Jump to content

Valdr

Member
  • Content count

    122
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Valdr


  1. On 3/12/2019 at 7:50 PM, F4tm4n said:

    being quite frank i am banned on literally 98% of squad servers

     

    If you seem to have a problem every single place you go, at some point it's time to grow up and realize it's probably you with the problem and not the entire rest of the community. The only common extra rules I see are things like no 1-manning vics, no small locked squads, etc. Things which are minor and you can go to other servers without those rules. I'd be happy to watch that video to see you apparently get banned for nothing, but you've already deleted your own proof, which speaks for itself.


  2. 6 hours ago, L0cation said:

    I agree . 

    But the main problem i have with it , is how boring the vehicle combat would be that way , i mean while infantry can use cover and outplay large vehicles , the combat between two large vehicles could become a "whosever spots who first" , that would make large wide open maps very boring and unbalanced , the only way i can see this issue being resolved is with large wide open maps having alot of hills and mountains to block the long range lines of sight. 

     

    That is already how the combat between two large vehicles mostly works, both in game and irl.


  3. 56 minutes ago, CptDirty said:

    I like it

     

    But what happens if the person creates a squad and switches to rifleman with a shovel near the FOB he wants to dig down intentionally to hurt the team? 

     

    Tbh SLs shouldn't be allowed to take any other kit except SL. Realistically, is there ever a reason they should have something else?


  4. On 6/5/2018 at 9:26 AM, Bahrein said:

    Thats the whole point why i was always talking about that the Russians needs to have T-90 becouse the millitia can get basic T-72 insurgents T-55,T-62 its all about diversity.

    And trust me i am sure the ammount of T-90 in Russian army is top secret and the numbers online are not real.I am sure a country huge like that has a lot more. 

     

    And I own more land than a guy who lives in Tribeca but he can afford a $50 million dollar condo. You can't modernize a military without a strong economy.


  5. 23 hours ago, Disco said:

     

    Believe me, there is a lot more teamwork to come to this game once others elements gets in (choppers, tanks, suppression and so on...). Teamwork is just beginning to show in this game :) You will be really surprised how this game is great when it all comes together. How can i be so sure of this? Don't trust me, play some project reality to see how things might look like. Go past graphics and enjoy gameplay.

     

    Nope, light and medium machine guns serve to suppress enemy (pin them, let them lose mobility). Other friendly elements maneuver to flank/close in and destroy enemy. This is actually standard battle drill for attack of squad in western doctrine (initiation of contact / locate the enemy / suppress the enemy / attack / consolidate and reorganize). Machine guns role in that third phase is really important. They are not just guns that spit more bullets then other guns. There is some history and philosophy behind their usage. Their purpose didn't change since the day they've been invented to the present day. Use google/wiki and check it out.

     

    I've played enough PR, I started playing PR when it was barely more than a small mod and I was part of one of the top early competitive clans for it. This game does not need to go further in that direction and the people who think so will ruin this game.


    I also do not need you to explain to me how MGs work in real life. Squad is not real life, the fact of the matter is that they are excellent killing tools in Squad and there is no reason they should be used to spray wildly when they can kill so effectively. 

    13 hours ago, Romby said:

    I completly disagree. A scoped m4/ak is much more effective in getting kills than a AR. The scoped ARs can be good, but the best way to use then is single shot. Without a propper suppression system is needed or ARs fired full auto will not be very usefull.

     

     

    You could not be any more wrong. Bursts from MGs with bipods deployed are devastating and you can put far more rounds accurately on a target than you can with a scoped rifle. Scoped rifles require you to hold your breath and have precise accuracy and compensation for recoil as you take followup shots, with an MG you just rip off bursts and easily take out targets at almost any range. If playing marksman wasn't useful before, it's now an utterly stupid choice if you can take a scoped MG instead.


  6. 1 hour ago, Guan_Yu007 said:

    If actual proper supression means more need for teamwork, then yes it will make the game better. Invididual player skill needs to be rewarding yes, but teamwork way more so.

     

    Explain to me how it is going to create a need for teamwork? Teamwork is already a huge determining factor in the game. People ignore the big picture and focus on small firefights and then they want to talk about "teamwork" because they get shot by people who can aim better than they can, and they want to play some imaginary role where they can just spit inaccurate shots at an enemy and feel like they are contributing. Hit your target, it's not complicated.


  7. 18 minutes ago, Disco said:

    They will not and that is whole point of suppression system. This game is not about single players but a team. Suppression system will give more depth to infantry combat and we might finally see some real world tactics be used. Right now, light and medium machine guns don't really fulfill their roles in squad although its way more better then v9.

     

    They fulfil the role of killing the enemy better than almost any other infantry weapon, which just goes back to my point about hitting targets instead of needing a reward for missing. Squad isn't a milsim, "because real life" isn't a valid reason for something if it doesn't make the game better. Not to mention that adding video game effects is not at all realistic when suppression already works. If you are putting down accurate fire, people will try to get cover. If they don't feel like they need to take cover then you should be able to hit them and kill them. If they don't feel like they need to take cover and they can just shoot back and kill you, then you aren't being effective.


  8. 6 hours ago, Font said:

    Yes lets reward players for their bad aim. WOOOOOO

     

    This is exactly what it would be, and exactly what it is in every game that has it. If you put accurate rounds on a person, they will get down and try to find cover. Why do you need more? If you start shooting at someone and they shoot back and kill you then the better player won. Next time, hit your target.


  9. On 4/2/2018 at 2:06 PM, embecmom said:

    that's not what Squad is about

     

     

     

    Oh, that's not what Squad is about. But your complaint is that.... that's what Squad is about. That seems odd. You said "I prefer this too" and I interpreted that as meaning not the current state but what the "devs have said". If you mean the current state then we are on the same page.

    On 4/2/2018 at 9:33 AM, Peerun said:


    Basically, what you're trying to say is, that medics should get meth injectors to keep their squad immune from sway and let them sprint across the map, so you can hit people, right? Did I get that right? 

     

    No, what I'm trying to say is that we don't need changes to how the system already works just to suit bad players who can't aim. But I'm sure meth injectors wouldn't be something that you oppose.


  10. On 3/30/2018 at 5:25 AM, embecmom said:

    who are you?

     

    Someone who doesn't play Forum Warrior 10x more than I play Squad.

    On 3/30/2018 at 5:41 AM, embecmom said:

    If you want another fast paced DM then why not stick to CSGO or Battlefield or insurgency or many of the numerous versions of the same thing?

     

    Hmm... I know it's very hard to read, so I'll break it down for you: I specifically mentioned how this game is successful because it doesn't cater to the super fast arcade shooter fanbase. But there is another fanbase it doesn't cater to: terribad shooters who have molasses reflexes and want every fight to be 15 minutes of shooting at nothing. It's enough that literally anything other than 100% stamina results in large sight sway, but you baddies won't be happy until it's Revolutionary War Simulator and every fight consists of lines of soldiers firing wildly inaccurate shots at eachother until one group wins.


  11. 9 hours ago, embecmom said:

    it all depends on what type of game you want... if its DM mode then right now its fine, keep with the relatively small maps, loads of tickets and insta back into action.. but the devs have said they want slower gameplay with longer firefights and less meat grinder.

     

     

     

     

     

    Individual devs have said a lot of things and then backed off them when they realized how it would kill the game. This game is miles away from the "meat grinder" and "instant back into action" of most other mainstream FPS games, but it's actually decently popular because it doesn't go so far in the opposite direction that it becomes a boring. PR was at its best when it was in its infancy and it was basically Squad, only a vocal minority of bad shooters want to play a game where firefights consist of 15 minutes of shooting at nothing while they convince themselves that they're "suppressing". If this game is still too fast for you then it might be time to take up knitting.


  12. 8 hours ago, bilsantu said:

    As I have mentioned in the twitch chat yesterday during M vs F game, right now it's all about who reacts and dolphin dives faster then shoots towards critical body parts better which is really not what I would like to experience and see.

     

    Yeah, it's a real shame for the people with quicker reactions and better aim to win firefights. It's almost like having skill provides some sort of competitive advantage. How awful.


  13. On Fri May 19 2017 at 7:17 PM, FishMan said:

    Capture blocking is bad.

     

    No, teams who get captured blocked are bad. It's one squad, fight them with 2+ squads which you absolutely have in the area and push them off. Rush them also and force a stalemate. They're not doing anything you can't counter or replicate, you lose because they are a better team.


  14. 2 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

    I don't think it's a cheap tactic considering the 3:1 ratio.

     

    Yeah it definitely seems like some people lost some rounds while on some bad teams and they are salty instead of stepping back and looking at this objectively. There is nothing that gives rushers an inherent advantage. They can get a FOB up quick? You can get one quicker. If they rush and they hold you at that first flag, you are witnessing a superior team beating an inferior team fair and square. It's that simple.

     

    What's the point of finding effective strategies if we're just going to nerf everything and turn the game into a formulaic slog from A to B to C to D?


  15. 2 hours ago, Saurus said:

    Idea: let the disbanded squadmembers keep their kits until they die and give up, unless they join another squad (to not mess with a squads possible loadout).

     

    People would just find a way to abuse it and have a dozen HATs and LATs all running around. I imagine that's why you don't even get a basic rifleman kit when you leave a squad, they don't want people using it as a quick way to refill their ammo and grenades. Maybe with the new inventory system there will be ways to solve these issues.


  16. 23 hours ago, Peerun said:

    Well here's my rationale for it.
    Scenario A: You have a squad. Six of them don't have more than 5 hours in the game and only three have mics. SL leaves and the new SL is a micless player with 0.3 hours ingame and doesn't know or care how to give SL to someone else. Creating a new squad will be very inefficient in this scenario, because people will just stay in the old squad in ignorance. It usually stays like this until the end of the round. That squad goes totally awol.
    If the squad were disbanded you could easily make a new one and have them join it or leave the server and let other people in who would - not stay this limbo.

     

    I guess I have just seen different scenarios play out. Most people I see will give up SL very quickly if someone else steps up and most will quickly quit the squad if the SL isn't talking or dropping rallies. Most of the time they'll even look for an admin to get them kicked.

     

    I just don't want to lose my kit every time some guy pusses out midround and quits without saying anything.


  17. 1 hour ago, Tajin said:

     

    I'd normally agree but I've seen too many rounds that started with a very quick logi-rush to build an FOB on one of the very first enemy flags. That made it almost impossible for the opposing team to set foot on the map and even when they managed to take out that FOB, it usually slowed them down so much that the remaining round was completely unbalanced.

     

    If done quick enough, then it is really hard to counter and it makes the round rather boring (hence "broken").

     

    No, it's a perfectly valid strategy that your team should be using as well. And if an enemy squad can get to one of your first flags before you do and hold it against most of your team, your failure should have consequences.

×