not sure if the devs want to go in a particular route or not, but I'm just wondering what the mechanics were in place in PR that incentivised this kind of meta, and what mechanics currently disincentivise it.
  2. In terms of squad as a whole, what pisses me off is similar to what's in the OP. People having reserved slots for clan people, which is all fine and dandy, but combine excessive clan slots (8, 12, etc.), with also booting people to make more room for people. I'd prefer if people just did one or the other. And the icing on the cake is when they just randomly decide the person they're going to kick is a squad leader from the opposing team. Maybe your clan friend can wait for a slot to open up by itself if you've already ate through the excessive reserves. I understand it's their server and they can do what they like on it, which is why I've stopped using that group's servers. In terms of of the game itself and not the playerbase, biggest gripe right now is between uninterruptible animations (RPG reload and you can't pull out your pistol for 10 seconds if someone strolls around the corner), drop shotting horseshit (although I understand this might be fixed with the updated animations?), and the vehicle lock system resulting in two dozen fresh vehicles at US Main not being used because no one trusts their squad leader to approve the vehicle if they were to spawn in there, and they obviously aren't willing to run 15 minutes on foot back to the front line. Even when people ask their squad lead in advance and he acknowledges them, the number of times they still end up waiting 5 minutes for a vehicle to be approved (or just suicide to respawn at an FOB) after constant requests is quite annoying.
  3. It's quite easy to counter in a number of ways, such as parking your CROWS vehicles (strykers, hmmwvs, even regular non-crows hmmwvs can work) at a standoff range behind some cover and you simply pound the top 3 levels of the building with penetrating .50 cal fire. Even a layer of sandbags won't stop .50cal fire, although it will diminish the damage a fair bit. Combined that with simply putting a massive amount of bodies in the area, even if you can't storm the building, you can have enough people in the area to increase the INS respawn timer on that FOB to the point where it's not viable to spawn there anymore (seen spawn timers well over 2 minutes), and they'll either have to spawn elsewhere or sit and wait and their numbers will steadily decline until it's cappable. Alternatively, you simply push fast enough that they don't have time to dig in. Turns out, if you let an enemy fortify an already easily defended position, it can be quite hard to flush them out. Basrah is one of the few maps where insurgents have an actual tangible advantage that they can utilise. US teams haven't realised yet that their usual tactics of just rushing with vehicles into a dense, urban area filled to the brim with RPGs isn't going to be effective. Again, CROWS vehicles parked at render distance firing .50 at Apartments is incredibly annoying for any insurgents there. If you want to talk about imbalanced superFOBS on Basrah, have a look at the kind of shitshow the game turns into if the US just rushes Refinery and superFOBS that. They can just park all their vehicles behind hesco barriers or the already-placed shipping containers and are practically invulnerable, with line of sight all the way down the main line of attack. I had a game a couple of days ago where 2 Strykers and 3 HMMWvs were doing exactly that, along with .50 cal positions on the large oil containers to the north. I don't even think we ended up capturing refinery until the very end of the game, but we simply prevented the enemy from capturing a second point.
  4. Booted up the game after V8 finished installing, since the changelog implied my two biggest gripes with the game were fixed (slow to update server browser (coupled with no server queue made it a massive chore to try and find a game) and poor performance). Absolutely nothing is showing up in the server browser, no matter if I have the prior-version or empty server boxes checked. Solved - go to your steam installation location and make sure squad.exe and squad_launcher.exe are set to NOT run as admin.
  5. Give me an example rather than trying to insult me, please.
  6. Don't get me started, as much as I loved the ACRE system and think it's incredibly flexible, it can only really work in clan-style environments where everyone playing together is regulars. The ACRE system is suited for Arma, which is already hip-deep in abstruse keybinds, so adding a couple dozen more isn't going to hurt. I didn't even play with a particularly try-hard clan but we still ended up having to do almost daily training sessions to get any new players familiar with the system. I don't think such an in-depth radio set up would work with a fast-paced, easy-to-learn-the-basics game like Squad that fills the niche between a Battlefield-like game and something more abstruse like Arma.
  7. The thing is your squad shouldn't be two fully operation teams, it should be two halves of one operational team. Fireteams are only really used when travelling in a hot area, when you need to bound and the like. Any scenario in which you'd need to independently assign a fireteam to do something or another, they're always going to be close enough that any communication between one fireteam is going to be relevant to another (fireteam 1 declaring that they're in position and fireteam 2 is free to move, fireteam 1 calling out a contact, etc.) Anything that's is so local that it isn't relevant to the rest of the squad should be kept to proximity chat anyway, as fireteams should always be well within proximity of their fireteam leader. I completely agree that my definition of 'significant gameplay' is subjective, and in the end it's up to the devs to determine what's worthwhile adding and what isn't.
  8. Should also note the one instance where I think there could be more communication options is in regards to inter-vehicle communication, as people are discussing. Logistic truck drivers communicating with each other, Stryker commander communicating with an infantry squad leader. However, in most cases, the Stryker driver is already part of the infantry squad it's tasked with transporting. Same with logistics, it's normally a designated squad member who's been tasked with running supplies from main, not an independent driver. I imagine once the maps, vehicles and assets flesh out more in-line with PR, the squad meta will change accordingly. I didn't play much PR, but I do recall designated tank platoon squads, all logistics vehicles being assigned to a single logistics squad. I even believe transport duties were outsourced to their own squad, meaning once a squad was transported, the independent driver could just drive to help another squad rather than the vehicle just being dumped.
  9. Not needed, provided proximity comms can overcome engine noise. Adding an automatic intercom when in a vehicle might help, since it would use the same key as proximity and not add any confusion. Fireteam comms are completely unnecessary, especially since 99% of squads don't utilise individual fireteams (especially static ones, normally they just select a few random people to send somewhere), and any squad that's coordinating at that level is going to have enough radio discipline anyway. The last thing I think anyone wants is something like an ACRE style radio system being added.
  10. H A P P E N I N G
  11. You're entirely right, people talk about insurgents just needing to get in close to where the US/RF can't use their optics, but they're just as effective at close range, and far better at longer ranges due to the excessive ACOGs, etc., over militia. Higher stamina just sounds gamey as **** and so I don't support it, not to mention I don't think being able to sprint for an extra second or two would do much against a CROWS, but a temporary ticket boost until we get things like IEDs, etc. would be fine. Or things like random weapon caches around the maps that act like temporary FOBs (but don't cost tickets when destroyed), just to give militias some more mobility and elements of surprise.
  12. It's not so much US that's superior but the conventional forces. US vs RF normally goes either way, depending on which has the more effective CROWS or BTR crews (being the only vehicles in the game with optical zoom is a game changer and gives you the stand-off ability to stay well out of effective range of enemy return fire) Unconventional forces just don't have anything that they can use to counter them, I've got a fairly lengthy post in another thread about the issues with militia at the moment (their only real benefit over RF/US is the extra frag round for the RPG, that isn't a worthwhile trade off for all the optics, vehicles, etc. the opposition gets. No, conventional vs. insurgent shouldn't have identical loadouts, but there should be something that the insurgents can exploit to gain an advantage. At the moment there's nothing)
  13. Sounds stupid. There's no commander class, and there's nothing stopping a regular rifleman or two being sent by his SQL to check something out. What would be preferable is to add the ability for the scout class to mark on the map, heck, let everyone mark on the map but it only shows up for people in your own squad. Markers placed by squad leaders can be seen by everyone as is the case now.
  14. Next sale will probably be the steam spring sale, unless for some reason there's a major update and the devs want to do one prior to that. Just keep in mind that if you do buy it on sale, you probably won't have the greatest impression of it, as there'll also be thousands of other people buying the game on sale and so the quality of servers dropped dramatically for the duration of the sale. It was nigh unplayable over Christmas because of it.
  15. FPS: 35-60 depending on firefight, time of day, fog, etc. (fog and night time are normally locked at 60) CPU: 3570k @ stock clock GPU: 970 RAM: 8gb Res: 1080p Settings: Everything on max except for ubersampling and AA, which makes the game look like vaseline is all over the screen
  16. Haven't seen any confirmed instances of cheating, such as aimbots or wall hacks, yet. Although people playing with custom config files so prevent most bushes, all grass, etc. from rendering so they can shoot you through a mile of forest is fairly common, but that's the case with all these types of games. Apparently a few patches ago it was improved slightly but people playing with minimum settings will always have an advantage over those who aren't.
  17. And there's a reason PS2 dropped the silly hex system (in all but UI) and went back to a system similar to the current iteration in squad (can only attack along specified 'lanes'). And that was with thousands of players on a server, even with that many players, having no fixed front lines or bottlenecks lead to teams simply chasing each other around the clockface back capping completely undefended points. Again, if an early rush catches you off guard and your team is incapable of countering it (either by falling back to deal with the rush or by countering it and pushing their poorly defended early caps, since all their players are miles away), you were going to lose due to bad team leaders anyway, whether it was in the first 5 minutes or not. Wait for more maps, more assets and more mechanics to be rolled out that are already in development as they'll already likely neuter the ability to do early rushes (separating spawn points from the FOB, better logistics, etc. will all likely prevent a 3 man squad setting up shop and spawning 40 guys on their position after a few seconds. Edit: Should also add I think as time progresses and we get more maps, the map layouts will be significantly improved, with more branching paths and unorthodox layouts, so every map isn't just linear through the centre of the map. The reason for this being the case at the moment is vehicles are still very new in the life of the game, and so most maps in the rotation are very smal and, infantry-centric.
  18. I think the darker maps are far nicer to look at because it hides some of the glaring graphical problems, such as aliasing on bushes (if you don't use AA that makes it look as if you have vaseline all over your monitor). It's also a nice gameplay change as engagements typically get a lot closer as you can't see people from as far away to snipe them. I've also noticed a frame jump on night maps, not sure if it's because shadows are drawn differently. I think an 80/20 split on all maps would be nice for light/dark. As a side note, I think foggy maps are extremely fun to play for whatever reason. Also seems like performance is much better, normally at about 35-45 at max settings, with foggy maps I'm locked at 60 and everything is much smoother and again it fixes a lot of the issues with distant trees/grass looking bad with aliasing.
  19. scopes

    Yes, it's a bug, it's been an issue for months (since I started playing, I reported it and got a dev response). No, it's not an accurate simulation of cheek weld. I don't seem to have an issue with the SVD, although I don't use it often, but the M110 is absolutely awful to try and use (again, don't use it often as the AT/GRN classes are better). Also love the people arguing over bullet drop and zeroing mechanics when it has nothing to do with what the OP is asking about, which is optics not being centred in your view. Probably not, the issue with realistic magnification in optics (where your optic is zoomed but your peripheral vision around it isn't) is that you essentially have to render two separate images, which is extremely taxing. That computing power would be better spent elsewhere, really.
  20. I never played much PR, the server browser and inability to change teams to play with a group of friends always put me off getting into it, but how did they make logistics interesting? I recall they always had dedicated squads that did it the whole match. Was it just a more indepth logistics system, that was more than holding W and occasionally pressing Q? I seem to vaguely recall helicopters being able to do logi runs, and also do troop transport at the same time, meaning it was a bit more engaging since you were doing more than just drive in circles mindlessly. I'm trying to recall the few games I played of PR and there always seemed to be a steady stream of players coming from the main base that could be given lifts by the various logistics vehicles, whereas in Squad it seems to be that outside of the initial rush at the beginning of the match, very few spawn at main when FOBs are available. Was it just the fact that maps were larger and so it was faster to spawn at main and grab a vehicle than it was to spawn at a FOB and run to the next objective?
  21. People normally change teams if they want to join a friend on the enemy team or if they're just getting absolutely dominated and they don't want to put up with it the following round. Sharing information in team chat like that normally gets you scolded at the least, or kicked at the worst, and one guy knowing the location of an enemy FOB isn't going to be a game changer if he can't communicate it. I think the current limits on changing teams are enough to prevent abuse. With you not able to change teams unless the game is balanced, if you were able to change teams from US to RF in order to gleam information about their placements, it's going to be a fair while until you can switch back. Typically you aren't going to be doing this kind of bullshit if the game is going your way, either, and so with other people rage quitting from RF, it's going to be near impossible to switch back before the end of the round.
  22. That's how I do it at the moment, although that's only really useful if you want a general idea of where an FOB can be placed. If you want to know if a certain compound is too close to a friendly FOB to be built in (for obvious reasons if it's just 20ft too close you aren't going to want to build an FOB in the empty field next to said compound), or if you want to know if there's any possibility to build an FOB between two other FOBs (usually not needed but on the small urban maps sometimes it's useful to build FOB between others, sometimes even just to build a couple of emplacements or sandbags and then dig it back up), a relatively course finger method isn't really helpful.
  23. Been waiting for this for a while, it seems the easiest way to implement it (have just the squad leader able to see it or perhaps a button on the map to bring up in-depth map details such as the radial circles, etc. to prevent map clutter, although that won't be an issue at the moment until they add more things that would be marked on the map) Would also be pretty handy if all the maps were to the same scale. Some maps the large squares can be hundreds of metres, and you just need one between FOBs. On smaller maps, the larger squares might just be a few dozen metres and you need 6-7 large squares between FOBs. It's just a mild annoyance.
  24. I think dedicated logistics, transport squads, etc. will come with time. I do agree with the current system of claiming vehicles being very clunky. Needing 3 (?) people at main to claim a vehicle that is typically only operated by 2 people at most (in the case of armed vehicles) or 1 person (logistics) is just poor design. It would be great if there wasn't a need for any of the vehicle claiming and locking mechanics, and that the community would just sort itself out, but I don't think that's possible.
  25. Temporary weapon caches that they can spawn on, perhaps have them function like they do in insurgency (except when lost they don't diminish tickets). It'll give them a lot more mobility around the map, which is sorely needed (no civilians to blend in, vehicles have very low capacity, are extremely vulnerable to small arms fire and can't protect themselves adequately). I think those short falls are fine as you don't want them to be able to compete with conventional forces in a conventional engagement, but again, they don't have any tricks up their sleeves in order to exploit. Or simply just giving them a ticket bonus until more game mechanics are added to balance the playing field, would be incredibly easy to implement (after you figure out the % or flat number to increase by) and might be enough to last us over until the next significant update for militia. I think just increasing their running speed or stamina is a little bit gamey, however. Even just the ticket bonus is iffy but I feel more comfortable with it for some reason. Also a side note on SPG-9s, it would be nice if there was a variant with the ability to freely turn 360 degrees (or the ability to rotate the tripod somehow without completely rebuilding it and costing points), although I don't know if such a thing exists in real life, as the mounts and tripods seem to give them a direction of fire. I'm yet to see an SPG actually be used in-game. Immediately after the update I saw a super FOB trying to use them, but with an arc of fire of just a few degrees, it just isn't effective. And ofcourse, FRAG/HE shells would be a great addition as well.