• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Verdin

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader
  • Birthday
  1. Heh, that made me chuckle. Once upon a time that might have had some real meaning, but now you can just download the SQUAD SDK and create a "new" standalone title using the framework of long as you're willing to provide OWI a cut of the profits. No longer does anyone have a start from scratch, just mod SQUAD into a new game and reap the profits. Just imagine modding groups creating new games in different time periods, a new Battlefield-like game that would actually support community created content or even a zombie game. The potential profits and diversity OWI could bask in from a game that's still in an alpha stage...that's smart business sense right there.
  2. As the developers seemingly have enough trouble with the basic mechanics and features of the game, I think you can rest assured that such things won't be focused on before the base of the game is figured out and implemented.
  3. This "splitting the community" is just a bunch of hooey. Realistically, I don't see PS as any different than a mod for any other fps game since modding first began decades ago...other than it being monetized. Mods simply offer an opportunity to play something other than what is offered by the developers in the base game. This is a very interesting prospect or precedent you're establishing, using the SQUAD SDK with the ability to create monetized total conversion mods utilizing SQUAD as a base. I really like that, and it could become rather attractive to other potential modding teams.
  4. That's why the AAS game mode in SQUAD feels so overly repetitive to me. The mechanics are linear in nature, you always know where the opposing team is starting from and where they have to go first. So then it's just rush rush rush. Conquest and even Insurgency are more dynamic, but unfortunately don't get much play-time. They provide the most satisfying game play for me, as they require more coordination than the linear nature of AAS.
  5. This has been discussed ad nauseum, I'd suggest searching the forums mate. Simple short answer, not PIP or RTT scopes impact performance, and SQUAD will be pushing the limits of hardware with the game features that are already or slated to be implemented in the future. Some sacrifices have to be made, and scope rendering is one of them.
  6. I agree, the Arma series would be one of the best routes to go for mission creation. So much content and missions that already exists. There's also OFP:DR which has a mission editor and a plethora of sp missions available. The developers of the upcoming UE4 game Ground Branch have also stated they'd like to create a mission editor, but the game is currently pretty raw and early in development. They seem to be making progress when it comes to AI though, so it should be interesting to see how that game shapes up in the future.
  7. I looked it up, the post by the developer was made Nov 26th 2016... Given the state of the game then, If they actually thought 3 months ago they could release the final version of the game in that time frame...then I'd be really concerned about the development and what the final release of SQUAD would consist of. Your internal documents are not released to the public and are not used to advertise and sell the software you're working on. There's a distinct difference. If they don't have time to keep the store page where they actually sell the game up to date, then don't advertise unrealistic expectations to the general consumer. They could easily give themselves some breathing room and project sometime in 2018. If the game reaches the final version early, they look all the better for it and there's not potential misleading or misinformation.
  8. That time frame came from a post Mr Fishy (a developer) made on the Steam forums linking directly to OWI's updated press page, and subsequently updated the Steam store page to reflect the same. How is it similar to the internal documentation on the software you work on, when it's publicly stated on OWI's press page, as well as the store page where they advertise and sell the game? It's not some internal memo that somehow got leaked to the public. What OWI is disseminating to the public could be construed as misleading and confuse the general consumer. Sure, those invested in the forums or who have been following the development know it's balderdash, but "Joe gamer" who just heard about the game doesn't. If someone goes to the store page and reads that the game is expected to come out of early access and release mid 2017, that would be an indication that the game should be pretty far along in development...which it clearly isn't. Why not be more forthright or realistic and state that the game is expected to reach final release sometime like Q1 or Q2 of 2018? That way, an earlier release can potentially make OWI look better, among other things.
  9. So you're saying in late Nov 2016 when both pages were updated to reflect mid 2017, OWI still didn't know how much work you'd have to go through to release the game?
  10. Expect - regard (something) as likely to happen. Considering the current state of the game, it is most certainly not likely to happen, unless they have some magic elves that are going to be developing while the guys sleep. lol So either there's a breakdown in communication within OWI, or they're trying to play word games and mislead or confuse people. I would hope it's the former, rather than the latter.
  11. It's posted (presumably) by OWI , on your own press page. Factsheet Developer: Offworld Industries Based in Vancouver, BC, Canada Release date: Alpha Early Access - December 2015; Final Version - Expected mid 2017 The Steam store page also states that the game is expected to come out of early access (commonly translated as final version or full release) mid 2017. So evidently someone in the development team thinks (or thought) you guys were further along in development than you actually are, as those changes were made just a few months ago.
  12. Final version release is actually advertised as mid 2017, not the end of 2017. That's complete balderdash though, so I wouldn't put any faith in either one. Just figure on it releasing sometime in 2018, and if by some divine miracle it's earlier...consider it a
  13. TWI released some screens of RS 2: Vietnam:
  14. I for one really enjoy the Conquest mode in SQUAD as it is, and feel it offers more replay-ability than the current repetitive nature of AAS in SQUAD. I think Conquest takes more coordination and teamwork between the squads and the whole team, because you don't always know where the opposing team will be, what point they need to cap...and the currently annoying tactic of a whole team (minus a few) rushing to the opposing sides 1st or 2nd cap point at the beginning of a match is rendered ineffective.
  15. The "worth" is subjective to each individuals opinion. Just because you enjoy playing @ 20 fps, doesn't mean everyone will or should. Of course, PR is a mod from a game created on the Refractor 2 engine, that was intended specifically for fps games. Since you're making a performance comparison between engines, are you saying that UE4 is an inferior engine for the task of creating a 100 player tactical fps? I'm not sure what your point is.