Jump to content

tatzhit

Member
  • Content count

    241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by tatzhit


  1. 45 minutes ago, maze2 said:

    1. "Most players "? Listen mate , Squad isn't here to appeal "most players" it's a specific community. The fact that Squad is commercial and u found it on Steam will not make it arcady or faster paced to appeal casuals because that would completely ruin the game and the community. Then everybody would start complaining : " Omg is so boring i get shot and gotta bandage or i die and i have to walk so much .

     

    2. Check Proyect reality  to understand what Squad is gonna head to ( i hope)

     

    3. Why would u  suggest not using vehicles for the people that like slow gameplay. Just because i like slow gameplay doesn't mean i don't like btrs, techies, mraps etc. 

     

     

     

    How big is that community? Less than 500 people? Then you each have to pay the devs at least $1000 to fund the development of Squad for your tastes, or Squad would have to be a game that a reasonably large portion of gamers can enjoy.

     

    We already have games with no instant respawns, large maps and slow gameplay, i.e. ARMA series. There is a reason ARMA multiplayer is relatively unpopular


  2. 21 hours ago, Gaius Marius said:

    The problem with the pace of Squad is the endless wave of spawns from Rally Points and FOBs. The current state of Squad is an endless meatgrinder, it's essentially a WW1 simulator. Rally Points ensure the continuous wave of attackers and FOBs ensure the continuous supply of defenders. You all know how a match plays out, you never lose a firefight, but instead you end up in a never ending meatgrinder that can last as long as the entire match.

    The solution would be to have spawns cost Ammunition Points. If a FOB runs out of Ammunition Points, people can't spawn on it. This would place an emphasis on the logistics, making tactics such as encirclement and Logi hunting an integral part of how the game plays out.

    To tie Rally Points to the Ammunition Points, have the Squad Leader be able to only carry one Rally Point at a time. Squad Leaders should be able to resupply their rally points at a FOB, but it would cost Ammunition Points.

    The ability to carry supplies should be extended to most vehicles, but limit the amount for certain types of vehicles, like shown in this graphic from the kickstarter campaign. It should be possible to replenish ammunition directly from the vehicles.

    groundvehicletypes.jpg

    I think this kind of change would improve Squad tenfold.

     

    First decent idea in this thread. I like it, but like everything suggested here, it would completely screw the Regulars vs Irregulars faction balance.

     

    PS. As for the people who want "slower gameplay" - just make your own server and don't use vehicles or rallies, then have fun walking from Main every time you get shot. Don't make everyone else suffer through the same tho, most players don't enjoy it.


  3. Well yeah. That's why DShK damages a Stryker for example, or why .50 can kill at BTR82 from the front. Game balance >> "realism".

     

    I'm not sure what you had in mind for regular vs regular forces, I assume heavy armor, advanced optics, air power and arty strikes. I'm gonna guess there are two reasons these are not included:
    - Aforementioned issues with balance vs irregulars

    - A lot of the cool toys being too rare/valuable to realistically be present in a squad-level skirmish

     

    I like it that way tbh. No desire to play a poorly modeled sitzkrieg / techno gimmick standoff, instead of a fun shooter


  4. Hmm... What kind of monitor/settings do you use? Those targets seem vastly more clear than they are on my 1980*1280 monitor with 90 degree FOV. Do you use like 60 degree FOV or something? This may explain why you think shooting is too easy and everyone else thinks its too hard


  5. 19 minutes ago, Gnalvl said:

    The gameplay > realism assertion only works when you successfully argue how the realism would hurt gameplay. Pulling an arbitrary exaggerated number of extra tickets out of your ass doesn't prove anything, and turns "gameplay > realism" into a strawman.

     

    I'm arguing that giving US realistic equipment advantages without realistic constraints is... wait for it... unrealistic.

     

    Yeah IRL US soldiers are equipped 10x better than an average insurgent. Their lives are also worth 100x more.

     

    In Squad, their lives are worth about 1.1x that of an average insurgent, so to maintain parity, we either have to decrease US equipment capabilities (such as no airstrikes, no body armor, and slightly lower damage for M110), or cut their tickets tenfold. Capisce?


  6. If we want "realistic simulation", M110 should do the same damage as SVD, US forces should get body armor, also every insurgent should get unlimited IEDs and mines and each American death would cost them 25 tickets

     

    Gameplay >> "realism"


  7. I agree from a realism standpoint, but not gameplay standpoint.

    Yes IRL you can see things better and even engage them more accurately.
     

    HOWEVER, we DON'T WANT realistic gameplay in Squad (as in, walking for hours to get sniped from 800m away). The Arma series has that already and there is a reason most people can't be bothered to suffer through it. I'm cool with the current, roughly halved sight/engagement ranges in order to get actually fun gameplay. Otherwise, what you get is roughly tripling the walking time and making the asymmetric maps (regular vs irregular factions) largely unplayable.

     

    EDIT: For clarity


  8. Lolnope. At least at 1980*1280, I can't reliably hit at 300m without optics even at shooting range. Ingame, kills past 200m are maybe 5% of casualties on most maps.

    The accuracy ingame is actually much lower than IRL, Marines are supposed to hit targets at 500m for basic rifle quals.

     

    PS. As for AKM vs M4, AKM has 30% more recoil and 30% less ROF, it's basically twice worse even point blank. At long range, M4 is 3x-4x better because lower damage falloff and better sights.
    AK74s and M4s are basically equal now, because basic M4 no longer has fullauto


  9. I guess this hasn't been reported before... SPG-9 emplacements are bugged in V10. I think it's not just for me - teammates reported problems too. Basically, the emplacements can be built, but the gun tube glitches in and out of view for an external observer, and the user can't see the gun tube at all (and hence can't aim).

     

    PS. Also, plz need range adjustments for emplacements. It's kind of silly that we can range personal weapons but can't range crew-served and some optics, whereas IRL ranging is obviously used a lot more on optics and heavy weapons.

     

    PPS. Also, the reason why the SPG bug probably hasn't been reported is that hardly anyone uses them. Frag rounds are good but the cost is ridiculous (50 ammo for 1 frag round? I can get 50 frag rounds for the ZU for the same 50 ammo, and four LAT rounds only cost 75). Plus the firing arc is very narrow. I get that it's probably the IRL limitation of the mount but IRL you can just rotate the whole thing, or install it tilted.


  10. 13 hours ago, Psyrus said:

    ZU series would be anti-helicopter anyway. There would need to be shoulder-mounted AA (MANPADS ) and AA emplacements for FOBS:) 

    MANPADs only reach to 9000 feet or so, jets almost never fly that low (especially if they expect any AA).

    Yeah we could build Buk and S-300 emplacements at FOBs, but come on. It's more realistic to have a full insurgent tank regiment ingame than one of those. After all, Nusra and ISIS employed dozens of tanks, but AFAIK no working heavy AA.


  11. Chest shots are actually a minority of hits, feels like 30% maybe? So the damage difference is far less dramatic than stated here. On the other hand, better scope and larger mags actually make the M110 a far better weapon.

     

    As for IRL performance of rounds, yeah the sniper loads of 7.62*54R and 7.62*51 are basically the same, but game balance has to be observed. If you want to talk IRL balance, then every insurgent player should be Scout class, there should be civilian NPCs in every building, and every KIA American should be worth 20 tickets.

    5 hours ago, Good-Try Greg said:

     

    Yeah I know, I mean that foliage doesn't affect bullet flight as far as I know. Also bullets penetrate less cover than IRL (rifle-caliber military rounds are rated to penetrate something like 2 feet of brick, ingame they only go through plank fences and the like).


  12. 55 minutes ago, LaughingJack said:

    indeed. we now have the AA-gun to shoot with - we just need to be able to see the aircraft, to shoot it down.

    ...

     

    Lolnope. ZU-23 without a sight or any sort of early warning system, hitting a jet? One in a million chance.

    And US air would probably operate above its reach, anyway.


  13. Proper INS gameplay would be this:

    1. Every INS player is Scout Class

    2. Every building on the map has multiple Civilian NPCs in it, which US forces lose tickets for killing (less political will to send reinforcements)

     

    Then we can have airstrikes )


  14. On 2/11/2018 at 12:15 AM, maze2 said:

     I barely see dedicated logi squad, mortars, or apc squads.

     

    1. Thank G-d most people finally figured out that mortar bases are worse than useless (unless the enemy are dumb enough to build a HAB in the open)


    2. Dedicated logi squads are rare because you don't usually need that much supply. HAB, ammo boxes, some emplacements - that's it. Some SLs like building pillow forts but a single Grenadier can easily despawn them, and anyways now they can be vaulted over. Mostly, heavy fortifications just end up bunching your team up for the enemy to farm tickets.

    3. APC squads can be very good but the team can need the transport. But overall yeah, this is something we can agree on - a properly run group of APCs can be very powerful. I'm afraid the introduction of crewman kits will actually limit APC squads, since one squad won't be able to grab 4 armored vehicles and operate them together.


  15. 13 hours ago, Slottin'Floppies said:

    Well yea they're better... it's the US military lol. I think it would be really interesting if they realistically outfitted the Army weapons in-game. It would force the insurgents to utilize more of a guerrilla warfare style of gameplay.

    Well US just got the optics LMG, which is by far the best individual weapon ingame, additional M249, plus better optics and more nades for Grenadier. Insurgents are more or less shafted already, it's just map design that's keeping them afloat at this point.

    Even so, irregulars lose most maps vs US now (the relatively open ones). The closed ones like Basrah and Sumari used to be slightly in favor of INS/MIL, now US seems to have an advantage.


  16. ^ Then need Gary so the Insurgents would have some ability to punish US for FOB digging.

     

    IIRC insurgents in Syria used thousands of VBIEDs over the past few years, usually car/truck sized. I think the combined total weight of explosives used in VBIEDs in Syria is at this point several times more than the power of Hiroshima bomb. I get that the devs don't wanna make the game into ISIS simulator, but... well.. I think that bridge was kinda crossed when Insurgents faction was added. Minor gameplay mechanics won't change things one way or another.


  17. Heavier round doesn't necessarily do much more damage, because it's not designed to tumble when hitting tissue like 5.56 or 5.45 are.
    So the OP is incorrect from real-life perspective (as well as from game balance one).

    PS. However, 7.62 penetrates cover a lot better, because the lighter tumbling rounds obviously tumble when hitting a twig. That's not fully represented ingame I don't think, you can still spray through undergrowth and hit someone.

×