Jump to content

Lightly_Salted

Member
  • Content count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lightly_Salted

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader
  1. Squad trailers .

    I can kinda see where your coming from. Squad, imho, has some of the best trailers I have seen, especially for a gameplay trailer. And the music is absolutely perfect. But I think they're idea might be to attract new players to build the playerbase - Some players will come expecting a new Battlefield, and some might leave once they realise it's not what they like, however, some might also stay realising that this game is actually quite fun and something different. Then, there will be people who watch the trailers, get intrigued, then read up on the game or watch videos on it, and then will they make their decision. And finally, there are the players who are looking for a semi-realistic tactical, team based FPS game, they will find Squad but due to it being such a niche market, will most likely look more into it. Chances are, they will come to buy it and enjoy it. Squad needs to build a playerbase to secure a future. Otherwise, it'll get to a stage in development where things started slowing down because people really aren't attracted to a game, without playing it, and don't want to fork out £30 for it. In turn, Squad makes amazing trailers to attract interest (The whole point of a trailer in the first place), and then people can decide themselves whether they want to buy something they 'like the look of' (Not advised...), or do some research and be smart about it. Always gotta look at the wider picture.
  2. THANK YOU DEVS

    I'm starting to think people took my post the wrong way. I asked for your best game ever kills wise because I wanted to see who racked up the most kills in a match and how they went about it, you know, getting people to share their gameplay experiences? I asked for kills because they're not as easy to get in this game as any other, so the higher number generally means there was a hell of a match behind it. However, I stated for other "best game" scenarios, I wasn't aiming only at kills, I just listed kills as the situations where that number goes up tend to be intense firefights or amazing coordination/communication. You realise the person with the most kills could've been on comms to a spotter? That spotter would've done bugger all kills-wise, but it would still make for a good game right? There's always a reason for a high kill count, and it's not always some "newcomer-battlefield-flickshotter" out-leaning people and taking on 3 squads and a HAB all by himself. (Which is generally never going to happen unless the opposing team doesn't know what a mic is). I understand that gun-play may be more newcomer friendly, but if it wasn't Squad wouldn't have the player-base it has now. People would get frustrated or bored. There is a lot to this game already, having a few people preferring kills is okay, and if their squad lead allows for it then so be it, if not i'm sure they'll say. I've had plenty of times where SL has requested me to swap from, say, the marksmen role at the start of a match because it's unnecessary and we need more utility, either as a medic or LAT etc. Then, later on in the game they request for me to switch back as they're caught in a situation and they need more covering fire, or for targets to be picked off as they approach an objective. My point is; It exists, sure. But it is massively over-exaggerated. It has helped the game move-along in terms of playerbase size, and gun-play is still a vital part of a game like this. In the end, if they made it so that you could only use semi-automatic as fully-automatic is more likely to kill you rather than the enemy due to recoil, it'd be more frustrating than it would be fun. And fun, is.. well... essential for survival. Oh, and I thought I'd add, I'd rather my post not be used as an example. It makes it look bad, and it makes me look bad. I'd rather not get focused down because people like refuse to look at the bigger picture. I'm finding it annoying now. EDIT; Just thought I'd add, in-case someone sees this as an easy "point-of-attack" for an argument. Yes, I know you didn't name my post or me, and I'm happy for criticism. But, let's be honest, most people here have enough braincells to use the search function so it wont be hard to find my post, so if you're wondering why I pointed myself out, here ya go. It wouldn't have been hard to find the thread anyway.
  3. The best game you've ever had - (Kills)

    Okay, no I get you. Apologies, I had judged your comment wrong. I do agree, it shouldn't be all kills, but like with a lot of games it is satisfying to have a lot of them, even if that should not be the focus of the game. Squad was made a lot more public than PR, and does not have as hardcore a playerbase than PR does. This means they have to atone to a wider audience, meaning cutting back on certain aspects and have kills as a slightly heavier influence compared to PR. But, alas, that's another discussion in itself.
  4. The best game you've ever had - (Kills)

    If you'd have read my post and not just assume the only reason I had a 'good game' was because of kills, then maybe you'd be a little less negative. It wasn't just my K/D ratio that made it a good game, hell I could've come out of the match with half of that and still say it was my best game. It was the fact that we had such a well coordinated squad, who were in good communications with the other squads on the team. We were holding two points, both defending and attacking at different times, allowing others squads (And our own) to push in a take it. It was the fact that I could see my work save so many of my squad mates and team mates as I drop enemies who are about to round the corner at them while they aren't paying attention. It's the sheer amount of information I was able to pull from what I could see, in turn relaying that on to my SL, making a world of difference, allowing him to plan different routes and tactics to scan/clear certain areas. It was just nice to see a high number on the scoreboard, it just confirms to me that the work I, and my squad mates put in, made a difference. Don't assume.
  5. Well, I've just come out of a match playing and will quite easily say, it was one of the best rounds I've ever played, simply because of the amount of people I dropped defending two separate flags. It was as Militia, and I hadn't played as Militia in a long while; back before v10 I thought they were horrible to play, I hated the AKs and pretty much every other weapon apart from the un-modded M4 and the SVD. But, today, I decided to not 'be one of those people' and stay as Militia, I didn't feel like playing with M4s today. And it was a bloody good idea, they are so much better than I remember. The AKs are clean and easy to use, the optics I feel are actually very good, the new ranged optic for one of the rifleman kits is fantastic for headshots, ranging and follow-up shots because of the excellent sight picture it provides. This was all achieved mainly on one hill over looking Lower DC and Lower Central DC as we were defending/attacking. There were swarms of enemies, I got knocked off the hill a few times, I flanked it and wiped a squad from it the first time. 46 incapacitations and 39 kills, easily tops my record; I'm immensely disappointed I didn't record it, I don't have shadow play on, but I might just turn it on for the sake of maybe getting another match like this. My question to you is; What is the best match you've ever played? What is you're highest kill count? Did you achieve it in a vehicle or as infantry? Go ahead, gives us some stories to tell! I'd like to hear how you hit the highest mark of your own personal scoreboard.
  6. Well, I feel like it's confirmed for the future of Squad that there will be 'heavier armour' involved. And personally, I cannot bloody wait. Having a relatively realistic, modern military tactical FPS, with excellent graphics and aesthetics, and then being able to crew an MBT? I can already feel tear coming from my eye the moment I see a 120mm cannon fire and kick up huge dust clouds... and the sounds... Enough of the orgasmic thoughts. Onto my question; The one thing I think will ruin it for me, personally, is if they do not add tank interiors. I feel the role of a tank wont be firing the cannon at every possible moment, gunning it at high speeds and always being engaged in combat. I feel there will be periods of scouting and waiting for the right moment, or the right targets, if OWI play their cards right. I don't feel like this will be very immersive if we're constantly sat staring through a computer screen, it would be great if we could zone out for a second to take a look around the interior of the vehicle. And maybe, possibly, turn out of the vehicle too if we were a driver or commander? (The gunner can't turn out, and I doubt we will have a role for a loader as that will just be dreadfully boring ) So, as stated, will we get tank interiors? To give us something pleasing to look at, to give us the immersion we need and want when driving a 60+ tonne vehicle around a dusty battlefield eradicating targets with unnatural force. I mean, this is all based on a big 'IF', being if they add MBTs in the future in the first place.
  7. Mmmmm... Big guns!

    First video i've edited and recorded and put up on YouTube. I mean, I don't think it's bad... has a load of action in it, and i've edited it down from 40 mins of gameplay to 20, so it's all nice and easy to find in the video, enjoy! https://youtu.be/FanI5QTvubE
  8. I'm in the midst of sorting some performance issues out with my own PC, will be going through the trouble of reinstalling windows etc etc but that's another story. While I was thinking about that, I wanted to ask, who out there plays this game on high/ultra (or close to)? as well as maybe increased scaling? And what are your specs to be doing this? What is your average FPS and FPS when the game starts to get busy? I'm on medium settings with 1.75x scaling and I average around 60-70, and then down to 40-50 when it starts to get busy. This is on an I7-7700 and a GTX 1080. Yeah. So I was just curious as to whether what i'm seeing is really just how the game is, or it definitely is something wrong with my system that I hope to fix via a clean Windows install.
  9. M4 Red Dot Sight is terrible since v10

    Huh, interesting to know, thanks!
  10. M4 Red Dot Sight is terrible since v10

    I believe (Could be mistaken) that the reason for the front sight to still be attached while using the red dot is that in case the red dot was to die or take damage (thus killing it) you still had a sight to use in case of a firefight if you cannot get it repaired right there and then. However, that doesn't happen in-game, so I wouldn't mind having it removed for usability purposes even tho it's not 100000% accurate to the smallest possible measurement. Tbh, I would only use the red dot M4 if I was running medic, if i'm going rifleman I would either snatch up an ACOG M4 for medium/long range engagements or use the M4A1 + Vertical Grip because that thing is a beast for close/mid range. Either that or i'd be going Grenadier (Other roles too, but just M4 w/out RD examples).
  11. M110 - Awfully weak

    Well, it is about cleaning up the scope, as you said it's "dirty, and has a lot of extra shit + thick chevron obscuring view". I agree the magnification is lower, but they can make the SVD so much nicer to use if they just moved the sight closer to the person (As it sits about a foot away from the guys face apparently) and clean the sight up which will provide a better sight picture and help with actually seeing things at range. Yes, I have used the SVD. Many times. I like the fact that it does more damage because I'm more likely to drop the targets I'm shooting at. I always find myself a position at a range at which I can engage reliably and to support my squad mates or provide overwatch, and personally, I don't hate the PSO-1 but it can definitely use some love. On the M110, I only really like the model and the scope, but when it comes to lethality I feel like in most circumstances I'm better off with an M4, which is also a 2-shot kill and is easier to follow up shots with. And not to mention some kits also get an ACOG. EDIT: Just to add, remember the SVD has been in service for what? 55 years? If IRL they had such a problem with the sight as we do in-game they would've changed it. I feel as if it isn't portrayed in-game properly and that's leading people to use it as a reason for balancing the whole gun and the M110 altogether.
  12. M110 - Awfully weak

    Well, not everyone here is American mate. I'm pretty sure I did suggest bring the SVD damage down a little bit AND bump the M110 up slightly, as well as just purely buffing the M110. The Devs can easily clean the scope of the SVD up to provide a better sight picture. The reason I was opting for a more "buff the M110" approach is mainly just because it's a marksmen rifle, made to hit hard and hit far. I wanted it to do that. It could hit far, just not very hard... pre-v10 (we don't know the damage stats for v10) I believe on one of the previous comments it was stated that after one shot from the M110 it takes a person 15 seconds (Maybe more?) to bleed out, giving them a huge amount of time to sprint off to cover and bandage. While getting hit with by the SVD only gives you 3 seconds. That is a huge difference and leads the SVD to be much more lethal in-game.
  13. M110 - Awfully weak

    Alright Randall calm down mate I wasn't lying to fool people into believing me lmao, it's a discussion, not an argument. I agree on the energy sense, I was probably reading off the wrong numbers as I didn't take the time to calculate it myself. Didn't think it was really worth the effort when I can trust the sources I was getting my information from. So no, I wasn't really lying, was I? The energy relation between 7.62x39 and 5.56x45 was wrong as I was reading off ft-lbf rather than Joules. The 5.45 being lighter than 5.56? That's true, by only 9 grains, yeah, but it quite obviously makes a difference. I agree with your other points, but please don't make it out as if I am purposefully lying to everyone on this thread. I try to do as much research as possible, but I'm gonna mix something up somewhere.
  14. Please Fix the visibility.

    You know what DOES need to be changed? That map... the foresty one with the Warehouse and Crucible Alpha as two of the points, can't remember the name. Anyway, fighting against the Irregular Militia forces on that map.... it just hurts, they're the same colour as the goddamn ground, and the grass, and the trees, and the rocks apparently. Yet the US run around with Multicam which is basically just a slightly darker desert camo. Like, really? How about we balance that ay? That's the only visibility change I really want to see.
  15. The future of the LAT kit.

    Realistic yes, but I think he's more on about being able to disable vehicles and knock crewmembers out etc. Remember in real-life (I.e. your much-desired realism) if a vehicle is hit and disabled it is usually abandoned. It doesn't just magically catch fire, mystically get put out and a little health bar drops to orange. You should be able to disable a vehicle if you hit it with an accurate and well-placed shot, and it should either require time or a designated team of people/a vehicle to repair it. There should also be a bigger engagement range so that people can't just dump rockets into the side of an IFV from 30m unless the IFV makes the mistake of going there. It might take a lot of rounds to blow up an APC and to make sure it's completely out of action, but if you want realism you want crews ditching the vehicles when they've been disabled and well-aimed LATs doing that, or knocking out crewmembers.
×