Jump to content

CptDirty

Member
  • Content count

    643
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CptDirty

  1. orr fix the bug so it becomes less annoying but still cool for others to appreciate the "scene-setting"
  2. There's a noticeable delay when playing a medic and healing people between the mouse click (to heal) and the actual animation / reaction of my player's hands healing friendlies. Has anyone else noticed it?
  3. Opinion on vaulting

    I agree with @Heinz. V10 vaulting makes the players superhuman being able to vault over these walls/fences too easily with no significant drop in stamina. It's hard enough to run an obstacle course in shorts let alone full military gear + weapon...
  4. Squad Leader squad creation locks

    I just don't think auto-kicking the rest of the squad out is the right thing to do. Someone already suggested something along the lines of barring the offender (person created squad then left) from creating another squad for an X-amount of time....
  5. Squad Leader squad creation locks

    This shouldn't be a thing after the match has started... I sometimes switch roles from SL to another kit (support role available when we're defending a cap) because It's faster to react to the situation in this way than it is to ask for someone else to change their role...
  6. PR people seem less inclined to work for a common compromise to appeal to a broader audience (myself included). I'm getting the feeling that they want to remain in their own segregated community pushing everyone else away. The general consensus is that current state of Squad does not represent that of what PR is in regards to features, mechanics, etc...Examples of this can be seen all over the forums... I'm not the type to stop playing just because they change things. I can adapt. I just wish other would too for the sake of good enough compromise that will appeal to everyone that is all.
  7. I like it though. Especially, like you said, in regards to HAB placement. First thing that comes to mind is trying to place a HAB in a building on Basrah for example and ensuring exists of HAB are all usable. If this is implemented and the HAB is half way built only using half of the construction points then only half of those construction points would be lost if the HAB needs to be repositioned. So yeah I like it why not
  8. hmmm, is there a possibility of exploit with this?
  9. @Gnalvl I'm under the impression you must be comparing Regular mode & HC mode to that of past games like BF or RO2 or whatever else have you. Don't. Squad devs are capable of providing an equally challenging Regular mode to what squad is right now (V10) by not changing anything. So to put it in even simpler terms -> The regular mode would be what Squad is right now right now....right now....go into the game and that's your "regular mode"....V10....get it? HC mode on the other hand would cater to those who wants disabled RP's, even slower pace, removal of HUD, tweaks to respawning mechanics....etc...
  10. That's fine, everyone has their own opinion and I respect that. I still think adding a HC mode would not split the community. There seems to be this "veteran" status given to PR players and rightfully so but just looking at some of the threads opened on the forums it looks like some PR players currently on squad are doing just that (splitting the community):
  11. 1. We are all earning from the game's success. It seems logical that the devs are paid money to work full time on the on-going development of the game. If there's no more support due to lack of funds then we all lose. No one will be paid to listen to our cries. 2. Just because you're from a part of the world with a smaller community (you didn't specify) doesn't seem fair to completely disregard the majority of players, by a large margin, who are from north america and UK/Europe. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here... 3. I'm not going to respond to that. lol smh... 4. Who said anything about "toning down the gaming experience to appeal to casuals"? You misread what I wrote. By adding a hardcore mode, as opposed to making the entire game more hardcore, you're giving options to players as opposed to taking options away. Would it bother you that much seeing regular mode servers listed on the browser next to your favorite hardcore ones? Just don't play on regular mode server lol it's that simple... As a noted FYI: I will happily play on regular mode with "casuals". At least I won't have to listen to a know-it-all (not you @Vegetal I'm referring to a type of squad player we often see) tacticool top dog super competitive 2000 hours in game 5-star general screaming at me and other SL's because we're trying to play the game TO HAVE FUN and win our way instead of his.....Let those people play in hardcore server away from me and the casuals. I have little time to play nowadays and being able to hop into a game or two shouldn't be a chore and I shouldn't sacrifice my time playing this game for the sake of others who only want to be professional E-sport competitive hardcore mode...... We should all be able to enjoy squad.....you have your side of the court and I'll be on mine....
  12. Well because generally speaking, for a good product or service to work you want to make it in such way that it is inclusive and appeals to a broader audience. At it's current form (V10) it is more tactical-centric than other games but not quite as difficult of a learning curve as ARMA III. It is sitting right in between exactly how the devs want it. By adding a hardcore mode as opposed to making the entire game more hardcore you're opening the door for a larger demographic that could pick up the game ($$$) to play in what is now regular mode V10 and could shape their mind to try out the hardcore mode that everyone here is apparently a fan of without even knowing what it entails, just theories and suggestions. Once players are properly introduced and acclimated in regular mode they may choose to step it up in the hardcore mode where all the tacticool pew pew top dogs will be mostly playing on. Regular mode + Hardcore mode: More people coming in (+$$$). Only Hardcore mode: Less people coming in (-$$$). I highly doubt players will purposefully not play hardcore if it's optional and not mandatory....anyone that throws a tantrum at the devs for adding a hardcore mode as opposed to making the entire game hardcore is honestly childish. I'm sorry...
  13. Overall immersion

    Gore body parts? There will be NO! gore added into this game but when modding becomes available fill free to get creative, join the discussion --> 'Here' I also believe destruction was discussed already and you're right it all ties into engine limitations.
  14. A hardcore mode will be interesting indeed. It will also give the devs some feedback as to which implementation is better suited for regular mode VS hardcore. Additionally it will create a contrast between players who just want to have fun and not necessarily role play to a T (regular mode) vs those who might want to step it up a notch and play the game to it's full tactical and competitive potential (hardcore). This suggestion might also help alleviate some of the stress new players are subjugated to by the more experienced players sometimes...
  15. Will Squad introduce airstrikes?

    Well balancing is very important in my opinion. But like I said, the developers can choose which vehicles are available to which faction on any given map. On a map layer that has 2 Conventional force fighting each other are both going to get aircraft and MBT. On a map layer that has 1 Conventional force fighting an Unconventional force, neither will get aircraft or MBT.
  16. Will Squad introduce airstrikes?

    By regular you mean Conventional forces right? Such as U.S. Army, RUSSIAN Army and soon the British Forces? The devs can also choose which vehicles are available on which map/layer. So on Al Basrah (U.S. VS INS) there won't be any aircraft or MBT available to the U.S. but on Fool's Road (U.S. VS RUSSIAN) they can for both Conventional forces.
  17. Total War | Chicago

    I had to watch it in full screen to get what you were trying to post...lol oh well @♠DEG♠ I'm fast like that
  18. ZODIAC / RHIB BOATS ?

    I am 100% down for RHIB or even better amphibious beach landings from aircraft carriers....YAAASSS
  19. Please Fix the visibility.

    sigh...
  20. Please Fix the visibility.

    Dude you're giving off major vibes of dissatisfaction, to say the least, in regards to spotting. I agree with @Guan_Yu007 that it needs to be improved but only slightly. Having to rely on your squad to move together and work together is much more rewarding then a possible situation that can arise from a major buff, such as what you're suggesting here, where we'll see more lone wolves because they'll then be able to spot and engage without the help and support from their team mates. The more emphasis on squad movements to accomplish goals the better off the results. Stay close to your squad, communicate and engage targets that others have spotted and have fun. Also, suppression is a thing.
  21. Please Fix the visibility.

    So let's throw our hands up in the air and dub Squad as being an inaccurate representation of real life only because you're not happy with how hard it is to spot enemies at further distances while not zoomed in. Let's completely disregard: - Magic Team Spawn (HAB). - Magic Squad Spawn (Rally). - Ineffective Mortars damage model. You can literally walk though a field being pounded and survive... - Not to mention playing with your monitor and audio settings to better bring out Gamma and better audio discrimination of effects. - SLOW ASS RELOADING. - Supplies being magically dropped to a FOB with a press of a mouse button rather than carrying those materials by hand or crane... - NOT BEING ABLE TO SWIM? Come on man
  22. Please Fix the visibility.

    @Hvolute I understand your frustration but I'm under the impression that you're too focused (pun intended) on the spotting mechanic rather than the overall gameplay as a whole. I agree that spotting an enemy at 500m-1000m and consequently engaging it at those distances may be more feasible in real life as opposed to the way it's implemented in the game currently. Especially when it comes to figuring the location of an enemy marksman that has his crosshairs on you but that's where the other roles in your squad come in handy. Your Squad Leader has binoculars, your marksman squad mate has his own long range rifle and optic to engage those targets you can't necessarily see with your Iron Sights / Red Dot. As much as you're fired up about this subject just try to take a step back and look at the beauty of what OWI has done so far and accept the fact that some roles are better suited for medium/long range engagements than others. Contrary to your personal convictions on this matter, it does boil down to balance and is very much relevant. That being said I'm curious to know what the devs have to say about this issue. Are they content with the current spotting mechanics?
  23. Please Fix the visibility.

    I have mixed feelings about your statement. I do agree that roles limited to Iron Sight are less effective at medium/long range engagements which is why there are other roles equipped with optics that can be substituted in for. This forces the squad to work together as each role has their pros/cons and some are better suited for these long range engagements than others. At the end of the day it all boils down to balance so a compromise has to be made somewhere to allow for a greater cooperative team play between players. If a player with Iron Sight can accurately engage at 1000m then why do we have marksmen and ACOG sights? I have advocated in the past (among many others) to add an optional red dot for the roles with Iron Sight across most if not all factions. I understand it wouldn't necessarily correct the vision problem you brought up but we can all agree that it would help a whole lot. All in all I agree that Iron Sights should be a bit more effective at long range engagements but considering it's technically still in Alpha the devs might come around and change the view distance issue who knows.
  24. nahh it's WWII....that was like....80 years ago....I prefer modern stuff
×