Jump to content

TinyTimm

Member
  • Content count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TinyTimm

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    North Carolina
  1. Squad lead, and squad comms

    As someone who could manage four different channels on ArmA simultaneously (two in one ear, two in the other) and still chat in local, I think we could immensely benefit from setting channels to respective ears in the controls. As it stands now, putting squad and platoon net (or inter-squad comms) on full blast in both my ears together really muddles crucial information. I am very, very good at selective hearing, a skill I have developed over many years of this kind of thing, but I can only employ it so well with how our radios operate currently. Putting Squad in my left, and Platoon in my right would make comms much more manageable. I am glad we are having a discussion on communication like this; mastering comms is a very valuable skill for a leader, especially in higher positions where you are coordinating more elements simultaneously. It has more use in ArmA, but here in Squad it is still quite important.
  2. Russian 30 mm too OP ?

    Yeah a lot of the guys he butchered were being dumbasses. Not really a case of OP-ness, as I could have done that with an MRAP and just buggered out when heavier armor showed up, just to pop up again later and continue the slaughter.
  3. Why you should always be recording

    Stories like this always enrage me. There's no good solution beyond joining a server you trust, and steering clear from poorly managed ones. Or, like you said, you can have your recording software ready to try to clear you name on their respective forums. I'd say that's if you genuinely enjoy the server and found it to be a lapse in judgement not indicative of malfeasance endemic of the server's administration. Servers run by assholes aren't worth my time in the end though, so if they're no good, I just move on.
  4. Is minecrafting ever effective?

    I think "minecrafting" (an apt name) would find a very cozy place in insurgency, or longer-winded AAS matches. As it stands, the pace of the game and the shorter engagement distances makes it rather challenging to FOB-up effectively. If battles moved slower, if heavy weapons could shut down sectors from longer ranges, and if there was more time in a given match to resupply and build up, I'd say one per match would be a given necessity rather than the hindrance people rightly see them as now. I love big FOBs. I love lots of toys, direct resupply, and big battles against fortresses. Sadly, Squad's pacing and overall design is currently not a good fit. That's just my experience though. I'm not advocating for 3 hour matches across the board. Yes, I played A LOT of Project Reality, and loved super long matches, but I'm a working man now, and I don't have time for that every day. I want concise, enjoyable, engaging, and tactical fights just as much as I want in-depth, slow-burning, tense, strategic matches. I will say that when we get a map like Fallujah, or if/when Al Basrah gets expanded and becomes an insurgency layer, or if we get amphibious assaults against major powers from aircraft carriers with huge maps to fight over, defense in depth and strong forward bases will become common place. In essence, I love the cross between speed and strategy we're getting in Squad, I just want more options. Don't get rid of our ~1 hour long matches, just add layers of maps that are longer on top of the selection. If folks don't like long matches, they won't join servers with 'em, and it'll live or die in the court of public opinion.
  5. 10.1 out

    I'm preemptively imagining the debates that will go over whether this is an appropriate way to change the pace of infantry play. This is a good update from the stance of purest thought-provocation, however you might feel about it technically. I am personally very excited about stamina affecting walking speed, and I'm glad they got rid of canceling out sprinting with lower stamina; you have to play smarter, but it doesn't overly punish you if you need to get out of the open in a pinch. And the fixes are always welcome. No more Squad space program!...now if only they'd make it so you can't fall through the map when getting into a vehicle. The bunnyhopping shouldn't be a problem. You'd be out of stamina, you wouldn't be moving much at all, you'd have mega-sway when you came out of it, and you would practically be frozen by the time you came out of it with really low walking speed and no ability to sprint. If anything, it'll put you at a huge disadvantage. I find little difficulty in nailing jumping players myself.
  6. Oh God. FEAR THE CROWS. That thing's crazy good. The open tops are scary too. I mean, it's a .50 cal for goodness sake. That said, I've made a habit out of sniping the gunners out when they get in too close (and for bad teams? They always get in too close). Proper use = super deadly. Absolutely. I'm very tempted to try the "wolf pack" tactic mentioned earlier. A BTR would get wrecked by a well-coordinated attack involving two or three.
  7. Uh, I can't say I ever drew that conclusion about Squad. More-so an equivalent relationship. Realism = Balance = Gameplay. To put realism below those two is to utterly ignore the longing that birthed this style of game. Sacrifices are made for each one individually at the cost of the others, but realism is the heart and soul of the whole affair. It always has been so. Why else would Squad (and PR previously) have been conceived if it was treated as such a lesser element? That's how you get games like BF2, BF3, and so forth. Nothing against those games, but they treat realism as the least important aspect of their games while still being considered.
  8. Squad leaders with no idea what they're doing

    From my personal experience as someone who Squadleads all the time in an ArmA unit, and have been a leader all my adult life, I don't quite enjoy leadership in this game. I've seen good and bad in my time, but I have a fairly limited amount of hours in this game. Allow me to provide my perspective as a somewhat newer player with lots of background in milsim. It might shed some insight on the matter. Much of this bad squad leading, in my mind, is the commonly expressed problem of not having consistent team members. The unit I'm a member of has a substantial consistent playerbase, and in that, I meet with my team leaders constantly, and I chat with their lower enlisted all the time too. I know the men, their strengths and weaknesses, their competency levels, and I know who I can task to carry out different types of orders. In Squad, there's not that kind of cohesion. The same can be said for public ArmA missions for Pogoman's Insurgency, or Liberation as well, so it's not unique to Squad by any means. Not to mention ArmA's listless problems in PvP matches. So with this lack of cohesion, many squad members generally cannot provide true tactical reads: while they know enemies are likely to assault from a certain sector because that's what they've seen in previous matches, they're not really educated in the matter, and can often conflate their past experiences with the reality of the current battlefield. There doesn't seem to be a common authority for Squad that helps correct false assumptions. This is one of the more vague points to be sure, but I've observed it nonetheless. Speaking of sectors, rarely do my men watch them. They don't pull 360 when we conduct a short halt (even though I order it), they don't watch entrances of compounds when we occupy them often enough (I don't demand total diligence in the matter, only a constant glance back. That's enough for public experiences, and would only demand that from players in a dedicated community like the one I'm in), and they most certainly don't watch our rear as much as they should (which I order them to). This is all to be expected of course, but layered atop that is a necessary understanding for the maps and the game's mechanical nuances. I have to act against intuition: FOBing up atop a point is a cardinal sin in many contexts, even if you provide ample fortification. I can understand that problem, but I didn't know until I saw people get ripped to shreds for doing it; on paper, fortifying a contested point sounds like a reasonable idea, and it takes quite a lot of negativity from players to convince people otherwise. As I said, I know better now and agree it's not as viable as your senses may initially say, but I was lucky enough to not be the recipient of someone's anger in order to learn it. Such matters made me uncomfortable with leadership in the game. I began to wonder just how many mechanics I was missing out on, or how some gamey decision might win me the vitriol of other players. I'm a resilient individual, and can weather negativity, but that doesn't mean I enjoy it, nor does it mean I'll subject myself to it for the purposes of a game. Now, I've subsequently gained the confidence to lead and am doing it more as I educate myself thoroughly so I might lead properly. Yet I hope my experience can shed some light on the "bad Squad leaders" conundrum. There are people who have no tactical sense, and they need to be built from the ground up as leaders in a way that public experiences can't provide easily. Yet people like me with real milsim backgrounds and strong leadership potential need a truely earnest, instructional guide that presents the game as what it is: a compromise between realism and gameplay. Karmakut's videos don't really do this, as it's more of the realism than anything else. I know how to move across open terrain, or how to avoid it entirely, but I don't quite know the nuances of FOB building, or the particular damage model for the Strykers. While I have lurked the forums for months, what was truly enlightening was seeing these lessons play out for myself in game, and that can be a very bad experience when you do something that's considered a huge mistake by other players. Needless to say, it unnecessarily deterred my engagement in the game, and it took me a while to come around from it and try again.
  9. Any specific small arms you'd love to see?

    Perhaps it was mentioned in the other firearms thread, but I'd love to see the M1 and M2 Carbines make an appearance. We made millions of the damn things, and they got spread around to be sure. Whose hands they'd end up in is anyone's guess, but I think the Insurgents and Militia could feasibly have access to it. Goes with the whole WWII motif people are hitting on with the factions. I'm not convinced the STG-44 should be included; my understanding is that those firearms are quite rare in today's world, and while some isolated cases show insurgents/militiamen carrying them in real life, that's not proof enough to grant them access. Same thing with the P-90 one of those insurgents had, but even then, the P-90 is more accessible than the STG-44. Also, what's the point in grabbing an STG-44 when AK's are so prevalent and cheap? It just doesn't add up to me. I'd affirm the assertion for CZ rifles to be available to the militia. I'm no authority on the matter, but it seems logical to have them given it's a Warsaw Pact design that got circulated after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, what with the whole emergent black market for surplus arms during that time. I'm not sure where the M1 Garand comes into play here: that gun didn't get around quite as much as the M1/M2 Carbine did to my understand, especially with .30-06. If they did, I don't think it'd be insurgents or the militia that you'd see it from. I think the FN-FAL and M14 would make more sense for another high-powered rifle addition in the same vain as the G3.
  10. Mortar Squads & Teamplay

    I totally agree with the high building cost, and I totally disagree with the two per team limitation. The former necessitates and rewards smart FOB placement and logistics, and the latter kills creativity and diminishes the dynamics of tactics that Squad is trying to achieve. Mortars are powerful as a suppression and killing device. They deny sectors to approach from and multiply force applied on an objective. They facilitate better game pacing, forcing infantry and motorized pushes to slow down to take cover, or speed up to get out of the zero'd position (even Mechanized assets aren't entirely safe). Make them more coveted by their cost, and it'll demand intelligent use of the weapon's system. Clearly we see the destructive potential already when used properly, as well as the potential waste when rounds are lobbed carelessly at nothing (or at friendlies, which is a worst case scenario that happens all too often on contested points). They cost enough ammo as is, and squads can choose between target saturation, or a lighter, yet constant barrage. In other words: it fits and enhances dynamic gameplay, with proper risk vs reward styles. Simply put though, they're just too accessible at this time. They should be used sparingly given their logistical cost, and it heavily taxes a team when there are tons of mortars all over the map. It's also unnecessary: targets dry up in a mortar heavy team, all the while compromising a team's offensive capacity for no gain. Maybe 1,000 to 1,500 construction points would be too costly? Maybe the power of those weapons isn't quite up to par with the cost in the grand scheme of things. I think it's worth the good college try to test it though. As for the 2 per team limit, it's been very well expressed by other folks here: big maps would be hit hard by that kind of arbitrary limitation, and would make for less flexibility in mortar deployment. There's no point in that kind of limitation when their mitigated presence can be achieved in less heavy handed and more reasonable/immersive ways.
  11. Damage drop-off...?

    Long-time lurker here that finally stopped being so lazy. This provides some valuable insight into the system. Thanks for sharing it. I personally love data analysis (double giggidy), and the inconsistencies are patent as you've pointed out. I'm a touch concerned by the contradictory data here, considering it doesn't set a very positive precedent for the logical balancing of firearms in this game. As you said though, it's all got plenty of room for improvement, and I think the consensus is that it will be improved upon when time is made available. For instance, I'd much rather have the new animation system than have someone grind out the nuances of firearms ballistics. That takes a lot of time, and isn't fully appreciated by the community (ArmA 3 is a great example of a lot of effort without much love). I would of course love to hear from the Squad devs about this to see their intentions first hand. While I totally understand the need for prioritizing aspects of the game, I'm also of the opinion that if you're going to do something, you should do it right, so this ought not be neglected forever.
×