Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TheRed

  1. Ranking System?

    I've generally been in the no rank camp, and am broadly still there. Anything that has the potential to make new players feel alienated or create an us vs noob vibe I am against, given how toxic some players are even they think they are something special. I'd consider supporting very well thought out implementations, but am happy without. Equally, competency badges are an idea; not proof of brilliance but an easy way to show investment has taken place in FT or Squad leading, commander role, AT etc - so there might at least be a way to see if someone *should* be familiar with it, at least.
  2. January 2019 Recap

    If you're not going to make any attempt to reasonably consider legitimate points made, and just say any point counter to what you say is rampant fanboyism, you're not really having a conversion or being rational. Just stating something is 'not an excuse' without bothering with the facts that clearly are at least relevant to considerations makes you look like someone without any objectivity or critical thinking ability whatsoever.
  3. January 2019 Recap

    The worst type of consumer? What a strange claim. I have not dismissed ant and all criticisms at all. I just try to maintain balance. I acknowledged in only my last post that it has felt little slow. I've made other comments on places. My opinion of the game is largely positive, so that's reflected in my views. It is you who seem to totally ignore all counter arguments or pointed out facts that aren't concordant with what seems to be a view without much balance. As one example, Sandstorm: I'm sure it may do some things better than Squad. Yet you'd have to be a fool to not take the difference in scopes, development processes, scales etc into account, at least. I'm not for a minute disputing Squad has some issues that might, from the outside, seem eminently improvable. But some of the criticisms levelled seem to be nothing but based on entirely subjective wants or obsessions over a personal issue, or without enough foundation to merit the weight of criticism. I really don't have much issue with the netcode or hitboxes, for example. Can I occasionally see a little issue? Very rarely, very minor. Yet some weirdos go on about it to an insane degree, all the while ignoring the technical difficulties huge maps with vehicles etc have with this compared to the examples so often given. It simply does render the criticisms of this nature to be pretty weak.
  4. January 2019 Recap

    Yes, Selecto. It'd be the end of the universe. I'd cry an infinite stream of tears.
  5. January 2019 Recap

    I can honestly understand feeling that it's been quite slow of late, yeah. I'd have liked to see maps out quicker, and maybe trials of new, less rushy modes. One heli maybe. But agreed with above; it's a relatively small team doing this for the first time. I'm fairly sure they'd privately admit they've messed things up along the way internally at times and had to do more work to regain than had they done this before. Just supposition, but it's this kind of thing that isn't seen that often slows things down. And there are many steps that we don't see and thus forget. Is not unfair to defend devs, or anyone, if criticism seems to have a legitimate defence. Yes, I see many frustrations, but I also think I see crap or petulance and call it where I see it, e.g. this idea that we were promised x y and z. I also focus on the fact that it's still the game I play most and if it stopped development tomorrow, I'd have had far more value than with most purchases ever. These things aren't sycophantic, unreasoning fanboy excuses for devs. They're entirely pertinent points if considering things in the round.
  6. Custom Heightmaps

  7. January 2019 Recap

    It's not being a fanboy to offer a reasoned critique of what you say. Yes, development can feel slow. Yes, some things that have been issue for a while remain. Yes, some of the target vision had not been fulfilled and may not be. But some of your complaints are boring but subjective. Plenty of people like Chora etc, for example. A lot of your issues have been discussed at length and answers given, but it seems you just haven't taken anything into account.
  8. January 2019 Recap

    I couldn't have stated this much more clearly. Mind you, facts seem not to scratch the surface of opinion far too much these days.
  9. January 2019 Recap

    The point, my learned friend, was to refute the idea that a change in direction of a crowdfunded project does not always represent dishonesty or a lack of integrity. You described the aims set out in the crowdfunding vision as "promises" - and my comments regarded loaded terms such as this; suggesting that there were promises - ie guarantees - is disingenuous and unhelpful. I can undersand disappointment at divergence from your own personal ideal, but to lose perspective or decorum over something like this is pretty pointless and unwarranted. Crowdfunding is inherently a risk. There are no guarantees that the final product meets all the aims or the vision of either the developers or the backers, and this should be clear to anyone taking part in that.
  10. January 2019 Recap

    I get people's frustrations or whatever but I also don't get why you defend hostility. It's not constructive at all. Strength of feeling can be expressed without. Also, crowfunding is generally NOT a contracted guarantee! You are buying in to support a vision, and part of that, if you are a grown up, is the acceptance that the vision may change for all sorts of reasons, from technical to, yes, straight up changes of creative direction. That is genuinely life in crowndfunding; getting pissy doesn't change the fact or excuse it. Go read the crowdfunding documentation and define what a pitch is as opposed to a finished commercial product. If you buy the latter and it doesn't have what it says it does have within, you have rights with that and have been diddled. If you supported the creation of an idea, but didn't pay for the guaranteed status of a final product - yes, it can feel unfortunate, by by rights you have no issue to kick off. It's in the print. I know people these days are so entitled that they somehow think that things like facts can be discarded in favour of their own priorities or sensitivities, but it's the real world and it isn't like that. There are plenty of threads about the air issue and comments from devs et al on the reasons for and thinking behind the progressions. Coming on for a cathartic moan might make you feel better, but it doesn't help, and you don't have an automatic right to the game you wanted.
  11. January 2019 Recap

    Once again, pointless hostility. No has has told you that you don't know what you're talking about - why have such an attitude to frame your arguments? I am well aware some solutions have been mooted in terms of mape expansion etc., and while they didn't seem to have the way to make this look servicable at the start, I think they might have learnt that now. However, things like draw distance is a huge difference between Squad and PR, and for someone who apparently knows exactly what they're talking about where others don't, that's a pretty big deal in termsof implementation, balance, etc. It might be achievable, but it HAS been at least partially because of some technical limitations. As for your last point - you make a pretty compelling argument against it. The same group of 20 doing it all the time hardly sells it to anyone else were this true. Am I to ssume you were one of these people? You suggest the general community in PR couldn't effectively counter this group of wonderful flyboys, too - how exactly is that a selling point for including the same set up? Let a few enjoy it whilst the game suffers for the community at large? As it goes, I personally would advocate player controlled if possible and implemented with great care. I just understand why it isn't a priority and why it is problematic, and am also of the view that CAS as a commander asset will still be cool. Yet I wouldn't want the game developed in such a way that pleases a minority to the detriment of the wider experience; only a fool would - and I am by no means an advocate of the more arcade-seeking group here. To grind an axe over one thing you consider missing also seems to completely neglect a lot of the good work that's gone on, which hardly seems like an objective an reased response to the game.
  12. January 2019 Recap

    There were loads of reasons player controlled jets aren't about, some of them pretty good technical reasons. One day, maybe, but it's not as easy to make work in this engine are the wanted quality. Not every change of plans is a cynical deliberate broken promise.
  13. We need more maps!

    So you didn't bother to read my post that directly addressed this, then.
  14. We need more maps!

    Wanting to make friends or not, making no attempts to even consider how others perceive you is rarely something that has a positive effect in any situation. It's simple courtesy, maturity and social skills. It may not concern you, but there's no reason to be rude to others or to present an idea in an offensive way when it could be made more profoundly and convincingly with an alternative approach. You undermine your point, valid or otherwise, by immediately appearing like someone whose opinion is not likely to be well-considered. Your choice, though. As for porting maps, I will address this: it is, as usual, not so simple. First, the designs, artefacts etc. associated with each are subject to some form of intellectual or otherwise legal considerations, regardless of whether it was a commercial project. Even if they weren't, it would be good practise and fundamentally advisable to ensure permissions etc. exist, and where they do, profiting from something that was designed by someone who will now not profit? Well, it all gets a bit dodgy. Further to this, the engine is so different that the 'port' process would in fact necessitate a complete rework, from modelling to texture work to the finer granularity of terrain etc. It's a huge undertaking, particularly when trying to increase fidelity to modern standards, and most would indeed expect this. The maps are also fundamentally different in PR given considerations such as the draw distance / fog differences, as well as the large size possible in later generation maps. That still isn't on the table in Squad at present - and it means that maps simply wouldn't play the same, thus needing more work to maintain a feel or playstyle or whatever else make the map 'popular for a reason' - and in doing so, the original map may have to be changed somewhat beyond recognition. In the latter case, it's clearly advisable to simply use some of the best PR maps as an influence rather than a direct parent.
  15. We need more maps!

    Think what you want. You could very clearly have said what you did in a far more reasonable and polite manner, and seem to have mistaken denigrating the efforts of the devs for constructive solution finding. I'd imagine that making pointless personal insults isn't really helping; that seemed pretty needless and baseless.
  16. Al-Basrah Rework.

    Yeah, visuals rework generally as opposed to total do-over and perhaps a little more character to differing areas, with maybe some careful design tweaks and expansions = great
  17. Snipers

    Feel that's rather understanding an area that can be important for a lot of players who think with a strategic bent. Still, it's fine to play within reason how you want, of course. But I think we were talking about lone wolf shit etc really, so it seems you've agreed. I and many others want to play, even casually, an experience that can be a little tactical, a little cohesive... and only really object to players who actively harm the game everyone else wants to play.
  18. Al-Basrah Rework.

    Think they've already said Basra will get a pass some time.
  19. [WIP] BMPT "Terminator-2" Tank Support Vehicle Mod

  20. Stuttering Fix - V12

    It's available on Audible. Sign up free for a week trial now!
  21. Snipers

    I mean, basically, yes. With that caveat that I have no problem with people who aren't amazing playing kits. I don't subscribe to the noob or git gud things at all. But I do think people should attempt to play in a way that's positive, for the squad and for the team. Obviously having a great sniper is fantastic if you want to utilise them, but they shouldn't assume the role of proxy SL because they can see a lot, even if they're good. They should be a resource. Those automatically trying to be a sniper are fine, but for one thing, it shouldn't be their job to operate completely without any interest in what the SL wants or is trying to achieve, and for another, if the SL doesn't really want a sniper, that should be respected as well. At least there should be communication about this issue. Anyone can defend the right of players to do as they want, and yes, provided the server and everyone else lets them, fine - but I just believe the game is best played when everyone pays at least some heed to it being what the devs intended, as in, a cohesive, teamwork and comms oriented experience. It's a bigger discussion but the best communities exist where those within it understand the dynamic between a communal responsibility for their own and other's enjoyment.
  22. Snipers

    So it stands to reason that enabling this for many is probably not a priority!
  23. Fire-team Radios.

    Maybe have squad chat key as usual and a modifier with it for fireteams, e.g. v and the numpad numbers so that they're used for direct ft talk as well as direct sl talk or something.
  24. Snipers

    I'd say about 70% of players who automatically take marksman are a) idiots b) really bad generally c) don't play the class well or add much value to the squad at all
  25. Inventing the human caterpillar formation.